Agricultural Marketing Service
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”), Department of Justice (“DOJ”).
Final rule; partial withdrawal and correction.
In December 2020, DHS and DOJ (collectively, “the Departments”) issued a final rule that clarified when an alien who poses a public health risk is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal and revised their credible fear screening regulations. After multiple delays, the rule is scheduled to take effect on December 31, 2025. However, since December 2020, the Departments have further amended their regulations, complicating the codification of the 2020 rule. In this final rule, the Departments are withdrawing certain amendments from the 2020 rule while leaving unaltered the rule's substantive public health-related provisions, which will become effective as scheduled.
In December 2020, the Departments published the final rule titled “Security Bars and Processing,” 85 FR 84160 (Dec. 23, 2020) (“Security Bars Final Rule”), to clarify that the statutory “danger to the security of the United States” bars to eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal encompass certain emergency public health concerns. Additionally, the Security Bars Final Rule introduced procedural changes relating to credible fear processing for certain aliens. The Security Bars Final Rule was slated to become effective on January 22, 2021; however, the rule's effective date was delayed multiple times due to a preliminary injunction against a related rule and due to conflicts with other rules issued while it was delayed.
This rule withdraws amendatory instructions of the Security Bars Final Rule that would conflict with amendments made by rules issued while its effective date was delayed or that may otherwise cause confusion. The rule makes no changes to the substantive public health-related provisions that the Security Bars Final Rule adopted. Notably, even though the Departments will no longer codify provisions of the Security Bars Final Rule related to fear screening, the Departments may still consider the Security Bars Final Rule's clarifications of “danger to the security of the United States” bars to asylum and withholding of removal, in such screenings.
The Attorney General
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“HSA”), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended, transferred many functions related to the execution of Federal immigration law to the newly created DHS. The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA” or “Act”), as amended, charges the Secretary “with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating
But the HSA retained DOJ's authority over certain individual immigration adjudications including those related to defensive asylum applications,
Asylum is a discretionary benefit that the Attorney General or the Secretary can grant if an alien establishes, among other things, that he or she has experienced past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. INA 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1) (providing that the Attorney General and Secretary “may” grant asylum to refugees); INA 101(a)(42)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) (defining “refugee”). Aliens who are ineligible for a grant of asylum, or who are denied asylum based on the Attorney General's or the Secretary's discretion, nonetheless may qualify for other forms of protection. Specifically, an alien may be eligible for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) (“statutory withholding of removal”) or withholding or deferral of removal under the regulations implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, 114 (“CAT”).
Withholding and deferral of removal bar an alien's removal to a specific country where the alien would “more likely than not” face persecution or torture, meaning that the alien would face a clear probability that his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of a protected ground or a clear probability of torture. 8 CFR 208.16(b)(2), (c)(2), 1208.16(b)(2), (c)(2);
The INA provides mandatory bars to applying for asylum at section 208(a)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2), to asylum eligibility at section 208(b)(2)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A), and to eligibility for withholding of removal at section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B) (referred to collectively as “mandatory bars”). Pursuant to the CAT regulations, the mandatory bars to eligibility for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B), also apply to withholding of removal under those regulations. 8 CFR 208.16(d)(2), 1208.16(d)(2). If an alien would be entitled to withholding of removal under the CAT regulations but for being subject to a mandatory bar, the alien is entitled to deferral of removal pursuant to 8 CFR 208.17(a), 1208.17(a). 8 CFR 208.16(c)(4), 1208.16(c)(4). There are no bars to deferral of removal under the CAT regulations.
Specifically, the INA imposes the following statutory bars to asylum eligibility at section 208(b)(2)(A)(i)-(v), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(i)-(v), and to eligibility for withholding of removal at section 241(b)(3)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B) for persons: (1) who “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person” “on account of” or “because of” a protected ground, INA 208(b)(2)(A)(i), 241(b)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(i), 1231(b)(3)(B)(i); (2) who have been convicted of a “particularly serious crime,” INA 208(b)(2)(A)(ii), 241(b)(3)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); (3) for whom “there are serious reasons to believe that the alien committed a serious nonpolitical crime outside the United States,” INA 208(b)(2)(A)(iii), 241(b)(3)(B)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iii); (4) for whom “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is a danger to the security of the United States,” INA 208(b)(2)(A)(iv), 241(b)(3)(B)(iv), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(iv), 1231(b)(3)(B)(iv); and (5) who are described in certain terrorism-related provisions, INA 208(b)(2)(A)(v),
A sixth statutory bar to eligibility for asylum, which does not bar eligibility for withholding of removal, applies to any alien who “was firmly resettled in another country prior to arriving in the United States.” INA 208(b)(2)(A)(vi), 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A)(vi). Additionally, there are statutory bars to withholding of removal eligibility for admitted aliens who are deportable under section 237(a)(4)(D) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(D), for involvement in genocide, torture, extrajudicial killing, or Nazi persecution as defined in section 212(a)(3)(E)(i)-(iii) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(E)(i)-(iii).
In the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”), Public Law 104-208, div. C, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-546, Congress established the expedited removal process. This process applies to certain aliens who are present in the United States without having been admitted or having been paroled into the United States or who are arriving in the United States (and, in the discretion of the Secretary, certain other designated classes of aliens), provided the aliens are also either (1) inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C), which renders inadmissible aliens who make certain material misrepresentations; or (2) inadmissible under section 212(a)(7) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(7), which renders inadmissible aliens who lack documents required for admission. INA 235(b)(1)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(i). DHS may remove an alien subject to expedited removal, “without further hearing or review unless the [alien] indicates either an intention to apply for asylum . . . or a fear of persecution.”
Congress created a screening process, known as “credible fear” screening, to identify potentially valid claims for asylum by aliens in expedited removal proceedings. The Departments have used the same screening process to identify potentially valid claims for statutory withholding of removal and CAT protection. If an alien indicates a fear of persecution or torture, a fear of return to his or her country (which may involve possible persecution or torture, even if not necessarily articulated as such by the alien), or an intention to apply for asylum during the course of the expedited removal process, DHS refers the alien to a USCIS AO to determine whether the alien has a credible fear of persecution or torture in the country of citizenship or removal. INA 235(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)(A)(ii), (B);
On July 9, 2020, the Departments published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) titled “Security Bars and Processing,” 85 FR 41201 (“Security Bars NPRM”). On December 23, 2020, the Departments published the Security Bars Final Rule, responding to comments received in response to the NPRM. 85 FR 84160. The Security Bars Final Rule amended the Departments' asylum and withholding of removal regulations to provide that certain emergency public health concerns generated by a communicable disease constitute circumstances for which there are “reasonable grounds for regarding” or “reasonable grounds to believe that an alien is a danger to the security of the United States,” making the alien ineligible to be granted asylum and ineligible for withholding of removal, both under the INA and under the CAT regulations.
Relevant to this rule, the Global Asylum Final Rule and amendatory instructions 4, 6, 8, 12, and 14 of the Security Bars Final Rule amended the regulations setting forth the process for aliens in expedited removal who indicate a fear of removal or an intent to apply for asylum in multiple ways.
First, the rules require that, during credible fear screenings and reviews, AOs and Immigration Judges consider the applicability of any bars to being able to apply for asylum or to eligibility for asylum set forth at section 208(a)(2)(B)-(C) and (b)(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B)-(C) and (b)(2), including any bars established by regulation under section 208(b)(2)(C) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(C), and any bars to withholding of removal at section 241(b)(3)(B) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3)(B).
Second, if the AO or Immigration Judge determined that an alien does not have a significant possibility of eligibility for asylum due to the operation of a regulatory bar or any statutory bar to asylum eligibility, the AO or Immigration Judge would screen the alien for potential statutory withholding of removal and CAT protection eligibility under the “reasonable possibility of persecution or torture” standard—a standard higher than the “significant possibility of demonstrating eligibility for asylum” standard that otherwise applied.
Third, if the alien would be able to establish a significant possibility of eligibility for asylum or a reasonable
Fourth, aliens determined to have a credible fear of persecution, or a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture, would be referred for AWO proceedings. 85 FR 80392 (Global Asylum Final Rule amending § 208.30(f)); 85 FR 84194-95, 84197-98 (Security Bars Final Rule amending §§ 208.30(e)(5)(i)(B), (f)(1), 1208.30(g)(1)(ii), (2)(iv)(B)).
Fifth, if an alien refused to indicate whether he or she wants Immigration Judge review of a negative determination, DHS would consider such a refusal as declining review. 85 FR 80392, 80399 (Global Asylum Final Rule amending §§ 208.30(g)(1) and 1208.30(g)(2)(i)); 85 FR 84195-96, 84197-98 (Security Bars Final Rule amending §§ 208.30(g)(1) and 1208.30(g)(2)(i)).
The Global Asylum Final Rule and Security Bars Final Rule also amended provisions relating to the processes for applying two since-rescinded regulatory bars to asylum eligibility,
Although the Security Bars Final Rule was originally scheduled to take effect on January 22, 2021, intervening events and circumstances required the Departments to delay its effective date, most recently until December 31, 2025.
In the December 2022 Delay IFR, the Departments explained that they were delaying the Security Bars Final Rule's effective date because its implementation remained infeasible due to the
However, superseding regulatory priorities prevented completion of the anticipated rulemaking prior to December 31, 2024. After considering public comments on the December 2022 Delay IFR related to the Security Bars Final Rule's effective date, the Departments determined that it was appropriate to delay the rule's effective date until December 31, 2025, “in light of the Departments' limited resources and intervening regulatory priorities.” December 2024 Delay IFR, 89 FR 105388. The Departments also explained that allowing the Security Bars Final Rule to become effective would “conflict with regulatory changes implemented by the intervening rulemakings, resulting in conflicting and confusing changes to the Departments' regulations.”
Beyond these important considerations, the Departments also concluded that “there would be no direct, immediate impact on eligibility for asylum or other protection if the Security Bars final rule were to go into effect on December 31, 2024, because there [was] no existing public health situation that would trigger the bars outlined in the rule.” 89 FR 105389. The Departments determined that the lack of any immediate impact further supported delaying the effective date. Accordingly, based on the foregoing considerations, the Departments delayed the effective date of the Security Bars Final Rule to December 31, 2025. 89 FR 105389. The Departments also continued to welcome
Since the publication of the Security Bars Final Rule, the Departments have issued four rules amending their credible fear provisions that are relevant here: (1) the Asylum Processing IFR; (2) the Lawful Pathways Final Rule; (3) the DHS Mandatory Bars Rule; and (4) the EOIR Bars IFR. Those rules' amendments overwrote or rescinded provisions that the Security Bars Final Rule would amend upon becoming effective. Accordingly, some of the Security Bars Final Rule's amendments, if allowed to go into effect, would create conflicting text and inconsistent and confusing terminology that would complicate implementing the regulations. Further, amendments that the Departments adopted after the Security Bars Final Rule would be overwritten without justification for the reversion and without observing the procedures typically required by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Overall, implementation of the Security Bars Final Rule without any change would put the Departments' ability to use the expedited removal system at risk. These issues are discussed in greater detail below.
On March 29, 2022, the Departments issued the Asylum Processing IFR. As relevant here, the Asylum Processing IFR amended 8 CFR 208.30, 1003.42, and 1208.30 to generally return to the regulatory framework in place prior to the promulgation of the Global Asylum Final Rule. 87 FR 18091. The specific amendments that were reversed by the Asylum Processing IFR were those that required the consideration of mandatory bars during credible fear screenings, provided procedures for aliens determined to be subject to such bars, required that aliens with a positive screening determination be placed in AWO proceedings, and mandated that an alien's failure to indicate whether he or she wants Immigration Judge review of a negative determination be interpreted as a decision to decline such review. 87 FR 18218-23 (amending portions of §§ 208.30, 235.6, 1003.42, 1208.30, and 1235.6). In doing so, the Asylum Processing IFR amended 8 CFR 208.30 to remove paragraphs (e)(5)(i)(A) and (B) and (f)(1)—paragraphs the Security Bars Final Rule would amend upon becoming effective—as discussed in Section III.A of this preamble.
On May 16, 2023, the Departments published the Lawful Pathways Final Rule, 88 FR 31314, which, as relevant here, rescinded an earlier, enjoined final rule regarding transit through a third country, Asylum Eligibility and Procedural Modifications, 85 FR 82260 (Dec. 17, 2020) (“TCT Bar Final Rule”). Notably, to rescind the TCT Bar Final Rule, the Departments removed various regulatory provisions including, as relevant here, 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5)(iii) and 1208.30(g)(1).
On December 18, 2024, DHS issued the DHS Mandatory Bars Rule, which, as relevant here, allows AOs to consider the potential applicability of statutory bars to asylum and withholding of removal during credible fear screenings except for the bar to asylum for aliens who were firmly resettled in another country.
If the Security Bars Final Rule were to go into effect in its entirety, certain provisions within the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) would continue to make the consideration of bars discretionary, while others would make it mandatory. Specifically, current paragraph (ii) of 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5) provides that where an alien “appears to be subject to one or more of the mandatory bars” other than the firm resettlement bar, the AO “may consider the applicability of such bar(s).” But amendatory instruction 4 of the Security Bars Final Rule would add paragraph (iv), which would also require application of any mandatory bar, including the firm resettlement bar.
Shortly after publication of DHS's Mandatory Bars Rule, DOJ published the EOIR Bars IFR, 89 FR 105392, to clarify that Immigration Judges review AOs' credible fear determinations de novo, including, where relevant, an AO's application of any bars to asylum or withholding of removal. To effectuate this clarification, and as relevant here, EOIR amended 8 CFR 1003.42(d) to explicitly state that the Immigration Judge's de novo credible fear “determination shall, where relevant, include review of the asylum officer's application of any bars to asylum and withholding of removal pursuant to 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5).” 89 FR 105402. However, amendatory instruction 8 of the Security Bars Final Rule instructs the Office of the Federal Register (“OFR”) to revise 8 CFR 1003.42(d)(1), a paragraph that no longer exists.
The Departments have considered the complete history of this rulemaking, the subsequent history of the provisions it was poised to amend as discussed in Sections II.D and E of this preamble, and all concerns raised by commenters in response to the delay rules, as discussed below in Sections IV and V of this preamble. Although the Departments previously suggested that they may initiate a new rulemaking with respect to the Security Bars Final Rule,
The portions of the Security Bars Final Rule that will remain unchanged and go into effect as previously scheduled are the substantive provisions that clarify that the bars to asylum and withholding of removal for those who pose a danger to the security of the United States cover aliens who may pose certain public health risks. These provisions will be codified at 8 CFR 208.13(c)(10), 1208.13(c)(10) (clarification with respect to asylum), and at 8 CFR 208.16(d)(2), 1208.16(d)(2) (clarification with respect to statutory and CAT withholding of removal).
However, the Departments now withdraw certain amendments in the Security Bars Final Rule. The Departments are withdrawing the amendatory instructions that would amend the Departments' credible fear regulations because, as explained in Sections II.E and III.A of this preamble, codification of those provisions is irreconcilable with the current state of the regulations, which the Departments have amended multiple times since the publication of the Security Bars Final Rule. Additionally, as explained in Section III.B of this preamble, the Departments are withdrawing amendments relating to the ability to remove aliens to third countries to avoid unnecessary confusion. Thus, this rule withdraws the amendatory instructions from the Security Bars Final Rule to the extent that they would amend 8 CFR 208.16(f), 208.30, 235.6, 1003.42, 1208.16(f), 1208.30, and 1235.6, and the Security Bars Final Rule will no longer amend those provisions. The reasons for withdrawal of the amendatory instructions related to these specific provisions are discussed further below.
With this rule, the Departments are withdrawing the amendatory instructions that would amend 8 CFR 208.30, 235.6, 1003.42, 1208.30, and 1235.6 (amendatory instructions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14). The Departments are withdrawing these portions of the Security Bars Final Rule because they conflict with the currently effective regulations due to amendments by intervening rules. Specific conflicts with subsequent rules are discussed in more detail in Section II.E of this preamble; more generally, however, if the Security Bars Final Rule were to go into effect, its publication of cross-references to the now nonexistent 8 CFR 208.13(c)(4) and 1208.13(c)(4) would introduce inconsistencies in the regulations and create confusion as to the Departments' intended procedures for credible fear determinations. Further, the setting forth of two entirely different processes and procedures for applying mandatory bars during credible fear screenings would interfere with the Departments' ability to consider those bars during screenings and reviews.
Additionally, amendatory instructions to revise five different paragraphs cannot be implemented as intended. Specifically, amendatory instructions 4, 8, and 12 instruct OFR to revise five paragraphs that no longer exist: 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5)(i)(A) and (B) and (f)(1), 1003.42(d)(1), and 1208.30(g)(1)(ii). Those paragraphs existed when the Security Bars Final Rule was published; thus, OFR could have “revised” them as instructed at that time.
A main goal of the Security Bars Final Rule was to clarify how the bars to asylum and withholding of removal relating to aliens who pose a danger to the security of the United States apply during credible fear screenings.
Overall, the Departments have determined that implementing the Security Bars Final Rule without withdrawing the above-identified instructions would impede the Administration's success in managing the border.
Paragraph (f) in 8 CFR 208.16 and 1208.16 currently reiterates that DHS may remove an alien granted withholding of removal or deferral of removal to a third country other than the country to which removal has been withheld or deferred. The Security Bars Final Rule would revise 8 CFR 208.16(f) and 1208.16(f) to add procedures for removing an alien to a third country “prior to a determination or adjudication of the alien's initial request for withholding or deferral of removal” in certain circumstances and set out parameters for the use of such authority. 85 FR 84193-94, 84197. In practice, these revisions would codify a process to notify the alien of the potential third country removal and allow the alien to withdraw his or her initial request for withholding or deferral of removal to avoid removal to the third country.
Upon further consideration, the Departments are withdrawing these amendments because they could cause confusion and are unnecessary to effectuate the substantive public health-related provisions the Security Bars Final Rule will implement.
First, the Departments are withdrawing the amendments to 8 CFR 208.16(f) and 1208.16(f) to avoid confusion as to the possibility of third-country removals and the availability of withholding of removal under the INA and CAT protection from the third country. As noted above, the revisions the Security Bars Final Rule would make to 8 CFR 208.16(f) and 1208.16(f) would require the consideration of the likelihood of torture in the third country, which is the test for CAT protection, but not the likelihood of persecution on account of a protected ground, which is the test for statutory withholding of removal.
Second, these provisions are not necessary for DHS to effectuate third country removals.
This rule does not make any changes to the remainder of the Security Bars Final Rule. That rule makes key changes to 8 CFR 208.13 and 1208.13, including by clarifying that aliens are subject to the statutory bars to eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal where there are “reasonable grounds for regarding” or “reasonable grounds to believe that [an] alien is a danger to the security of the United States” in certain circumstances based on emergency public health concerns generated by a communicable disease.
As part of the second, third, and fourth delays of the Security Bars Final Rule, the Departments requested and received public comments addressing both the delay of the effective date and any potential future action to modify or rescind the Security Bars Final Rule. Individuals, elected officials, and non-governmental organizations all commented on the March 2021, December 2021, and December 2022 delay IFRs.
The Departments previously considered and addressed comments related to delaying the effective date of the Security Bars Final Rule.
The Departments have decided that additional delay is not necessary. The Departments delayed the Security Bars Final Rule largely because of a preliminary injunction against the Global Asylum Final Rule and because allowing the Security Bars Final Rule to go into effect would have resulted in confusing regulatory text.
The APA generally requires agencies to publish “notice of proposed rule making” in the
This rulemaking satisfies the APA's notice-and-comment requirement. As noted above in Section IV of this preamble, the Departments in the second, third, and fourth delays of the Security Bars Final Rule requested and received public comments addressing the delay of the effective date of the Security Bars Final Rule. The Departments also welcomed comments on whether to amend or rescind the Security Bars Final Rule in the second delay of the Security Bars Final Rule.
The Departments have considered these comments in concluding that the most appropriate course of action is to withdraw certain provisions of the Security Bars Final Rule while taking no action to stop the remainder of the rule going into effect as scheduled. As explained previously, the Departments delayed the Security Bars Final Rule largely because of a preliminary injunction against the Global Asylum Final Rule and because allowing the Security Bars Final Rule to go into effect would have resulted in confusing regulatory text.
Even if the Departments had not complied with the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, the APA's notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements do not apply to “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A); 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) (providing that the required publication or service of a “substantive” rule shall generally be made not less than 30 days before its effective date). Courts “have used the term `procedural exception' as shorthand for that exemption.”
The Departments have determined that this rule regulates agency procedure and is therefore exempt from notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements under the APA.
Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the notice-and-comment and delayed-effective-date requirements of the APA.
A rule is exempt from the APA's notice-and-comment requirements when an agency “for good cause” finds that notice and public procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). An agency may also forgo a delayed effective date “for good cause found.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The Departments have determined that there is good cause to forgo notice-and-comment procedures for this partial withdrawal because providing notice and an opportunity to comment is unnecessary. For the same reason, this rule is exempt from the APA's delayed-effective-date requirements.
When determining that notice and comment is “unnecessary,” the agency must consider whether the rule is “insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to . . . the public.”
Notice and comment on the Departments' decision to withdraw specific amendatory instructions in the Security Bars Final Rule is unnecessary because rules that underwent notice and comment rulemaking or were exempt from notice and comment rulemaking, as described in Section II.E of this preamble, superseded those amendments while the Security Bars Final Rule's effective date was delayed. In some instances, the intervening rules substantively removed provisions that had been implemented by the Global Asylum Final Rule and were set to be further amended by the Security Bars Final Rule. For example, the requirement to consider mandatory bars during credible fear screenings was adopted through the Global Asylum Final Rule, amended by the Security Bars Final Rule, but subsequently removed by the Asylum Processing IFR.
As to whether there is good cause to forego the delayed effective date typically required by the APA, courts have asked whether the need to immediately implement a new rule outweighs regulated parties' need to prepare for implementation of the rule.
For these reasons, the Departments have determined that notice-and-comment procedures and a delayed effective date are unnecessary.
The requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553 do not apply to this rule because it involves a “foreign affairs function of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). Courts have held that this exception applies when the rule in question “clearly and directly involves a foreign affairs function.”
This rule is intended to ensure the Departments' continued ability to process aliens using the expedited removal statute by avoiding conflicting instructions to agency personnel implementing the credible fear screening process and the removal process generally.
Ensuring the continued viability of the expedited removal process and third-country removal procedures
For its foreign policy efforts to succeed in this regard, the United States must demonstrate its own willingness to maintain its ability to use available tools to disincentivize, prepare for, and respond to ongoing migratory challenges and unlawful immigration. This rule ensures that two such critical tools—expedited removal and third-country removals—will not be potentially interrupted by conflicting and confusing regulatory provisions and so will remain means by which the Departments may deliver consequences to aliens who make the dangerous journey for purposes of entering the United States unlawfully. Such efforts demonstrate to international partners the United States' commitment to ending illegal immigration. Although southern border encounters between ports of entry have fallen to historical lows since January 2025,
Moreover, the Administration is actively engaged in negotiations with other countries intended to address the large number of illegal aliens in the United States, including those who may be subject to expedited removal or removed to a third country. This includes various agreements that the Administration has signed with foreign governments in which those countries have agreed to accept third-country nationals, as well as their own nationals, upon removal.
These efforts also include coordination with other countries to support the Administration's efforts to encourage aliens to depart the United States voluntarily and return to their home countries, consistent with Presidential Proclamation 10935, 90 FR 20357 (May 9, 2025) (“Establishing Project Homecoming”).
Here too, for these foreign policy efforts to succeed, the United States must demonstrate that it is ensuring the continued usability of all the tools it has available to help achieve the purpose of these international efforts and negotiations: to encourage other countries to cooperate with the United States' efforts to remove illegal aliens.
Delaying this rule's withdrawal of the identified amendatory instructions could have undesirable consequences on the United States' ongoing foreign policy goals, including efforts to encourage other countries to issue travel documents. Quite simply, if the United States is unable to demonstrate its continuous, effective commitment to taking quick and robust action to remove aliens, which depends on international cooperation, countries may be less inclined to engage with the
In addition, the Department of State recently described the foreign affairs aspect of immigration in its determination that “efforts . . . to control the status, entry, and exit of people . . . across the borders of the United States” constitute a foreign affairs function of the United States under the APA.
Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation”) directs agencies to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and provides that “any 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.”
Although this rule is not economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has designated this rule a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of that order. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by OMB.
This rule is not a regulatory action subject to Executive Order 14192 because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or interpret the immigration laws of the United States or any other function performed by the Federal Government with respect to aliens.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) (5 U.S.C. 601
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments. Title II of UMRA requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or a final rule for which the agency published a proposed rule, that includes any Federal mandate that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or 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.
This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
DHS and its components analyze final actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. 4321
NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) the entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
This rule amends a not-yet-effective final rule in ways that will not change the current status quo and thus will not result in a change in the final rule's environmental effect. This rule is strictly administrative; it amends DHS's existing regulations governing credible fear procedures and protection eligibility to avoid confusion and conflicting regulatory text, rather than to change the substance of the Security Bars Final Rule. DHS has reviewed this partial withdrawal rule and finds that no significant impact on the environment, nor any change in environmental effect, will result from the amendments being promulgated in this partial withdrawal rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this rule clearly fits within categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures because it is as an administrative change with no change in environmental effect, is not part of a larger Federal action, and does not present extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded from further NEPA review. DOJ is adopting the DHS determination that this rule is categorically excluded under exclusion A3 of DHS's Instruction Manual because the rule makes changes to DOJ's provisions of the Security Bars Final Rule that are similar to those made to DHS's provisions.
This rule does not adopt new, or revisions to existing, “collection[s] of information” as that term is defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, in FR Doc. 2020-28436 appearing on page 84160 in the
(d) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(A) Exhibits symptoms indicating that he or she is afflicted with the disease, per guidance issued by the Secretary or the Attorney General, as appropriate; or
(B) Has come into contact with the disease within the number of days equivalent to the longest known incubation and contagion period for the disease, per guidance issued by the Secretary or the Attorney General, as appropriate.
(iii)
(A) Determined that the physical presence in the United States of aliens who are coming from a country or countries (or one or more subdivisions or regions thereof), or have embarked at a place or places, where such disease is
(B) Designated the foreign country or countries (or one or more subdivisions or regions thereof), or place or places, and the period of time or circumstances under which they jointly deem it necessary for the public health that aliens or classes of aliens described in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this section who are still within the number of days equivalent to the longest known incubation and contagion period for the disease be regarded as a danger to the security of the United States under section 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act, including any relevant exceptions as appropriate, then—
(C) An alien or class of aliens are ineligible for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act and under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture on the basis of there being reasonable grounds for regarding the alien or class of aliens as a danger to the security of the United States under section 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act if the alien or class of aliens are described in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(A) of this section and are regarded as a danger to the security of the United States as provided for in paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(B) of this section.
(iv) The grounds for mandatory denial described in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section shall not apply to an alien who is applying for asylum or withholding of removal in the United States upon return from Canada to the United States and pursuant to the Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries.
(d) * * *
(2)
(ii)
(A) Exhibits symptoms indicating that he or she is afflicted with the disease, per guidance issued by the Secretary or the Attorney General, as appropriate; or
(B) Has come into contact with the disease within the number of days equivalent to the longest known incubation and contagion period for the disease, per guidance issued by the Secretary or the Attorney General, as appropriate.
(iii)
(A) Determined that the physical presence in the United States of aliens who are coming from a country or countries (or one or more subdivisions or regions thereof), or have embarked at a place or places, where such disease is prevalent or epidemic (or had come from that country or countries (or one or more subdivisions or regions thereof), or had embarked at that place or places, during a period in which the disease was prevalent or epidemic there) would cause a danger to the public health in the United States; and
(B) Designated the foreign country or countries (or one or more subdivisions or regions thereof), or place or places, and the period of time or circumstances under which they jointly deem it necessary for the public health that aliens or classes of aliens described in paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A) of this section who are still within the number of days equivalent to the longest known incubation and contagion period for the disease be regarded as a danger to the security of the United States under section 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act, including any relevant exceptions as appropriate, then—
(C) An alien or class of aliens are ineligible for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act and under the regulations issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture on the basis of there being reasonable grounds for regarding the alien or class of aliens as a danger to the security of the United States under section 241(b)(3)(B)(iv) of the Act if the alien or class of aliens are described in paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(A) of this section and are regarded as a danger to the security of the United States as provided for in paragraph (d)(2)(iii)(B) of this section.
(iv) The grounds for mandatory denial described in paragraphs (d)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section shall not apply to an alien who is applying for asylum or withholding of removal in the United States upon return from Canada to the United States and pursuant to the Agreement Between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada for Cooperation in the Examination of Refugee Status Claims from Nationals of Third Countries).
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2025-25-02, which applied to all aircraft equipped with certain Aerospace & Defense Oxygen Systems SaS portable breathing equipment (PBE). AD 2025-25-02 required incorporating revised procedures for donning the PBE. Since the FAA issued AD 2025-25-02, the agency determined the unsafe condition may be addressed by incorporating the updated procedures into documentation that is not identified in AD 2025-25-02 and that certain requirements in AD 2025-25-02 must be revised. This AD requires incorporating updated procedures for donning the PBE. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective January 14, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 24, 2025 (90 FR 56990, December 9, 2025).
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by February 13, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Safran Aerosystems material identified in this AD, contact Safran Aerosystems, Customer Support & Services, Technical Publication Department, 61 Rue Pierre Curie, CS20001, 78373 Plaisir Cedex, France; phone + 33 (0)1 61 34 23 23; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Harjot Rana, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7344; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Harjot Rana, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7344; email:
The FAA issued Airworthiness Directive 2025-25-02, Amendment 39-23210 (90 FR 56990, December 9, 2025) (AD 2025-25-02), for all aircraft equipped with certain Aerospace & Defense Oxygen Systems SaS PBE. AD 2025-25-02 was prompted by an MCAI originated by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2025-0222, dated October 13, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0222) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states that occurrences of incorrect usage of PBE have been reported. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to flight or cabin crewmember incapacitation, possibly affecting crewmember capability to accomplish tasks during an emergency, or resulting in fatal injury to that crewmember. Relevant investigations identified that the PBE operational manual provides instructions that can be misunderstood by a flight or cabin crewmember, possibly leading to errors while donning the PBE.
AD 2025-25-02 required incorporating revised procedures for donning PBE, part number (P/N) 15-40F-11 and P/N 15-40F-80, into the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable (for transport category airplanes); into maintenance records (for non-transport category aircraft that must comply with 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2)); or into the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable (for other non-transport category airplanes). The revised procedures for the proper
AD 2025-25-02 specified that, for non-transport category aircraft, the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform the required action for that aircraft provided compliance with the applicable paragraph of the AD is entered into the aircraft maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). AD 2025-25-02 stated that the pilot may perform this action because it only involves incorporating revised procedures for donning the PBE and that this action could be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. AD 2025-25-02 noted that this is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.
The FAA issued AD 2025-25-02 to address the unsafe condition on these products.
Since the FAA issued AD 2025-25-02, the FAA determined the unsafe condition may be addressed by incorporating updated procedures into documentation that is not identified in AD 2025-25-02 and that certain requirements in AD 2025-25-02 must be revised. The FAA has revised the requirements in paragraph (g) of this AD and added optional methods of compliance to paragraph (h) of this AD.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA issued AD 2025-25-02 as a final rule; request for comments. The FAA received numerous comments on AD 2025-25-02 asking for clarity on how to comply with the AD or requesting that the FAA revise the requirements. Commenters questioned the requirement to revise the maintenance or inspection program, including the requirement to replace pictograms, and asked whether revising operation manuals (end user instructions) are acceptable methods of compliance.
Aeromexico, Air Astana, Allegiant Air, China Airlines, Commuteair, and Netjets stated that the AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program as specified in 3.C., “Procedure,” of Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025. Aeromexico and Air Astana noted that those procedures look to be for the flightcrew or apply more to flightcrew operational manual (FCOM) and operational manual (OM-E) for cabin crew. Allegiant Air stated the existing maintenance or inspection program revision does not apply to flightcrews and their procedures. China Airlines noted there are currently no maintenance or inspection procedures related to the PBE donning procedure and asked what steps are needed to implement this AD requirement.
Commuteair stated the maintenance and inspection programs for the PBEs do not include requirements for donning or using the PBE masks. Commuteair noted the appropriate manuals for inclusion of the updated pictograms would be related to flight operations manuals, inflight manuals and training materials for flightcrew and flight attendants for PBE usage. Netjets asked the FAA to clarify the basis on which these donning operational procedures should be incorporated into the maintenance program for MSG-3 covered aircraft. Netjets also asked if there is a recommended recurrent interval for it to be included into the maintenance program.
Aeromexico asked if the inclusion of the aircraft operations manual (AOM) can be considered a method of compliance to AD 2025-25-02. Aeromexico noted the same procedures for the PBE are included in the AOM and including a copy of this can be considered as a correct way to give more security during the donning of the PBE. Aeromexico considered that including the procedures in the airplane flight manual (AFM) or the AOM, gives more value than to include them into the maintenance program or the inspection manuals.
Allegiant Air asked if it would be more accurate to require the revision of the FCOM and/or cabin crew operating manual (CCOM) to incorporate the specific instructions from the vendor service bulletin since they are the end users of the PBEs.
AMES-CAMO stated it does not understand why the aircraft maintenance program should be updated. AMES-CAMO stated the procedures in the service bulletin are purely operational procedures and are not maintenance procedures. AMES-CAMO noted that paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2025-0222 provides an acceptable method of compliance, which allows updating the operations manual of the aircraft instead of the maintenance program. AMES-CAMO asked if an amendment of the operations manual of the aircraft satisfies the requirement of paragraph (g) of FAA AD 2025-25-02.
Japan Airlines requested that the requirements in paragraph (g) of AD 2025-25-02 be corrected because the procedures relate to the operation steps of the PBE and, therefore, should be reflected in the operation manual or the instructions to flight and cabin crewmembers.
Turkish Airlines stated it has revised the operational manuals (FCOM and/or CCOM) according to Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025, and asked if that meets the AD 2025-25-02 requirements. Turkish Airlines stated that if it does not meet the AD 2025-25-02 requirements, then the FAA should clarify what are the transport category airplane operators' required actions to comply this AD's requirements.
Swift Air stated its fleet has already complied with EASA AD 2025-0222 by applying both methods of compliance: updating the operations manual in accordance with Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025, and providing the corresponding crew training.
Tibet Airlines stated that in order to comply with the requirements of EASA AD 2025-0222, Tibet Airlines has issued technical/business notices in accordance with Section 3.C., “Procedures,” of Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025. Tibet Airlines asked if the incorporation of the revised procedures specified in Section 3.C. “Procedures,” of Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025, through the above-mentioned approach is acceptable to comply with the requirements of AD 2025-25-02.
Stark Airways stated they cannot find on this AD what exactly to do and asked for some clarification.
Air France, Allegiant Air, HNA Technic, and Safran Aerosystems stated Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025, does not include instructions for replacing pictograms. Air France stated its understanding is that the AD concerns operational flight procedures and that there is no work to be done on aircraft. Allegiant Air noted that after reviewing the component maintenance manual (CMM) for P/N 15-40F-80, the pictogram decal pictured on the PBE case matches the pictograms in figures 3 and 4 of Safran Aerosystems Service
The FAA agrees that the requirement to revise the maintenance or inspection is not necessary in order to address the unsafe condition. The intent of this AD is to ensure updated procedures for donning the PBE are incorporated into applicable documentation for the intended user. The FAA has revised the requirements in paragraph (g) of this AD and added optional methods of compliance to paragraph (h) of this AD.
This AD requires Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of December 24, 2025 (90 FR 56990, December 9, 2025).
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and material referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD requires incorporating updated procedures for donning certain PBE as specified in paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” of Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025. This AD also specifies the following optional methods of compliance for incorporating updated procedures.
• Amend the operation manual(s), as applicable, of an aircraft by incorporating updated instructions for donning PBE P/N 15-40F-11 and P/N 15-40F-80 as specified in paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” of Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025.
• Disseminate the content of the updated instructions specified in paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” of Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025, to all flight and cabin crewmembers of an aircraft.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because incorrect usage of PBEs could lead to flight or cabin crewmember incapacitation, possibly affecting crewmember capability to accomplish tasks during an emergency, or resulting in fatal injury to that crewmember. The PBEs are designed to protect the user's eyes and respiratory tract in a contaminated atmosphere, which provides the ability to locate and combat a fire. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects approximately 80,000 appliances installed on but not limited to transport category airplanes. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective January 14, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2025-25-02, Amendment 39-23210 (90 FR 56990, December 9, 2025).
This AD applies to Aerospace & Defense Oxygen Systems SaS (part of Safran Aerosystems) (formerly known as Air Liquide) portable breathing equipment (PBE), part number (P/N) 15-40F-11 and P/N 15-40F-80, all serial numbers. These PBEs are eligible for installation on any aircraft and may have been installed during the aircraft manufacturing process (production line), or in-service modification, either through a supplemental type certificate, or using type certificate holder (TCH) approved modification instructions, or through a non-TCH modification approval.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by reports of occurrences of incorrect usage of certain PBEs. The FAA is issuing this AD to address incorrect usage of PBEs. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to flight or cabin crewmember incapacitation, possibly affecting crewmember capability to accomplish tasks during an emergency, or resulting in fatal injury to that crewmember.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, update the instructions for donning PBE P/N 15-40F-11 and P/N 15-40F-80 as specified in paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” of Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025.
(2) For aircraft certificated in any category except for transport category airplanes: The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform the action specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for your aircraft and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraphs of this AD into the aircraft maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(1) Amending the operation manual(s), as applicable, of an aircraft by incorporating updated instructions for donning PBE P/N 15-40F-11 and P/N 15-40F-80 as specified in paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” of Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025, is an acceptable method to comply with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for that aircraft.
(2) Disseminating the content of the updated instructions specified in paragraph 3.C., “Procedure,” of Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025, to all flight and cabin crewmembers of an aircraft, is an acceptable method to comply with the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD for that aircraft.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
For more information about this AD, contact Harjot Rana, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7344; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on December 24, 2025 (90 FR 56990, December 9, 2025).
(i) Safran Aerosystems Service Bulletin 1540F-35-001, dated October 10, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) For Safran Aerosystems material, contact Safran Aerosystems, Customer Support & Services, Technical Publication Department, 61 Rue Pierre Curie, CS20001, 78373 Plaisir Cedex, France; phone: + 33 (0)1 61 34 23 23; email:
(5) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(6) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Department of State.
Final rule.
This rule streamlines defense trade and facilitates cooperation among our allies while reducing the regulatory burden for exporters, in support of the President's Executive Order 14268 of April 9, 2025, “Reforming Foreign Defense Sales to Improve Speed and Accountability”. In this rule the Department of State (the Department) finalizes, with changes, the interim final rule published on August 20, 2024. The interim final rule made several amendments to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), pursuant to section 38(l) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), to facilitate defense trade and cooperation among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, including through a new exemption to the licensing requirements of the ITAR. The Department is also now responding to public comments received on the interim final rule.
The rule is effective December 30, 2025.
Ms. Engda Wubneh, Foreign Affairs Officer, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, U.S. Department of State, telephone (771) 205-9566; email
In support of the President's Executive Order on “Reforming Foreign Defense Sales to Improve Speed and Accountability,” the Department is publishing this rule to streamline defense trade and facilitate cooperation among our allies while reducing the regulatory burden for exporters. Further, the Department is responding to public comments received pursuant to the interim final rule (89 FR 67270), which created new efficiencies within the ITAR. The interim final rule implemented new authorities provided in section 38(l) of the AECA (22 U.S.C. 2778(l)), as added by section 1343 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2024 (Pub. L. 118-31). Specifically, it added § 126.7, which previously had been reserved, to create the exemption for defense trade and cooperation among Australia, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States (“the § 126.7 exemption”). The § 126.7 exemption states that no license or other approval is required for the export, reexport, retransfer, or temporary import of defense articles, the performance of defense services, or engaging in brokering activities between or among Authorized Users within the physical territory of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States provided certain requirements and limitations are met. The rule also created a new Supplement No. 2 to Part 126, an Excluded Technology List (ETL), that lists the defense articles and defense services ineligible for transfer pursuant to the § 126.7 exemption. Further, the Department added § 126.18(e) for transfers of classified defense articles to dual nationals who are citizens of Australia and the United Kingdom and another country, provided all relevant criteria are met. The Department also added § 126.15(c) and (d), which implemented expedited license processing for exports of defense articles and defense services to Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada.
The Department acknowledges and appreciates the comments submitted in response to the interim final rule and is now publishing this final rule to address these comments.
In response to comments received, the primary changes to regulatory text in this rulemaking are as follows:
• In ITAR § 126.7, the section heading is revised to “Exemptions” to account for a new and separate exemption for reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports of defense articles to support the armed forces of Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States, provided certain requirements are met. Titles have been added to the paragraphs found in § 126.7 to clearly delineate each exemption and their associated requirements and limitations. Additionally, the phrase “other approval” is removed in this section.
• In ITAR § 126.7(a), the term “furnishing” replaces the phrase “the performance” in order to be consistent with existing language in the ITAR regarding defense services. In ITAR § 126.7(b)(2), language is added so that a United Kingdom or Australian government department or agency is identified as a transferor, recipient, or broker in § 126.7(b)(2), and language pertaining to U.S. persons registered with the applicable Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) registration is changed from “not debarred under § 127.7” to “eligible under § 120.16” to account for all reasons a U.S. person may be ineligible to use the § 126.7 exemption.
• In ITAR § 126.7, paragraphs (c) and (d) are added for a new exemption for certain reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports of defense articles to support the armed forces of Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States.
• In ITAR §§ 126.7 and 126.18, the phrase “Authorized User” replaces the phrase “authorized user” for consistency throughout the regulations.
• In ITAR § 126.18(e), “Australian or United Kingdom parties described in § 126.7(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) or are regular employees thereof” replaced “authorized users or regular employees of an authorized user of the exemption in § 126.7” because the parties described in § 126.7(b)(2) expanded with the addition of a United Kingdom national-level government department or agency or Australian federal government department or agency.
The Department notes separately that in the spirit of promoting defense trade between and among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States during the initial implementation of the § 126.7 exemption, the Department began expediting all export licensing adjudications for Australia and the United Kingdom on September 1, 2024, when the interim final rule became effective, regardless of whether a license application met the eligibility criterion in ITAR § 126.15(c). The Department now notes over 700 entities from Australia and the United Kingdom have become Authorized Users and industry from all three countries have, over the last year, utilized and familiarized themselves with the ITAR § 126.7 exemption. Now that industry has become better acquainted with the § 126.7 exemption and as it has become more readily available for widespread industry use due to the growing number of Authorized Users, the Department is now processing expedited licensing requests based on the eligibility criterion of § 126.15(c), which states expedited licensing is available for an export that cannot be undertaken under an exemption.
Although outside the scope of this rulemaking, comments received related to the Authorized User Terms and Conditions and subsequent changes the Department has made to these terms and conditions facilitate use of the § 126.7 exemption are addressed in detail below. The Authorized User Terms and Conditions are the compliance requirements Australian and United Kingdom parties agree to as part of the process to become an Authorized User. A detailed review and response to the public comments submitted in the interim final rule, organized by ITAR section, is as follows.
Three commenters recommended expanding the § 126.7 exemption outside of the physical territories of
Two commenters recommended removing the provisions in § 126.7(b)(4) that relate to sections 36(c) and 36(d) of the AECA regarding congressional certifications. The Department declines to accept this recommendation as those provisions are required by law.
One commenter sought confirmation that the provision of defense services authorized via a mechanism other than a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) or Manufacturing License Agreement (MLA), including the § 126.7 exemption, does not subject the resultant foreign-origin defense article to the ITAR or its reexport and retransfer requirements. The Department states that, pursuant to the Authorized User Terms and Conditions, defense articles produced or manufactured from technical data or defense services exported from the United States via the § 126.7 exemption are subject to reexport and retransfer requirements under the ITAR. Such reexport or retransfer may be authorized, however, pursuant to the § 126.7 exemption. Additionally, the interim final rule (89 FR 67270) amended § 124.8(a)(5) to enable the transfer of defense articles produced or manufactured pursuant to such agreements pursuant to the § 126.7 exemption. If such an agreement does not include the updated § 124.8(a)(5) clause referencing § 126.7, the U.S. agreement holder may submit a minor amendment to update the subject clause if they want to utilize the § 126.7 exemption as the authorization for a reexport or retransfer.
One commenter sought clarification as to whether an item exported from the United States to an Authorized User using a DSP-5 license in furtherance of a Warehouse and Distribution Agreement (WDA) and later retransferred to an eligible recipient under the § 126.7 exemption would need to be included in the WDA annual sales report. As an initial matter, the Department notes that § 124.14(b)(2) requires applicants to include a detailed statement of the terms and conditions under which defense articles licensed under the WDA will be exported and distributed. Unless the § 126.7 exemption is identified as a likely method of authorizing distribution, transfers of defense articles licensed under a WDA should not occur. Assuming that the § 126.7 exemption has been identified in the WDA, items retransferred pursuant to § 126.7 should be included in the WDA annual sales report.
The same commenter inquired as to where Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) guidance may be found regarding the Australian, Canadian, and United Kingdom's exclusion from signing DSP-83's. The Department notes, specifically with respect to exports undertaken pursuant to the country exemptions for Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, the text of § 123.10(a) was amended by the interim final rule (89 FR 67270) to exclude §§ 126.5 and § 126.7.
The same commenter asked whether transfers pursuant to cooperative programs are eligible under the § 126.7 exemption. The Department notes that the § 126.7 exemption is only available for qualifying transfers that rely on the ITAR as the transfer authority.
One commenter asked, in a scenario in which an item is exported under the authorities in § 126.7 to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom later needs to reexport the item to another country, whether the reexport authorization request should go to the United States or the United Kingdom. Similarly, if the item is being reexported to a country that is not Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States, the commenter asked if a DSP-5 should be sought in order to cover the initial export from the United States to the United Kingdom and any subsequent reexport to another country. The Department clarifies that provided all criteria are met, the § 126.7 exemption is available for use for the initial export, but the exporter may still elect to apply for a license if it prefers. If the defense article later needs to be reexported from the United Kingdom to a third country, reexport authorization from the Department would be required, whether in the form of a license or another authorization such as an exemption. The Department defers to the UK government on the question of whether it would also impose a licensing requirement on the export of the defense article from the United Kingdom.
One commenter asserted that individuals must be regular employees to use the § 126.7 exemption and that certain contractors for the UK and Australian governments do not meet the definition of regular employee found at § 120.64 as they are sole proprietors. The same commenter recommended amending § 120.64 with a new paragraph stating that the “[s]taffing agency includes other contract employee providers and individuals trading as a sole proprietorship and seconded by the staffing agency and meet all requirements of § 120.64(a)(2) are deemed to be a regular employee.” Further, the commenter requested the Department publish a frequently asked questions (FAQ) clarifying that contract employees include foreign persons who meet the definition of a regular employee in § 120.64. The Department declines to accept the commenter's recommendations and clarifies that there is no requirement to be a regular employee to use the § 126.7 exemption, nor is the definition of regular employee limited to U.S. persons. Pursuant to § 126.7(b)(2), the parties described are eligible to use the § 126.7 exemption provided all other criteria are met.
One commenter asked for more information about the security and handling requirements for defense articles, including technical data, for Authorized Users in Australia. The same commenter asked if marking documents is required, and if Note 1 to § 126.7(b)'s reference to the Australian Government Protective Security Policy Framework is the only security requirement. The Department clarifies that Note 1 to paragraph (b) of § 126.7 reminds the public that the exemption does not remove any other U.S. statutory and regulatory requirements. The listed requirements are examples, not an exhaustive list of security requirements. Further, there are no specific marking requirements in the § 126.7 exemption. Regarding Australia's security and handling requirements, the Department cannot opine on laws or regulations outside its jurisdiction.
One commenter sought confirmation that classified transfers are allowed under the § 126.7 exemption. The Department confirms that classified
One commenter asserted that DDTC's registration acknowledgement letter does not identify U.S. affiliates or subsidiaries and thus does not confirm that an affiliate or subsidiary is included as part of a U.S. person's registration. The same commenter recommended publishing a FAQ on the DDTC website confirming that U.S. affiliates or subsidiaries identified in block 8 of the DS-2032 form are eligible to use the exemption as part of the parent's registration. Further, the commenter recommended modifying DDTC's registration acknowledgement letter to include any U.S. affiliates or subsidiaries from the DS-2032, allow Authorized Users to have DECCS accounts, and create a feature for users to search for U.S. registrants including affiliates and subsidiaries. DDTC is publishing an FAQ on its website to clarify that U.S. subsidiaries and affiliates of U.S. person DDTC registrants listed in block 8 of the DS-2032 are eligible to self-certify to exemption usage and meets the registration requirement of § 126.7(b)(2)(i).
One commenter asserted that the U.S. allies, including Canada, who are eligible for expedited processing for export license applications pursuant to the provisions of § 126.15 should be treated the same for purposes of the ITAR. The Department notes the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024 called for expedited licensing for the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. It also separately created section 38(l) of the AECA, which ultimately resulted in the creation of a defense trade exemption for the United Kingdom and Australia. The Department implemented what was required by law, and the inclusion of Canada within the framework of the exemption described in section 38(l) of the AECA was not included in the law. The Canadian exemption in § 126.5 exists pursuant to different authority under the AECA, and the provisions of section 38(l) of the AECA do not extend to transfers to or from Canada.
One commenter sought clarification regarding whether the expedited processing of license applications described in § 126.15(c) and (d) applies to all United Kingdom and Australian companies or only Authorized Users. The Department confirms that the expedited procedures apply to all parties in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The same commenter requested that the expedited processing of license applications also apply to General Correspondence requests submitted by Australian and UK companies. The Department declines to accept this recommendation as the expediting requirement set forth in section 1344 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2024 (22 U.S.C. 10423) applies to exports and not other types of transfers (
One commenter suggested the Department create an Open General License for the reexport and retransfer of unclassified defense articles, in support of AUKUS, among Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and allied countries, such as NATO and Five Eyes partners, allowing for retransfers and reexports to be authorized by the country of reexport or retransfer rather than the country of origin. Alternatively, if the Department is not amenable to this suggestion, the commenter recommended amending § 126.15(c) and (d) to apply to reexports to third country partners if the end-use is in support of AUKUS. The Department declines to accept these suggestions. The expedited procedures set out in section 1344 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2024 and implemented in the ITAR were intended to facilitate defense trade between the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, not reexports from those countries to additional countries.
One commenter recommended that a Department decision to deny a license application or return without action (RWA) a license application be a decision made at the Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) level. Further, the same commenter recommended the DDTC DAS review on a monthly or quarterly basis those license applications that have been adjudicated but not approved, in order to ensure that license applications are not being rejected because the statutorily required timeframes are approaching. This comment is outside the scope of the current rulemaking as it addresses internal Department processes and procedures and sections of the ITAR that are not the subject of this rulemaking. Furthermore, the recommendations are unnecessary and duplicative. ITAR § 120.1(b)(2)(i) delegates to the Director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls Licensing (DTCL) the responsibilities related to licensing. The DTCL Director already routinely reviews all licenses recommended for denial and tracks in real time all licenses subject to the expedited review procedures. The Department has not to date, and has no plans in the future, to implement a policy of denying or returning without action license applications because the statutorily required timeframes are approaching. Furthermore, all license applications that are returned without action are also subject to secondary review procedures to ensure consistent treatment and determine whether an incomplete or defective license application can be salvaged. For these reasons, the Department declines to accept the recommendations.
One commenter recommended changing the expedited license processing timelines found in § 126.15(d) to 15 days and 21 days, respectively, for applications related to government-to-government agreements and all other applications. The Department declines to accept this comment as the 30- and 45-day license application timeframes were established by statute in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024.
One commenter asked what qualifies as a SECRET level security clearance under § 126.18(d) and if security clearances required under § 126.18(d) are different than those under § 126.18(e). The Department notes that § 126.18(d) is reserved for the reexport of unclassified defense articles or defense services. There is no security clearance requirement in this portion of the exemption. The relevant requirement in § 126.18(e) is for a UK or Australian dual national to hold a security clearance approved by Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States that is equivalent to the classification level of SECRET or above in the United States. That differs from § 126.18(c), which states a qualifying condition is a security clearance approved by the host nation government for its employees.
One commenter sought clarification regarding whether a dual citizen of both the United States and Australia is considered a dual national for purposes of § 126.18(e). The Department confirms § 126.18(e) is available in the case of a dual citizen of the United States and Australia.
One commenter inquired whether § 126.7 should be read with § 126.18(d),
Multiple commenters expressed appreciation for the work of all three governments to refine the Excluded Technology List (ETL) from what was initially published in the proposed rule. The Department notes, as a threshold matter, that it monitored licensing requests for Australia or the United Kingdom against the ETL over a three-month period and assesses approximately 18% of such licensing requests would not be eligible for transfer under the exemption because of the ETL. The Department has expedited those licensing requests with an average processing time of 16.6 days. Multiple commenters requested additional efforts to align the ETL for the § 126.7 exemption with the ETLs implemented by Australia and the United Kingdom. The Department continues to work with its international partners to more clearly align the three ETLs where practicable. However, due to differences in the underlying export control lists, the three ETLs will not align perfectly and each partner must maintain its own implementation to account for differences in national legal and policy requirements and to remain agile in adapting to revisions of its own national regulations.
One commenter, in expressing appreciation for the Department's commitment to periodic reviews of the ETL, encouraged the Department to continue to engage with industry and open another comment period specifically for further review of the ETL. The Department values the industry contributions in the two prior comment periods and declines to open another comment period at this time, although it may issue a request for such comment at a future date.
Two commenters criticized the ETL as burdensome, without identifying specific examples of where the list is overly burdensome or suggestions for changes to the list. The Department has committed to an annual review of the ETL for the first five years after implementation, and periodically thereafter.
One commenter requested more transparency when updates to the ETL are made either by website posting or utilizing other technologies to release updates to the public. The Department notes that any future changes to the ETL will be published in the
Two commenters suggested revising ETL entries to clarify the scope of excluded technical data and defense services. The first recommended rewording the ETL entry for United States Munitions List (USML) Category XVIII to clarify it excludes “classified technical data and defense services directly related to classified articles specially designed for counter-space operations,” and not “all classified USML Category XVIII technical data and defense services,” asserting that the semicolon after “counter-space operations” creates confusion. The commenter specifically suggests the entry is unclear as to whether the final clause refers only to the antecedent “Classified articles described in USML Category XVIII specially designed for counter-space operations” or if it refers to the entire USML category. The Department declines to revise this entry and notes its use of the semicolon in this entry is consistent both with usage throughout the ETL and the Department's intent. Specifically, use of the adjective phrase “directly related [to]” requires an object. As in the other ETL entries, “directly related technical data and defense services” refers to all antecedent defense articles within the entry. An example where the Department intends to exclude technical data for all articles in a USML category is found in the ETL entry for USML Category XVI. The second commenter requested specific revisions of the ETL entry for Category XI(a)(4)(i), (c)(1) through (3), and (d), to provide that only “classified, directly related classified technical data and classified defense services to the previously proposed exclusions” are excluded. The Department declines to do so, assessing the entry is already sufficiently clear and concise, and consistent with entries throughout the ETL. Because “directly related” in this entry modifies both “technical data” and “defense services,” “classified,” must similarly modify both. Thus, the excluded technical data and defense services in this entry comprise: classified technical data directly related to the articles identified in the preceding clause(s) and classified defense services directly related to the articles identified in the preceding clause(s).
One commenter encouraged DDTC to limit the ETL entry for MT-designated articles and services only to the exclusions outlined in AECA subsection (j)(1)(C)(ii). That commenter and one other requested amendment of that ETL entry to apply only to complete unmanned aerial systems (UAS). The first commenter proposed using language it previously suggested in response to the proposed rule. As it did in the interim final rule, the Department again declines to rely on the regulated community to interpret elements of the AECA and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), including the term “for use in rocket systems,” for the purposes of authorizing exports. One of the commenters asserted industry regularly interprets whether MTCR controls apply; however, discrepancies in MT designations for license application submissions do not carry the same risk as discrepancies in self-assessing whether a technology may be exported as required by the exemption. The Department previously removed USML entries with an “MT” designation from the MTCR entry on the ETL when the USML entry (1) does not include MTCR Category I commodities and (2) does not include MTCR Category II commodities for use in rockets.
One commenter also requested the Department consider carving out USML Category IV(d)(3) in the same manner as the Department previously carved out USML Category VIII(h)(12) from the MTCR entry. The Department declines to do so and notes the articles described in USML Category IV(d)(3) are described in Item 20.A.1.b of the MTCR Annex. Because paragraph (d)(3) describes MTCR Category II commodities for missiles, rockets, and space launch vehicles, the Department affirms that articles described in that entry are not eligible for transfer under the § 126.7 exemption.
Two commenters suggested revisions to the USML Category I through XX anti-tamper (AT) entry on the ETL. One commenter recommended expanding this entry to exclude AT technologies verified and validated by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to control those technologies that are not U.S. Programs of Record and do not have a DoD Program Protection Plan. Having consulted with DoD, the Department declines to expand the ETL as requested. Another commenter recommended revising the exclusion to clarify it does not exclude articles with AT features that are already installed in a major component they are designed to protect, similar to those installed in end-items. The Department declines to do so and notes that components and
One commenter noted the control text of USML Category XI(a)(3)(xxix) refers to paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(13) of USML Category VIII, which are currently reserved. The Department thanks the commenter for this observation and notes this does not materially affect the operation of the USML or the ETL. Although updates to the USML are outside the scope of this rulemaking, the Department is tracking this issue for future updates to the USML.
One commenter recommended the Department “streamline” the entry that currently applies to paragraphs (c) and (d) of Category XI by removing references to paragraph (d) technical data and defense services. The commenter proposed language that does not appear to differ from the current ETL. The Department declines to remove the references to technical data and defense services, as it would inappropriately reduce the scope of the exclusion.
One commenter requested the Department clarify that defense services furnished by a U.S. Authorized User based solely on information furnished by an Australian or UK Authorized User are not excluded by the ETL. The Department declines to do so, as the request is overly broad and would complicate compliance efforts. Furthermore, the Department notes one of the reasons it regulates defense services is its interest in ensuring the use of U.S. expertise and know-how is consistent with U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives, even if no technical data is transferred. The commenter specifically posed a hypothetical scenario in which the Australian Department of Defence (ADoD) hires a U.S. company to provide advisory services that constitute a defense service directly related to a USML Category XI(b) defense article. According to the hypothetical, to furnish these services, the U.S. company must review classified information furnished by the ADoD, directly related to articles described in USML Category XI(b). The commenter asserted the U.S. company may not rely on the exemption provided at § 126.7 due to the ETL entry that excludes classified articles described in USML Category XI(b) and classified, directly related technical data and defense services. As a result, the U.S. company must seek a technical assistance agreement (TAA) for this service, even though it does not plan to export any hardware, software, technical data, or information about U.S. Government (USG) systems or methods. The Department affirms that classified defense services directly related to a classified USML Category XI(b) defense article are not eligible to be furnished under the § 126.7 exemption, even if those services do not involve the transfer or use of U.S.-origin hardware or technical data. However, the Department also clarifies that classified defense services are those that meet the definition of “classified” in § 120.38. Thus, defense services are not “classified” solely on the basis that the service involves the use of classified information or classified hardware. The Department also notes it has committed to, and is currently meeting, expedited licensing timelines pursuant to § 126.15, which should facilitate U.S. companies obtaining any necessary licenses or agreements.
One commenter inquired whether the § 126.7 exemption places limits on the figure of merit (FOM) for night vision devices transferred under the exemption. The Department observes the ETL does not currently exclude articles based on FOM criteria. Note that all applicable ETL entries must be reviewed to determine whether a particular defense article is eligible for transfer pursuant to the exemption.
One commenter requested clarification regarding whether the § 126.7 exemption allows exports of unclassified technical data regarding USG cryptographic devices that have not yet been certified and not yet approved for foreign release by the appropriate USG entities. The Department affirms the referenced ETL entry is not intended to exclude unclassified technical data or articles related to USG cryptographic devices. However, the § 126.7 exemption pertains specifically to ITAR license requirements. It does not relieve exporters of the obligation to comply with other applicable requirements outside the ITAR, such as National Security Agency certification requirements.
One commenter objected to the ETL entry for USML Category XX(d), asserting it does not reflect U.S. legal obligations and that it will disrupt the development of AUKUS Pillar I and Pillar II activities. The Department declines to modify the USML Category XX(d) entry of the ETL at this time because the USG assesses that continued review of licenses or use of the § 126.4 exemption is required to protect critical technologies. The Department further notes that authorizations to export such technology are subject to the expedited licensing procedures referenced above.
A number of commenters offered observations and recommendations regarding the Authorized User Terms and Conditions. The Authorized User Terms and Conditions are the compliance requirements of Australian and UK parties participating in transfers or activities via the § 126.7 exemption. Australian and UK parties must sign the Authorized User Terms and Conditions to complete their Authorized User enrollment package and to initiate their governments' review processes. The Authorized User Terms and Conditions were established as part of separate government-to-government agreements with Australia and the United Kingdom to provide maximum speed and accountability in enrolling and maintaining Authorized Users of Australia and the United Kingdom. While the administration of the Authorized User enrollment process is outside of the scope of this rulemaking, the Department summarizes and provides information in response to those comments here as a matter of convenience.
Three commenters recommended modifying the Authorized Users Terms and Conditions to align the text with existing provisions of the ITAR, including § 127.12. The Department notes the Authorized User Terms and Conditions have been updated based on these recommendations to incorporate by reference existing disclosure guidance and requirements in §§ 127.12 and 126.1.
Three commenters recommended modifying the Authorized Users Terms and Conditions for the United Kingdom to use the existing § 123.9(b) destination control statement, and to amend § 123.9(b)(1)(iv) to refer to a destination as “country or countries.” The Department notes the Authorized User Terms and Conditions have been updated to incorporate by reference the standard destination control statement in § 123.9(b).
One commenter suggested UK industry is still unclear regarding the process of becoming an Authorized User, and the commenter stated that the UK Ministry of Defence assured them further guidance on the process is forthcoming. The commenter further expressed this has caused delays for industry. The Department notes the UK Ministry of Defence has provided further guidance regarding the
One commenter reported problems with locating a list of U.S. Authorized Users and sought clarification as to whether that list is provided somewhere other than the Defense Export Control and Compliance System (DECCS). The Department notes, per the language of ITAR § 126.7(b)(2)(i), all U.S. persons registered with DDTC and who are eligible to receive an ITAR license or other authorization as stated in ITAR § 120.16 may utilize the exemption provided all other criteria in § 126.7 are met.
One commenter sought clarity regarding the process that should be followed to share technology with entities that are not Authorized Users within Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The Department notes that while the § 126.7 exemption is not available in such cases, all other existing authorization mechanisms under the ITAR remain available, including the licensing process or other license exemptions within the ITAR, according to their terms.
One commenter inquired as to whether the Authorized User process for the § 126.7 exemption included audits, certifications, or supply chain reviews. The Department notes that the Authorized User process is an intergovernmental process for vetting Authorized Users of the exemption within the UK and Australia. Additional information on becoming an Authorized User is available on the DDTC website and from the UK and Australian governments.
One commenter noted that there will be a need to train companies who are Authorized Users not only on compliance with the § 126.7 exemption, but on their compliance obligations generally. The Department acknowledges the comment and continues to work with the governments of both the United Kingdom and Australia and industry in both countries to promote compliance.
One commenter suggested that the Authorized User enrollment process is administratively burdensome, lengthy, and inconsistent among the three countries. The Department notes enrollment of Authorized Users is a priority across all three governments to support industry use of the § 126.7 exemption and has already been modified and streamlined as described in this rule.
One commenter stated that the respective Authorized User guidance documents for the United Kingdom and Australia have different notification requirements regarding changes to corporate information furnished to each respective government. Further, the commenter recommended that the UK reporting requirement to notify both the UK Ministry of Defense and DDTC of corporate information changes should be amended to conform to existing notification requirements pursuant to § 127.12. The Department has recently updated the UK Authorized User Terms and Conditions accordingly.
One commenter recommended that Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States develop a process to report publicly when a former Authorized User is removed from the Authorized User list. The Department offers a reminder that the Authorized User list is the official up-to-date record of Authorized Users of Australia and the United Kingdom who are eligible via § 126.7(b)(2)(iii). Non-governmental parties and state, territorial, or local government parties of Australia or the United Kingdom are required to be enumerated on the Authorized User list to be eligible via § 126.7(b)(2)(iii). Exemption users are responsible for checking if there are any changes to the list.
One commenter recommended the Department enumerate UK and Australian government departments and agencies in § 126.7(b)(2), rather than on the Authorized User list, so that it is clear which entities are eligible to use the § 126.7 exemption. Similarly, another commenter recommended clarifying that government agencies that report to the Australian Department of Defence, the UK Ministry of Defence, and any other government departments are included as Authorized Users. The Department accepts this recommendation, in part, by adding regulatory text confirming that UK national-level and Australian federal government departments or agencies are within the scope of § 126.7(b)(2), but those departments or agencies are not enumerated on the Authorized User list, unless they so request.
One commenter recommended moving away from manual reviews of the Authorized Users list in DECCS and providing an Application Programming Interface (API)—establishing a software communications protocol—between DECCS and industry screening tools to verify Authorized Users at the time of export. Alternatively, the commenter suggested the Department could also provide a downloadable Excel document with all Authorized Users. The Department acknowledges this comment and notes it is exploring upgrades to the Authorized User List in DECCS to increase functionality.
One commenter recommended the Department consider adding Canada, to include the Canadian exemptions found at § 126.5, into the new defense trade and cooperation framework for the United Kingdom and Australia. Alternatively, the commenter suggested retaining the Canadian exemptions at § 126.5, but revising the language of those exemptions to mirror the language found in the § 126.7 exemption. The Department declines to accept both recommendations. The creation of the ITAR exemption for defense trade among the UK, Australia, and the United States came pursuant to section 38(l) of the AECA; upon positive certification, the AECA called for the creation of an ITAR exemption with specific requirements. The Department continues to review options to improve standardization of exemption presentation throughout the regulations but also notes that the § 126.7 exemption has requirements that differ from the Canadian exemptions and that are imposed by statute.
One commenter sought clarity on nontransfer and use certificate (
One commenter recommended revising § 123.9(c)(4) to include the § 126.7 exemption. The Department declines to accept this comment as § 123.9(c)(4) outlines criteria specific to the UK and Australian Defense Trade
One commenter sought clarification on whether § 123.9(e) excludes § 126.7, similar to how it excludes §§ 126.16 and 126.17. The Department confirms that defense articles exported pursuant to § 126.7 are not excluded from § 123.9(e).
One commenter suggested there is a need for Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States to harmonize cyber security standards to effectively share defense-related technologies. The Department notes this comment is outside the scope of the rulemaking.
One commenter expressed that industry is hoping for parallel changes to the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process that are similar to the § 126.7 exemption and that such changes are necessary for AUKUS to succeed. The Department acknowledges this comment; however, it is outside the scope of the rulemaking.
One commenter recommended a Defense Trade Advisory Group made up of foreign industry, primarily from host countries that are U.S. allies, rather than just U.S. industry, to provide advice to the U.S. Government on regulatory issues. The Department acknowledges this comment; however, it is outside the scope of the rulemaking.
One commenter recommended the Department clarify whether values for purposes of congressional certification are calculated on a “per shipment” includes “per transfers” of technical data and/or defense services. Further, the commenter requested the Department create an FAQ clarifying that congressional certification thresholds should not be based on the total contract value, including when a contract modification causes it to meet or exceed current congressional certification thresholds, but rather value for congressional certification purposes should be based on individual transactions that meet or exceed the congressional thresholds or those that involved the manufacturing of significant military equipment abroad. The Department notes the DDTC website has an existing FAQ on this topic, which states parties should base their calculations for congressional certification on a per shipment basis.
One commenter recommended the Department work with its interagency partners and Congress to eliminate, within the context of the AUKUS partnership, the license requirement, interagency review, and tiered review of transfers that meet the congressional certification thresholds. The commenter went on to suggest that industry should only be required to submit notification of a transfer to the Department, who would then notify Congress using a 15-day review period. The Department will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the § 126.7 exemption and make further amendments as appropriate, particularly after industry and government stakeholders are familiar with its application, but notes that the exemption articulates the scope of transfers the Department assesses are currently appropriate without the need for a license or congressional notification, as applicable. Sections 36(c) and 36(d) of the AECA require the Department to notify Congress pursuant to the requirements articulated therein.
One commenter encouraged continued Department engagement with industry through outreach events, communication via the DDTC website, and FAQs. The commenter noted that additional information on the Authorized User process, reporting requirements under § 126.7, reexports and retransfers, and expedited processing of license applications is welcomed. The Department appreciates this feedback and will continue to engage with industry to encourage use of the § 126.7 exemption.
One commenter assessed that the § 126.7 exemption will facilitate collaboration between the United States and Australia on space activities, but also expressed concern about potential industry confusion due to actual or perceived “crossover” between the § 126.7 exemption and the recently-executed Technologies Safeguard Agreement (TSA) between the United States and Australia. The commenter did not suggest changes to regulatory language; rather, they requested the Department provide guidance to assist industry in navigating the requirements of the ITAR and the two governments' TSA implementation and to consider how to reduce the administrative burden on exporters subject to both sets of requirements. The Department notes that TSAs are important pre-conditions that help ensure the necessary foundation is in place to adequately protect transfers of certain space launch vehicle assistance and technologies. In this respect, the responsibilities and obligations outlined in TSAs stem from and complement requirements in the ITAR.
This rulemaking is exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking and minimum effective date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1) as a military or foreign affairs function of the United States Government. For the reasons described in the interim final rule (89 FR 67270, as amended by 89 FR 68778), the Department also believes that good cause exists to proceed with this rulemaking expeditiously as per 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3).
Since this rule is exempt from the notice-and-comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 as a military or foreign affairs function, and based on the Department's finding of good cause, the rule does not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This rulemaking does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any year and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions are deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Department does not believe this rulemaking is a major rule within the definition of 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This rulemaking will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this amendment does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
The Department of State has reviewed this rulemaking in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.
This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Arms and munitions, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Technical assistance.
For the reasons set forth above, Title 22, Chapter I, Subchapter M, part 126 is amended as follows:
22 U.S.C. 287c, 2651a, 2752, 2753, 2776, 2778, 2779, 2779a, 2780, 2791, 2797, 10423; sec. 1225, Pub. L. 108-375, 118 Stat. 2091; sec. 7045, Pub. L. 112-74, 125 Stat. 1232; sec. 1250A, Pub. L. 116-92, 133 Stat. 1665; sec. 205, Pub. L. 116-94, 133 Stat. 3052; and E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 223.
(a)
(b)
(1) The activity must be to or within the physical territory of Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States;
(2) The transferor, recipient, or broker must each be:
(i) A U.S. person registered with the applicable Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) registration pursuant to §§ 122.1 and 129.3 of this subchapter, and eligible under § 120.16 of this subchapter;
(ii) A U.S. Government department or agency, United Kingdom national-level government department or agency, or Australian federal government department or agency; or
(iii) An Authorized User identified through the DDTC website and, if engaging in brokering activities, registered with DDTC pursuant to § 129.3 of this subchapter;
(3) The defense article or defense service is not identified in supplement no. 2 to this part as ineligible for transfer under the exemption in paragraph (a) of this section;
(4) The value of the transfer does not exceed the amounts described in § 123.15 of this subchapter and does not involve the manufacturing abroad of significant military equipment as described in § 124.11 of this subchapter; and
(5) Transferors must comply with the requirements of § 123.9(b) of this subchapter.
(c)
(d)
(1) The defense article was originally exported pursuant to a license or other approval;
(2) To the extent that any party described in § 126.7(b)(2)(i) or (iii) is a party to the reexport, retransfer, or temporary import into the United States, such party is under contract with and either directly embedded with the armed forces of Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States or operating alongside and in support of such forces; and
(3) The purpose of the reexport, retransfer, or temporary import is for:
(i) The provision of on-site support to the armed forces of Australia, the United Kingdom, or the United States, or
(ii) The return to Australia or the United Kingdom, or the United States of defense articles used in on-site support of the armed forces of Australia, the United Kingdom or the United States; and
(iii) The reexport, retransfer or temporary import is subject to paragraphs (b)(3) through (5) of this section.
(e) * * *
(2) Are Australian or United Kingdom parties described in § 126.7(b)(2)(ii) or (iii) or are regular employees thereof;
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Final rule; extension of compliance date.
This document further extends the compliance date for HUD's final rule entitled Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016: Implementation of Sections 102 and 104 (HOTMA final rule) for Community Planning and Development (CPD) programs. Specifically, HUD is extending the compliance date for the HOME Investment Partnerships program (HOME), HOME-American Rescue Plan program, Housing Trust Fund (HTF), Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA), Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), Emergency Solution Grants (ESG), Continuum of Care (CoC) programs, and CPD programs funded through competitive processes (Competitive Programs). This action is necessary to allow additional time for HUD to finalize necessary system updates and for CPD grantees to fully incorporate the new income and asset requirements into their programs.
The compliance date for the final rule published February 14, 2023, at 88 FR 9600, as previously extended, is further extended until January 1, 2027.
For HOME and the HTF, Milagro Fisher, Senior Affordable Housing Specialist, Office of Affordable Housing Programs, at telephone (202) 708-2684, Room 7160; for HOPWA, Lisa Steinhauer, Senior Program Specialist, Office of HIV/AIDS Housing, at telephone (215) 861-7651, Room 7248; for CDBG, B. Cory Schwartz, Deputy Director, Office of Block Grant Assistance, at telephone (202) 402-4105, Room 7282; for the ESG and CoC programs: Norm Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs (SNAPs), telephone (202) 708-5015, Room 7262. The mailing address for each office contact is Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-7000. HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit:
On February 14, 2023, HUD published the HOTMA final rule (88 FR 9600), which established revisions to HUD's income regulations at 24 CFR parts 5, 92, 93, 570, and 574, affecting various CPD programs. The effective date for these revisions was January 1, 2024.
Due to delays in the necessary updates to HUD's internal systems and providing CPD grantees with sufficient time to incorporate the changes into their program policies, HUD previously published two extensions. The most recent extension, published on December 31, 2024 (89 FR 106998), extended the compliance date for CPD grantees to January 1, 2026. In addition, HUD permitted CPD grantees the flexibility to implement applicable HOTMA income safe harbors (
On January 6, 2025, HUD published the final rule (FR-6144-F-03), titled “HOME Investment Partnerships Program: Program Updates and Streamlining” (the 2025 HOME final rule). This rule extended the HOTMA compliance date for the HOME program until February 5, 2026, or later, as determined by HUD in 24 CFR 92.3. On February 3, 2025, HUD delayed the effective date of some elements of the HOME final rule, including changes to the income regulations at 24 CFR 92.203, until April 20, 2025, and delayed the required compliance date of those provisions until April 20, 2026.
The 2025 HOME final rule expanded the income safe harbors in 24 CFR 92.203 to include additional forms of public assistance and expanded the entities from which PJs may accept income determinations for rental projects, including small scale projects and HOME funded tenant-based rental assistance programs. Additionally, it reduced the frequency of income determinations in TBRA programs.
HUD has determined that a further extension of the HOTMA final rule is necessary. Despite the prior extension of the HOTMA final rule, additional time is required for HUD to complete the complex programming and testing of its systems that support CPD programs to ensure full compliance with all of the HOTMA final rule provisions. Furthermore, CPD grantees will require additional time after HUD's system updates and final guidance are released to integrate these changes into their local program operations, update their own software, and train staff.
Therefore, in recognition of these ongoing operational issues and the need for a smooth, effective transition, HUD is exercising its authority to further extend the compliance deadline for the HOTMA final rule. CPD grantees may continue to set their own compliance dates as early as January 1, 2024, but must be in full compliance no later than the date established by this document.
As in the prior extension of the HOTMA final rule's compliance date, HUD is permitting CPD grantees the choice to implement applicable income safe harbors in 24 CFR 5.609(c)(3). Additionally, HUD is permitting HOME PJs the choice to implement all expanded income safe harbors and flexibilities described in 24 CFR 92.203 of the 2025 HOME final rule without implementing the remaining provisions of the regulations updated by the HOTMA final rule.
Lastly, HUD reminds CPD grantees and project owners to comply with the most recent publication of the Federally Mandated Exclusions from Income (FR-6410-N-01), published on January 31, 2024, when making income determinations, even if they have not yet implemented the HOTMA final rule.
Accordingly, HUD extends the January 1, 2026, compliance date for implementing the changes made by the HOTMA final rule to 24 CFR parts 5, 92, 93, 570, and 574 for the CPD programs described in this document until January 1, 2027. Until this date, CPD grantees may continue to adhere, as applicable, to the requirements found in both their program regulations and the regulations at 24 CFR 5.603, 24 CFR 5.609, 24 CFR 5.611, and 24 CFR 5.617 as they existed prior to January 1, 2024.
42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
Postal Service.
Final rule.
The Postal Service (USPS®) is amending
Doriane Harley at (202) 268-2537 or Dale Kennedy at (202) 268-6592.
The Postal Service (USPS®) is implementing shape-based labeling lists for SCF prepared mailpieces. Labeling lists L005, L016, and L051 will be used for letters, flats, and parcels respectively.
Market Dominant comments on Proposed changes and USPS responses.
The Postal Service adopts the following changes to
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, the Postal Service amends Mailing Standards of the United States Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations as follows (see 39 CFR 111.1):
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401-404, 414, 416, 3001-3018, 3201-3220, 3401-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3629, 3631-3633, 3641, 3681-3685, and 5001.
Terms used for presort levels are defined as follows:
p.
q.
c.
1. Line 1: use L016, Column B for flats, L051, Column B for parcels.
2. Line 2: “PER” or “NEWS” as applicable; followed by “FLTS” or “NONSTD” as applicable; followed by “SCF”; followed by “NON BC” for flats.
d.
1. Line 1: use L016, Column B for flats, L051, Column B for parcels.
2. Line 2: use “PER” or “NEWS” as applicable; followed by “FLTS” or “NONSTD” as applicable; followed by “SCF”; followed by “NON BC” for flats.
d.
1. Line 1: L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PER” or “NEWS” as applicable; followed by “FLTS”; followed by “SCF NON BC.”
e.
1. Line 1: L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PER” or “NEWS” as applicable; followed by “FLTS”; followed by “SCF NON BC.”
c.
1. Line 1: use L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: use “PER FLTS SCF BC” or “NEWS FLTS SCF BC,” as applicable.
d.
1. Line 1: use L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: use “PER FLTS SCF BC” or “NEWS FLTS SCF BC,” as applicable.
d.
1. Line 1: L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PER” “NEWS” as applicable; followed by “FLTS”; followed by “SCF BC.”
e.
1. Line 1: L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PER” “NEWS” as applicable; followed by “FLTS”; followed by “SCF BC.”
For this standard, destination sectional center facility (DSCF)/local processing center (LPC [letters/flats])/regional processing and distribution center (RPDC [parcels]) includes a USPS-designated facility or the facilities listed in L005 for letters, L016 for flats, L051 for parcels.
Terms used for presort levels are defined as follows: * * *
f.
Terms used for presort levels are defined as follows: * * *
b. 3-digit: The ZIP Code in the delivery address on all pieces begins with the same three digits (see L002, Column C).
Preparation sequence, tray size, and labeling: * * *
b. 3-digit (optional); full tray or 50 piece minimum (no overflow), except for one less-than-full tray for each origin 3-digit(s); labeling:
1. Line 1: L002, Column C.
Tray size, preparation sequence, and Line 1 labeling:
a. 5-digit scheme: optional, but required for 5-digit price (full tray or 50-piece minimum); one less-than-full or overflow tray allowed; see 8.6 for scheme; labeling:
1. Line 1: L007, Column B.
2. Line 2: “FCM FLTS BC 5D SCHEME”
b. 5-digit: optional, but required for 5-digit price (full tray or 50-piece minimum); one less-than-full or overflow tray allowed; labeling:
1. Line 1: city, state, and 5-digit ZIP Code on mail (see 204.3.0, for overseas military mail).
2. Line 2: “FCM FLTS 5D BC”
c. 3-digit: optional, but required for 3-digit price (full tray or 50-piece minimum); one less-than-full or overflow tray allowed; labeling:
1. Line 1: L002, Column C.
2. Line 2: “FCM FLTS 3D BC.”
d. Origin 3-digit: required for each 3-digit ZIP Code served by the SCF/LPC of the origin (verification) office; no minimum; labeling:
1. Line 1: L002, Column C.
2. Line 2: “FCM FLTS 3D BC.”
e. ADC: optional, but required for ADC price (full tray or 50-piece minimum); one less-than-full or overflow tray allowed; group pieces by 3-digit ZIP Code prefix; labeling:
1. Line 1: L004, Column B.
2. Line 2: “FCM FLTS ADC BC.”
Exception: Pieces are not required to be grouped by 3-digit ZIP Code prefix in ADC trays if the mailing is prepared using an MLOCR/barcode sorter, and standardized documentation is submitted.
f. Mixed ADC (required); no minimum for price eligibility. Group pieces by ADC. labeling:
1. Line 1 use L201; for mail originating in ZIP Code areas in Column A, use “MXD” followed by city, state, and 3-digit ZIP Code prefix in Column C (use “MXD” instead of “OMX” in the destination line and ignore Column B).
2. Line 2: “FCM FLTS BC WKG.”
Mailers using a MLOCR/barcode sorter and submitting standardized documentation need not group pieces by ADC.
Terms used for presort levels are defined as follows: * * *
h.
Terms used for presort levels are defined as follows: * * *
l. SCF: the separation includes pieces for two or more 3-digit areas served by the same sectional center facility (SCF)/local processing center (LPC) (see L016). Exception: Where required or permitted by standard, mail for a single 3-digit area may be prepared in an SCF separation when no mail for other 3-digit ZIP Code areas is available. For pallets, the SCF sort may include mail for a single 3-digit ZIP Code area.
m.
Terms used for presort levels are defined as follows: * * *
d.
Preparation sequence, sack size, and labeling: * * *
b. SCF; 10-pound minimum; labeling:
1. For Line 1, Use L051, Column B.
2. For Line 2, “STD NONSTD SCF.”
For this standard,
Pieces must meet the applicable standards in 4.0 and the following criteria: * * *
d. Any remaining nonstandard parcels (as defined in 201.7.6) sorted to 3-digit ZIP Code prefixes in L051, Column B. Machinable parcels may not be sorted to the 3-digit level.
Preparation sequence and labeling: * * *
c. SCF (optional); labeling:
1. Line 1: L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PSVC FLTS SCF NON BC.”
Preparation sequence, sack size, and labeling: * * *
c. SCF (optional); minimum 20 addressed pieces; labeling:
1. Line 1: L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PSVC FLTS SCF BC.”
Preparation sequence and labeling: * * *
c. SCF (optional); labeling:
1. Line 1: L051, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PSVC NONSTD SCF.”
Bound Printed Matter pieces in a mailing meeting the standards in 3.0 are eligible for the DSCF price when they meet all of the following additional conditions: * * *
b. Are deposited at a DSCF/LPC (flats)/RPDC (parcels) listed in L016 for flats or L051 for parcels or a USPS-designated facility and are addressed for delivery within the DSCF's/LPC's/RPDC's service area.
b. Origin SCF/LPC (local mail). Required; no minimum. Pallets contain trays destined for the 3-digit ZIP Codes serviced by the origin SCF/LPC facility in L005 for letters, L016 for flats. 3-digit ZIP Code (from L005 for AADC trays and L004 for ADC trays) is within the origin SCF's/LPC's service area; and must place trays containing pieces paid at the single-piece price on origin SCF/LPC pallets, unless required to be presented separately by special postage-payment authorization or customer service agreement (CSA). Labeling:
1. Line 1: L005, Column B for Letters, L016, Column B for Flats.
2. Line 2: “FCM LTRS” or “FCM FLTS,” followed by “SCF.”
c. SCF/LPC. Required. For destinations listed in L201, based on origin ZIP Code. Pallets contain trays destined for the 3-digit ZIP Codes in L005 for Letters, L016 for Flats. Mailers may, at their option, place AADC or ADC trays on SCF/LPC pallets when the tray's “label to” 3-digit ZIP Code (L005 for AADC trays, and L004 for ADC) is within that SCF's/LPC's service area. Labeling:
1. Line 1: L005, Column B for letters, L016, Column B for flats.
2. Line 2: “FCM LTRS” or “FCM FLTS,” followed by “SCF.”
h.
1. Line 1: L005, Column B for letters, L016, Column B for flats, L051, Column B for parcels.
2. Line 2: “PER” or “NEWS,” as applicable; followed by “FLTS,” “NONSTD,” or “LTRS,” as applicable; followed by “SCF”; followed by “BARCODED” (or “BC”) if pallet contains automation-price mail; followed by “NONBARCODED” (or
f.
1. Line 1: Use L005, Column B for letters, L016, Column B for flats, L051, Column B for parcels.
2. Line 2: For flats and nonstandard parcels, “STD” followed by “FLTS” or “NONSTD,” as applicable; followed by “SCF”; followed by “BARCODED” (or “BC”) if pallet contains automation price mail; followed by “NONBARCODED” (or “NBC”) if pallet contains carrier route and/or Presorted price mail. For letters, “STD LTRS SCF”; followed by “BC” if pallet contains barcoded letters; followed by “MACH” if pallet contains machinable letters; followed by “MAN” if pallet contains nonmachinable letters.
e.
1. Line 1: Use L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PSVC FLTS SCF”; followed by “BARCODED” (or “BC”) if pallet contains Presorted price mail with a barcode; followed by “NONBARCODED” (or “NBC”) if pallet contains carrier route and/or Presorted price mail without a barcode.
h.
1. Line 1: Use L051, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PSVC NONSTD SCF.”
c.
1. Line 1: Use L051, Column B.
2. Line 2: “STD/PSVC MACH SCF.”
c.
1. Line 1: Use L051, Column B.
2. Line 2: Use “STD NONSTD SCF.”
c.
1. Line 1: use L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: use “PER” or “NEWS” as applicable and “FLTS SCF BC/NBC.”
d.
1. Line 1: L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PER” or “NEWS” as applicable; followed by “FLTS”; followed by “SCF BC/NBC.”
e.
1. Line 1: L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PER” or “NEWS” as applicable; followed by “FLTS”; followed by “SCF BC/NBC.”
c.
1. Line 1: L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “PSVC FLTS SCF BC/NBC.”
g.
1. Line 1: use L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “STD FLTS SCF”; followed by “BARCODED” or “BC” if the pallet contains automation price mail; followed by “NONBARCODED” or “NBC” if the pallet contains Presorted price mail and/or carrier route price mail.
g.
1. Line 1: use L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “STD FLTS SCF”; followed by “BARCODED” or “BC” if the pallet contains automation price mail; followed by “NONBARCODED” or “NBC” if the pallet contains Presorted price mail and/or carrier route price mail.
g.
1. Line 1: use L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “STD FLTS SCF”; followed by “BARCODED” or “BC” if the pallet contains automation price mail; and followed by “NONBARCODED” or “NBC” if the pallet contains Presorted price mail and/or carrier route price mail.
g.
1. Line 1: Use L016, Column B.
2. Line 2: “STD/BPM/PER FLTS SCF”; followed by “BARCODED” (or “BC”); “NONBARCODED” (or “NBC”) for Presorted mail, or “BARCODED/NONBARCODED” (or “BC/NBC”) for mixed pallets; followed by “MIX COMAIL.”
In Rule document, 2025-22565, appearing on pages 57636 through 57674, in the issue of Thursday, December 11, 2025, make the following correction:
On page 57636, in the first column, in the in the document heading section, the entry “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” was erroneously added and is hereby removed.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; commercial accountability measure.
NMFS implements an accountability measure (AM) for king mackerel using run-around gillnet gear in the southern zone of the Gulf of America (Gulf) exclusive economic zone (EEZ) for the 2025-2026 fishing year. NMFS has determined that commercial landings of king mackerel harvested by run-around gillnet gear in the Gulf southern zone in the 2024-2025 fishing year have exceeded the component's annual catch limit (ACL). Therefore, NMFS implements the AM to reduce the commercial gillnet component ACL for king mackerel in the Gulf southern zone for the 2025-2026 fishing year.
This rule is effective December 30, 2025, through June 30, 2026.
Kelli O'Donnell, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email:
The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic fish in the Gulf includes king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, and cobia, and is managed under the Fishery Management Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf and Atlantic Region (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils and NMFS, approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and is implemented by NMFS under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All weights for the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel (Gulf king mackerel) apply as either round or gutted weight.
The commercial fishery for Gulf king mackerel is divided into western, northern, and southern zones. The southern zone for Gulf king mackerel encompasses an area of the Gulf EEZ off Collier and Monroe Counties in south Florida, south of a line extending due west from the boundary of Lee and Collier Counties on the Florida west coast, and south of a line extending due east from the boundary of Monroe and Miami-Dade Counties on the Florida east coast (50 CFR 622.369(a)(1)(iii)). For an illustration of the king mackerel zones, see Figure 1 in Appendix G to part 622 at
The commercial ACL for Gulf king mackerel is divided into separate ACLs for hook-and-line and run-around gillnet gear. The use of run-around gillnets for king mackerel is restricted to the Gulf southern zone. For the 2024-2025 fishing year, the king mackerel commercial gillnet quota (equivalent to the commercial gillnet ACL) is 671,328 pounds (lb) (304,509 kilograms (kg)) (50 CFR 622.384(b)(1)(iii)(B)). The fishing year for Gulf king mackerel in the southern zone is from July 1 through June 30 (50 CFR 622.7(b)(1)(i)) but the gillnet component has a seasonal closure from July 1 until 6 a.m. eastern time on the day after the Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal holiday (50 CFR 622.378(a)).
Regulations at 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(iii) state that if commercial landings of Gulf king mackerel caught by run-around gillnet gear in the southern zone exceed the commercial gillnet component ACL, then in the following fishing year, NMFS will reduce the commercial gillnet component ACL by the amount of the commercial gillnet component ACL overage in the prior fishing year. NMFS' most recent commercial landings data for the 2024-2025 fishing year indicate that the commercial gillnet component exceeded its ACL of 671,328 lb (304,509 kg) by 1,188 lb (539 kg) for the fishing year that ended on June 30, 2025. Accordingly, for the 2025-2026 fishing year and consistent with the commercial AM, NMFS reduces the commercial gillnet component ACL for the Gulf southern zone to 670,140 lb (303,970 kg).
The fishing season for Gulf king mackerel using run-around gillnet gear in the southern zone is currently closed and will open again at 6 a.m., local time, on January 20, 2026 (50 CFR 622.378(a)).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 622.388(a)(1)(iii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedure is unnecessary because the regulations associated with the commercial AM and commercial ACL for Gulf king mackerel have already been subject to notice and public comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the adjusted commercial ACL for the 2025-2026 fishing year. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest because of the need to notify the industry in advance of the next commercial fishing season.
For the reasons just stated, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of this action.
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 North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2025 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of New Jersey. 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 New Jersey.
Effective December 29, 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 125,000 pounds (lb; 56,699 kilograms (kg)) of summer flounder to New Jersey through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to ensure that New Jersey would not exceed its 2025 state quota. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2025 are: North Carolina, 2,107,603 lb (955,993 kg); and New Jersey, 1,595,098 lb (723,524 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of New Jersey is transferring a portion of their 2025 commercial bluefish quota to the State of North Carolina. This quota adjustment is necessary to comply with the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2025 commercial bluefish quotas for New Jersey and North Carolina.
Effective December 29, 2025, through December 31, 2025.
Matthew Rigdon, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9336.
Regulations governing the Atlantic bluefish fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.160 through 648.167. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through Florida. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.162, and the final 2025 allocations were published on December 10, 2024 (89 FR 99138).
The final rule implementing amendment 1 to the FMP, as published in the
New Jersey is transferring 50,000 pounds (lb) (22,680 kilograms (kg)) of Atlantic bluefish to North Carolina through mutual agreement of the states. This transfer was requested to ensure North Carolina would not exceed its 2025 state quota. The revised bluefish quotas for 2025 are: New Jersey, 182,630 lb (82,840 kg); and North Carolina, 1,472,012 lb (667,693 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; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) from vessels using jig gear, to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using hook-and-line or pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) management area. This action is necessary to allow the A season allowance of the 2026 TAC of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective December 29, 2025, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2026.
Andrew Olson, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC specified for vessels using jig gear in the BSAI is 990 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025) and inseason adjustment (90 FR 60025, December 23, 2025).
The 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear in the BSAI is 2,342 mt as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025) and inseason adjustment (90 FR 60025, December 23, 2025).
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (the Administrator) has determined that jig vessels will not be able to harvest 930 mt of the A season allowance of the 2026 Pacific cod TAC allocated to those vessels under § 679.20(a)(7)(ii)(A)(
Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(7)(iv)(C), NMFS reallocates 930 mt of Pacific cod from the A season jig gear allowance to the annual amount specified for catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.
The harvest specifications for 2026 Pacific cod included in final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025) and inseason adjustment (90 FR 60025, December 23, 2025) are revised as follows: 60 mt to the A season allowance and 721 mt to the annual amount for vessels using jig gear, and 3,272 mt to catcher vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line or pot gear.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would not allow for the full harvest of the Pacific cod TACs by the sectors with harvesting capability. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on the harvest of Pacific cod by sectors operating in the BSAI and the capability of certain sectors to harvest additional TAC only became available as of December 22, 2025.
There is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this action effective immediately upon filing with the Office of the Federal Register. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rule.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a rule to change the circumstances and procedures for adjudicating appeals from employees covered by these provisions and terminated during their probationary or trial periods and supervisors and managers who fail to complete their probationary periods. This change follows the President's rescinding of the regulations at subpart H of part 315 of this chapter as directed by Executive Order 14284. As proposed, employees would file appeals limited to: discrimination based on partisan political reasons or marital status; and failure to follow procedures for terminations based upon pre-appointment reasons. OPM would replace the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) as the adjudicative agency for all appeals. Employees who wish to pursue claims of discrimination under statutes administered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would not be allowed to raise these claims with OPM.
Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by the docket number or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) for this proposed rulemaking, by the following method:
All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking. Please arrange and identify your comments on the regulatory text by subpart and section number; if your comments relate to the supplementary information, please refer to the heading and page number. All comments received will be posted without change, including any personal information provided. To ensure that your comments will be considered, you must submit them within the specified open comment period. Before finalizing this rule, OPM will consider all comments within the scope of the regulations received on or before the closing date for comments. OPM may make changes to the final rule after considering the comments received.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found in the docket for this rulemaking at
Carol Matheis by email at
OPM proposes this rule to establish streamlined appeal procedures for employees terminated during their probationary or trial periods and supervisors and managers who fail to complete their probationary periods. Under Executive Order (E.O.) 14284, the President rendered the probationary period appeal procedures in subpart H of part 315 of this chapter “inoperative and without effect” and directed OPM to rescind those regulations and make conforming amendments. OPM published a final rule implementing those directives on June 24, 2025, at 90 FR 26727. E.O. 14284 delegated authority to OPM to establish such procedures by regulation. The proposed rule removes authority from the MSPB for actions under subpart I of part 315 of this chapter and grants authority to OPM to adjudicate appeals. The proposal would grant authority to OPM to adjudicate appeals by employees terminated during their probationary or trial periods and by supervisors and managers who fail to complete their probationary periods (akin to the former § 315.806 and the current § 315.908, respectively). OPM will only adjudicate appeals that allege either discrimination based on partisan political reasons or marital status; or an agency's failure to follow procedures for terminations based upon pre-appointment reasons. Employees will not, however, be able to attach claims of unlawful discrimination under the laws administered by the EEOC to an appeal as previously permitted before issuance of E.O. 14284. Employees may pursue such claims at the EEOC to the same extent they could do so before issuance of E.O. 14284.
Additionally, when OPM adjudicates an appeal, it will do so based on the written record without the need of extensive discovery. However, where OPM determines additional information is necessary, it may conduct an investigation or audit into an agency's termination action. An appellant will not have a right to a hearing, but OPM may conduct one only when necessary and where it will aid in the efficient resolution of an appeal. Lastly, the proposed rule provides a procedure for an appellant to seek reconsideration of the decision.
Since the dawn of the modern civil service, it has been widely recognized—by courts, by OPM, and by OPM's predecessor agency, the Civil Service Commission—that Federal employees serving a probationary or trial period had far more limited procedural rights regarding their terminations than other Federal employees.
“Probation” comes from the Latin “probatio,”
The concept of a probationary, or trial, period in the U.S. civil service dates to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883 (Pendleton Act). The Pendleton Act required “that there shall be a period of probation before any absolute appointment or employment aforesaid.”
In 1910, the Court of Claims explained in the case of
With the enactment of the Lloyd-Lafollette Act of 1912, Congress created the first legislative codification of protection against removal for civil servants. The Act established “[t]hat no person in the classified civil service of the United States shall be removed therefrom except for such cause as will promote the efficiency of said service.”
After the passage of the Lloyd-La Follette Act and the court's decision in
By 1922, the Commission expressed concerns that too few probationers were being terminated and that agencies were not adequately using the probationary period as a screening mechanism.
The Veterans Preference Act of 1944 expanded civil service protections beyond the Lloyd-La Follette Act to preference eligible Federal employees, but it explicitly excluded probationers.
For a brief period of time starting in 1958, the Civil Service Commission instituted a rule granting broader appeal
The passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) formed the basis of the current law governing probationary employment. The relevant language, unchanged since 1978, provides the President with substantial authority to issue regulations
In addition, the CSRA gives OPM extensive discretion in regulating probationary periods. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1301, “The Office of Personnel Management shall aid the President, as he may request, in preparing the rules he prescribes under this title for the administration of the competitive service.” Under 5 U.S.C. 1104(a)(1): “the President may delegate, in whole or in part, authority for personnel management functions, including authority for competitive examinations, to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management.” Further, OPM “shall establish standards which shall apply to the activities of the Office or any other agency under authority delegated under subsection (a) of this section.”
As a general matter, “Congress wrote the statute it wrote,” and “[t]hat congressional election settles” questions of interpretation. See
Concerns that agencies have not been effectively utilizing probationary periods have continued into the 21st century. In 2005, the MSPB reported to the President and to Congress that Federal agencies were failing to use the probationary period to assess and remove probationers.
In 2015, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report regarding Federal workforce performance.
To this day, poor performance in the civil service has not been adequately addressed. OPM's 2024 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey indicated that 40 percent of Federal employees reported that poor performers in their units would usually “[r]emain in the work unit and continue to underperform[.]”
President Trump sought to address this longstanding issue when he signed E.O. 14284, “Strengthening Probationary Periods in the Federal Service,” on April 24, 2025.
Section 4 of E.O. 14284 also revoked the termination and appeal procedures under subpart H of part 315 of this chapter. These procedures, which applied upon initial appointment to a career career-conditional competitive service position, included the requirement for agencies to provide, at a minimum, written notice of the agency's conclusions as to the inadequacies of an employee's performance or conduct when terminating an employee during a probationary period; procedures and bases for appealing a termination during a probationary period; and the authority of the MSPB to adjudicate appeals. Under Civil Service Rule 11.6 (5 CFR 11.6), the President delegated authority to the Director of OPM to issue rulemaking on the circumstances and procedures for employees to appeal their termination from a probationary or trial period.
Prior to E.O. 14284, OPM established through regulation the circumstances and procedures for appealing terminations during an employee's probationary period. Congress defined the term “employee” for purposes of identifying who could appeal certain adverse actions to the MSPB to exclude employees serving a probationary or trial period.
Likewise, Congress did not establish through statute the circumstances under which supervisors and managers failing their probationary period have the right to appeal their assignment to nonsupervisory or nonmanagerial positions.
OPM proposes to establish limited grounds for employees serving a probationary period in the competitive service to appeal their terminations. Under these proposed regulations, such employees will be able to challenge their terminations for alleged discrimination based on partisan political reasons or marital status. These limited grounds of appeal for probationary terminations reflect the historical principle that probationary periods serve as a critical evaluation phase for new Federal employees, and thus that agencies should enjoy great flexibility in separating employees serving probationary or trial periods. Some non-veteran excepted service employees may qualify for appeal rights under other regulatory or legal provisions not covered by this rule. It should also be noted that excepted service employees serving in an appointment in the excepted service outside of part 307 of this chapter did not have such appeal rights unless otherwise entitled by statute, and OPM is maintaining that policy. Providing limited grounds of appeal also ensures agencies adhere to the Merit System Principles and corrects agency actions taken contrary to these principles consistent with OPM's statutory authority.
OPM proposes modifying its regulations in 5 CFR chapter I, subchapter B, by amending part 315 and
OPM proposes to revise paragraph (f) of § 230.402 to identify the proposed part 751 regulations as the applicable appeal procedures for employees serving an emergency-indefinite appointment in a national emergency. The current references to §§ 315.804 and 315.805 are no longer valid after those sections were removed pursuant to E.O. 14284.
OPM proposes to update an invalid reference to subpart H of part 351 (which has been removed) in § 315.201(ato refer, instead, to 5 CFR part 11. OPM also proposes to revise paragraph (b) of § 315.908 such that OPM will adjudicate appeals by supervisors or managers assigned to nonsupervisory or nonmanagerial positions for failing a probationary period under subpart I of part 315.
OPM proposes to establish a new part 751 to incorporate many of the provisions rescinded by E.O. 14284. The proposed § 751.101(a) establishes a right to appeal to OPM for employees, as specifically defined at § 751.101(f), terminated during the probationary or trial period required under Civil Service Rule XI, or who are assigned to a nonsupervisory or nonmanagerial position for failure to complete a supervisory or managerial probationary period required under subpart I of part 315 of this chapter.
OPM believes that tasking its Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC) office with adjudication of probationer appeals will provide much needed clarity and efficiency. MSAC is not only equipped, but best positioned, to handle this task. MSAC is an external-facing organization within OPM with longstanding oversight and adjudicative functions. As part of those functions, MSAC provides employees with administrative procedural rights to challenge agency determinations without having to seek redress in Federal court. Distinct from MSPB, it has the infrastructure in place to adjudicate probationer appeals effectively without being subject to restrictions arising from the lack of a quorum. Specifically, “MSAC is responsible for ensuring that Federal agency human resources programs are effective and efficient and comply with merit system principles and related civil service regulations,”
Housing probationer appeals within MSAC (OPM's oversight and adjudicative body) would additionally separate the adjudicative function within OPM from OPM's policymaking function, which is housed in its Workforce Policy & Innovation (WPI) office.
Meanwhile, MSPB has been considerably backlogged due to a protracted period without a quorum that leaves employees and agencies in limbo. Between January 7, 2017, and March 3, 2022, and between April 10 and October 27, 2025, MSPB lacked a quorum, which prevented it from reviewing cases and resulted in a considerable backlog.
The proposed § 751.101(a) also establishes that an individual serving a probationary period does not have a right to appeal their termination under this part if the individual has completed one year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less and is not otherwise excluded by the provisions of that subpart. Instead, the appropriate procedures established under 5 CFR part 432 or 752 may apply unless otherwise excluded by the provisions of those parts. OPM notes that it has proposed to amend referenced provisions of 5 CFR parts 432 and 752 in its rulemaking under RIN 3206-AO80 (90 FR 17182); however, the cross-references proposed in this rule would be unaffected by the changes proposed in that rulemaking.
The proposed § 751.101(b) establishes the burden of proof as a “preponderance of the evidence” standard when establishing the timeliness of the appeal, OPM jurisdiction, and the appealable issues under § 751.101(c), and places that burden of proof on the employee.
The proposed § 751.101(c) establishes the appealable issues appellants may raise to OPM. These issues mirror those under subpart I and the now-rescinded subpart H 315 with one exception. OPM is not proposing to continue to allow appellants to attach complaints of discrimination that would otherwise be heard by the EEOC. OPM believes the EEOC is better suited to adjudicate these matters given its expertise in administering and overseeing the anti-discrimination laws. Removing these issues from the probationary or trial period appeals process would also improve the efficiency in resolving probationary and trial period termination appeals.
The proposed § 751.101(d) explains that no other issues may be appealed under this part.
The proposed § 751.101(e) establishes the procedures in this section as the sole and exclusive means for resolving appeals from terminations during probationary or trial periods consistent with E.O. 14284. The proposed § 751.101(f) defines the term “employee” to limit the scope of appeals to only those employees who
The CSRA “creates an integrated scheme of administrative and judicial review, wherein the Congress intentionally provided—and intentionally chose not to provide—particular forums and procedures for particular kinds of claims.”
The CSRA's review scheme is both “comprehensive and exclusive.”
The CSRA's review scheme is exclusive even when “the CSRA provides no relief,” and in fact, “precludes other avenues of relief.”
In contrast to covered employees, probationers generally do not enjoy the same guaranteed right to appeal termination decisions to the MSPB, as Congress excluded them from the definition of “employee[s]” for purposes of the CSRA's Chapter 75.
Therefore, the administrative review scheme provided in this regulation is the sole and exclusive means for a probationary employee to appeal his or her termination. The proposed § 751.102 establishes where appeals and reconsiderations are filed at OPM and a 30-day deadline from the effective date of the action from which appeal is taken. OPM is proposing to require appeals to be filed electronically and for all parties and their representatives to register with OPM's electronic filing system. However, OPM may exempt a party or representative from the electronic filing requirements for good cause shown. All appeals, reconsiderations, evidence, orders, decisions, and other documents generated by this process will be officially served through the electronic filing system absent an exception granted by OPM.
The proposed § 751.103(a), (b), and (c) establish the form, content, and deadlines of an employee's initial appeal, the agency's response, and the employee's reply. The proposed § 751.103(d) allows the employee, the employee's representative, and the agency to review the appellate record upon request. It also provides that any information provided by one party must be made available to the other parties.
The proposed § 751.104 prescribes the right for an employee to choose a representative subject to certain limitations. This language mirrors the limitations in 5 CFR 511.608; however it also restricts employees from providing representation while in a duty status.
The proposed § 751.105 establishes the procedures OPM will follow in adjudicating appeals. Paragraph (a) establishes a conflict-of-interest provision that precludes OPM personnel from adjudicating an appeal if the employee was subject to a covered action or served as a representative of an employee subject to a covered action during the preceding two years. Paragraph (b) provides for an administrative law judge to adjudicate an appeal filed by an OPM employee. In this proposal, OPM is adopting an approach similar to that used by the MSPB at 5 CFR 1201.13 to adjudicate appeals arising from its employees. Paragraph (c) establishes a procedure for OPM to audit or investigate an agency's probationary or trial period termination to ascertain additional facts for use in adjudicating an appeal, similar to how OPM conducts classification appeals at 5 CFR 511.609. Where OPM conducts an audit or investigation to ascertain additional facts, it will provide the parties with the results and provide a reasonable opportunity to submit arguments or additional information in support of their positions. Paragraph (d) establishes that OPM will provide written notification of its decision. Paragraph (e) establishes OPM's authority to award remedies under its authority under 5 U.S.C. 1103(a)(5) and 5596(b). Where OPM grants an employee's appeal, it will order relief including correction of the personnel action and any back pay, interest, and reasonable attorney fees consistent with 5 CFR part 550 subpart H. Paragraph (e) also establishes that if an agency timely requests reconsideration of an initial decision or OPM reopens and reconsiders an initial decision, the agency must continue to provide the relief ordered unless OPM issued an order staying any such relief. OPM will not order a stay, however, that would deprive pay and benefits to a prevailing employee while the initial decision is pending reconsideration.
The proposed § 751.106 describes the process for sanctions and protective orders. MSPB procedures, while providing for protective orders, are inadequate to protect Federal employees from threats and harassment. While MSPB permits a party to petition the board for a protective order, it cannot, sua sponte, bind a party to a protective order without a motion. Instead, MSPB relies primarily on mutual consent of the parties, which allows for significant abuse by bad actors. The failure to preemptively issue an order provides ample opportunity to those who would channel unwarranted attention, harassing messages, and threats to Federal employees, who neither sought nor deserve public attention, merely for fulfilling their responsibilities. This failure should be corrected to protect rank and file Federal employees seeking to serve the public interest. However, unfortunately, to date, MSPB has proven itself unwilling to take necessary steps to protect Federal employees, who deserve to be fully protected from harassment. As such, OPM believes it would be prudent and provide much
The proposed § 751.107 establishes a procedure for employees or their representatives and agencies to seek reconsideration of an initial decision. Paragraph (a) establishes a timeline of 30 days from the date the decision is issued for a party to seek reconsideration. Paragraph (b) establishes the grounds upon which OPM may grant a request for reconsideration. Paragraph (c) establishes the actions OPM may take when an initial decision is reopened or reviewed. Paragraph (d) prescribes what actions OPM may take upon reopening or reconsidering an initial decision.
The proposed § 751.108 establishes that the Director may act at his or her discretion to reopen and reconsider any decision in which OPM issued a final decision.
The proposed § 751.109 describes the process by which OPM's initial decision becomes its final decision. The section proposes that initial decisions become final when neither party requests reconsideration within 30 days. It further proposes to convert a reconsidered opinion into a final decision 30 days following its issuance if the Director does not intercede but, in such cases, backdates the date on which the final decision becomes effective to the date on which the reconsidered opinion is issued. In instances in which the Director does intercede, this section proposes to define a final decision as effective as of the date on which the Director issues his or her decision.
OPM views this appellate process as necessary to ensure that the Director is able to sufficiently supervise adjudicators and avoid any serious constitutional concerns from having subordinate officials wield executive authority. Under Article II, the Constitution vests the executive power in the President who must rely upon subordinates to exercise his authority. Adjudicators assigned to adjudicate appeals under this proposed rule exert significant authority that must be properly supervised by a principal officer appointed by the President with Senate consent to avoid a constitutional problem.
OPM is also considering whether to amend Rule 11 (5 CFR part 11) to include certain provisions from E.O. 14284. Specifically, paragraphs (b)-(d) of Section 5 set forth certain procedures for agencies to follow as part of their certification process for continued employment of employees serving probationary or trial periods. For example, paragraph (b) of Section 5 requires agencies to meet with each employee serving an initial probationary or trial period at least 60 days prior to the end of their probationary or trial period. Although these provisions are already in effect and controlling, these procedures within E.O. 14284 are not currently reflected in Rule 11. OPM is considering whether incorporating these provisions into the regulations would provide administrative convenience for employees and human resources practitioners. OPM welcomes comments on whether and how it should modify Rule 11 to explicitly incorporate these provisions of Section 5(b)-(d) of E.O. 14284.
Finally, OPM proposes to modify its regulations under parts 432 and 752 to conform to E.O. 14284. The proposed changes in § 432.102 remove reference in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) to a trial period that employees in the competitive service may serve. Similarly, the proposed changes to §§ 752.201 and 752.401 remove references to trial periods for employees in the competitive service. Under E.O. 14284 and 5 CFR 11.2 and 11.3, employees in the competitive service serve probationary periods while employees in the excepted service serve trial periods. OPM also proposes modifying paragraph (f)(3) and adding a new (f)(4) to clarify that preference eligible and nonpreference eligible employees serving a trial period that have not completed one or two years of current continuous service, respectively, may not appeal an action under this part. These changes are consistent with and necessary to conform to E.O. 14284 and 5 CFR 11.5 that preclude employees serving a trial period from appealing an action under part 432 or failure of an agency to certify their appointment advances the public interest.
OPM is issuing this proposed rule to issue regulations under Section 11.6 of Civil Service Rule XI and 5 U.S.C. 1103. This proposed rule follows the issuance of E.O. 14284 which rescinded the regulations in subpart H of part 315 of this chapter, including the circumstances and procedures for filing an appeal from termination during a probationary period. Thus, the purpose of this rulemaking is to prescribe the circumstances under and procedures by which employees terminated from a probationary or trial period may appeal to OPM. OPM believes this rule balances the needs of promoting greater accountability of the Federal workforce while also providing an avenue for employees to appeal terminations they believe are contrary to some covered Merit System Principles, or when they believe an agency failed to follow procedures for terminations based upon pre-appointment reasons. The rule also proposes to streamline the adjudication of appeals currently before the MSPB which provide for legal discovery and a right to a hearing, which are neither necessary for reviewing these types of appeals nor conducive to the efficient administration of the civil service. This proposal would also give OPM jurisdiction over appeals from supervisors and managers assigned to nonsupervisory and nonmanagerial positions for failing their probationary period. This is necessary to streamline the procedures of all appeals related to probationary periods and promote consistency between how such probationary periods are treated.
An alternative to this rulemaking is a rule that would mirror the appeal rights and procedures under subpart H of part 315 including allowing employees to file appeals with the MSPB. Continuing to allow employees to appeal to the MSPB would not be as efficient as OPM adjudicating appeals. MSPB procedures unnecessarily add complexity to a process designed for Federal agencies to evaluate whether it is in the public's interest to retain employees newly hired into the Federal service. When appealing to the MSPB, employees have a statutory right to a hearing when the matter is within its jurisdiction.
OPM also considered whether to include an agency's failure to provide written notice required under 5 CFR 11.5(e) as a basis for appeal. OPM concluded that allowing an appeal on this basis would be unnecessary for two reasons. First, employees serving a probationary or trial period understand that, as a condition of employment, their employment will conclude before the end of their tour of duty on the last day of their appointment unless the agency issues the certification required under 5 CFR 11.5. Second, an agency's failure to adhere to a purely administrative requirement would not affect the outcome of the employee's separation.
Another alternative to this rulemaking is to not issue a rule that provides covered employees with a right to appeal. However, employees terminated during their probationary or trial periods would not be able to seek relief for discrimination based on partisan political reasons or marital status. Supervisors and managers reassigned to nonsupervisory or nonmaterial positions would still be allowed to appeal to the MSPB under subpart I of part 315, which OPM views as suboptimal given the efficiency gains from OPM adjudicating these appeals under its own authority.
We considered whether to include as a basis for appeal the circumstances described in the proposed § 751.101(d). We view an agency's inaction or decision not to finalize an employee's appointment beyond the probationary or trial period as the natural conclusion of the appointment akin to the expiration of a term employee's appointment.
We also conclude that granting employees a right to appeal the OPM Director's decision to deny an agency's petition to reinstate an employee to the Federal service under 5 CFR 11.5(f) is inappropriate. Consistent with our view that the employee's appointment naturally comes to an end as described in 5 CFR 11.5(a), the agency and not the employee retains the right to seek the OPM Director's approval to reinstate the employee. It would be inconsistent with E.O. 14284 and 5 CFR 11.5 to establish a right to challenge the OPM Director's decision to deny a petition from the agency given the nature of the employee's appointment and the lack of standing of the employee.
The proposed rule promotes greater accountability of the Federal workforce while delivering cost-savings to the American taxpayer. Streamlining the appeals process by reducing unnecessary legal processes to adjudicate a narrow set of appealable issues and locating adjudicative responsibilities at OPM would produce a net savings in terms of both costs and efficiency of government administration. Although employees who might otherwise obtain adjudication of collateral claims of discrimination would need to file complaints with the EEOC, the adjudication of those claims at the EEOC may result in better outcomes as the EEOC administers and oversees nearly all anti-discrimination laws protecting Federal employees. Employees seeking relief before the EEOC may also experience longer times to receive a decision given the number of cases pending charges at the end of Fiscal Year 2024.
This proposed rule, once finalized and in effect, would affect how Federal employees pursue appeals from terminations during their probationary or trial periods and reassignments to nonsupervisory or nonmanagerial positions. This proposal grants authority over adjudication of these appeals to OPM. The proposed rule also removes authority from the MSPB to adjudicate complaints of discrimination that could attach to appeals from terminations during a probationary period.
The grant of adjudicative responsibility to OPM will likely result in net cost savings for the Government for two reasons. First, the proposed rule streamlines the adjudicative process by replacing discovery with an as-needed investigation or audit conducted by OPM. The parties will no longer have a right or ability to conduct discovery which can result in extensive, needless costs, including time spent on document production, depositions, and written discovery, each of which involve extensive costs in time and resources for the Government. It also eliminates an employee's right to a hearing in favor of decisions based on the written record unless OPM determines that a hearing is both necessary and will result in an efficient adjudication. Second, the rule locates the adjudicative function at OPM, resulting in significant cost savings based on a reduction in personnel salaries as detailed below.
Based on the most recent publicly available annual report of the MSPB, 622 employees filed appeals from their terminations during their probationary or trial periods and reassignments to nonsupervisory or nonmanagerial positions in Fiscal Year 2024.
OPM estimates that this rulemaking will require individuals employed by more than 80 Federal agencies including the MSPB and EEOC to modify their regulations, policies, and procedures to implement this rulemaking and train human resources (HR) practitioners, hiring managers, attorneys, and
To comply with the regulatory changes, affected agencies would need to review the final rule and update their regulations, policies, and procedures. We estimate that, in the first year following publication of the final rule, doing so will require an average of 100 hours of work by employees with an average hourly cost of $154.76. This work would result in estimated costs in that first year of implementation of about $15,476 per agency, and about $1.2 million governmentwide.
OPM believes this rulemaking will not substantially increase the cost to agencies in litigating terminations during employees' probationary or trial periods and reassignments to nonsupervisory or nonmanagerial positions. OPM first calculated the cost of shifting complaints of discrimination raised in probationary appeals from the MSPB to the EEOC. OPM assumes that an extremely conservative rate of 100% of appellants (457) also seek counseling with their agency's EEO office. OPM expects that an existing EEO Specialists would process employees' complaints of discrimination at the rate in 2025 for GS-12, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($114,923 annual locality rate and $55.07 hourly locality rate) with about 16 hours of pre-complaint processing for each complaint.
After the EEO pre-complaint process, OPM estimates that 174 complaints will proceed to an investigation. OPM assumes that the complaint processing will be performed by EEO Specialists paid at the rate in 2025 for GS-12, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($114,923 annual locality rate and $55.07 hourly locality rate), to perform a total of 30 hours of investigative work for each complaint. OPM also assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $110.14 per hour. OPM estimates that the total cost to the Federal Government for EEO investigations is approximately $575,000.
Following the investigative stage, OPM assumes that 76 complaints will proceed to a final agency decision while 30 will be adjudicated by an EEOC administrative judge. In drafting and issuing a final agency decision, OPM estimates that agencies will employ one EEO Specialist paid at the rate in 2025 for GS-12, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($114,923 annual locality rate and $55.07 hourly locality rate) to perform 12 hours of work to draft the decision; and one EEO Director paid at the GS-15, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($189,950 annual locality rate and $91.06 hourly locality rate) to perform 4 hours of work to review and sign the decision. OPM also assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $110.14 and $182.04 per hour, respectively. OPM estimates that the total cost to the Federal Government to issue 76 final agency decisions is approximately $156,000.
Assuming all probationer appeals result in a report of discrimination and assuming probationer appellants proceed through the EEOC process in rates similar to employees solely raising discrimination claims, the number of complaints filed with the EEOC would rise no greater than 6.5% based on the most recent publicly available data.
OPM also estimates that 12 of the 30 complaints adjudicated will be appealed to the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations. OPM assumes that an EEOC attorney paid at the rate in 2025 for GS-14, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486 annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate) will draft and issue the opinion, requiring 6 hours of work per appeal. OPM also assumes that an EEOC paralegal paid at the GS-11, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($95,878 annual locality rate and $45.94 hourly locality rate) will assist the attorney, requiring 2 hours of work. OPM also assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $154.76 and $91.88 per hour, respectively. Thus, OPM calculates that the total cost to adjudicate 12 appeals is approximately $13,350.
During the course of processing the 457 complaints, OPM assumes agencies will require the use of agency attorneys to advise their EEO offices as well as defend against the 30 complaints and 12 appeals. OPM estimates that an attorney paid at the rate in 2025 for GS-13, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($136,658 annual locality rate and $65.48 hourly locality rate) will advise agency EEO offices on average 8 hours per complaint. OPM also estimates that an attorney paid at the rate in 2025 for GS-13, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table, will defend the agency on average 60 hours per complaint that proceeds to a hearing and 24 hours per appeal. OPM also assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed
OPM also examined the costs of an adjudication at the MSPB as compared to OPM. MSPB employs administrative judges at the GS-15 grade level to adjudicate appeals. We assume that each probationary appeal requires one administrative judge paid at the rate in 2025 for GS-15, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($189,950 annual locality rate and $91.02 hourly locality rate); and one paralegal at the GS-11, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($95,878 annual locality rate and $45.94 hourly locality rate). We assume that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $182.04 and $91.88 per hour for these respective positions. We estimate that each initial appeal of a termination from a probationary appeal requires 3 and 1 hour for an administrative judge and paralegal to adjudicate an appeal, respectively. A Chief Administrative Judge requires about an hour to review four cases. Based on these assumptions, we estimate the cost for MSPB to adjudicate an appeal at about $700 per appeal or $316,000 per year for 457 appeals, the average number of appeals over the preceding three-year period.
In contrast, adjudicating appeals at OPM will require adjudicators at the rate in 2025 for GS-13, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($136,658 annual locality rate and $65.48 hourly locality rate); paralegals at the GS-11, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($95,878 annual locality rate and $45.94 hourly locality rate); and supervisory adjudicators at the GS-14, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486 annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate), to adjudicate 457 appeals each year. We assume that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $130.96, $91.88, and $154.76 per hour for the respective positions above. We estimate that each appeal will require 30 hours of work performed by an adjudicator, 1 hour of work by a paralegal, and 1 hours of work by a supervisory adjudicator. On average, probationer appeals require very limited time commitments to process because most cases are dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Nonetheless, for cases where there is jurisdiction, OPM expects that OPM adjudication will require less time than an MSPB adjudication due to several factors. OPM expects that cases will rarely require a hearing and that most cases will be decided on the written record. OPM's proposed process also does not provide for discovery, which is often provided in cases before the MSPB. In addition to requiring less time commitment, OPM expects to have employees at lower pay rates adjudicate the cases with review by supervisors rather than using higher-paid attorneys to adjudicate cases as the MSPB does. Based on these assumptions, we estimate the cost to adjudicate an appeal at $640 and $290,000 per year to adjudicate 457 appeals. This results in a net, recurring savings of about $25,000 from adjudicating appeals at OPM as opposed to MSPB.
MSPB estimates that it receives petitions of review of approximately 11% of decisions on appeal. Therefore, we assume that employees in 46 of the 457 cases adjudicated will seek reconsideration of an initial decision issued by OPM. With respect to the costs for the MSPB to adjudicate petitions for review from initial appeals, we estimate that each petition requires the Chairman and one Member of the MSPB
Reconsideration under the proposed rule at OPM will require a GS-14 adjudications officer, not involved in the initial decision, at the rate in 2025 for GS-14, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486 annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate); the Associate Director of MSAC at the rate for a Senior Executive Service member at $225,700 ($108.15 hourly rate). We assume that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $154.76, and $216.30 per hour for the respective positions. We estimate that each appeal on reconsideration will require 4 hours of work performed by the adjudications officer and 1 hour of work by the Associate Director for MSAC. OPM estimates that a very small number (
OPM also estimated costs to agencies to defend against probationary appeals filed at the MSPB and OPM. OPM estimates that agencies employ one attorney paid at the rate of a GS-14, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($161,486 annual locality rate and $77.38 hourly locality rate); one paralegal paid at the GS-11, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($95,878 annual locality rate and $45.94 hourly locality rate); and one supervisory attorney paid at the rate of GS-15, step 5, from the Washington, DC, locality pay table ($189,950 annual locality rate and $91.06 hourly locality rate) to defend against appeals and petitions for review filed at the MSPB. OPM assumes that agencies will employ the same positions paid at the same rates of pay for appeals filed at OPM under the proposed rule. OPM further assumes that the total dollar value of labor, which includes wages, benefits, and overhead, is equal to 200 percent of the wage rate, resulting in an assumed labor cost of $154.76, $91.88, and $182.04 per hour for the respective positions above. However, OPM estimates that the amount of labor required to defend agencies will be lower under the proposed rule. OPM
In summary, OPM calculates increased costs associated with moving discrimination claims to the EEOC at approximately $2.6 million. Estimated costs associated with MSPB continuing to adjudicate probationer and trial period appeals at $1.759 million versus estimate costs of adjudicating those cases at OPM at $1.373 million, yielding savings of $386,000. These savings partially offset the cost of moving discrimination claims to the EEOC. After considering the costs detailed above, we estimate the first-year costs to be about $3.5 million governmentwide with recurring annual costs to the Federal Government of approximately $2.3 million.
In addition to the direct cost savings this proposed rule would generate, OPM expects that the faster adjudication of appeals will result in additional benefits. First, receiving a timely decision on an appeal will provide an individual with a clear determination of whether the individual will be reinstated. Agencies will similarly benefit as the streamlined appeal procedures proposed in this rule remove the default requirement for a hearing before a MSPB administrative judge and eliminate protracted, costly legal discovery between an appellant and agency. Second, a timely decision on appeal will allow the government to limit backpay and attorney's fees in instances where the individual was removed in error.
Because appeals will be limited to discrimination based on partisan political reasons or marital status, and failure to follow procedures for terminations based upon pre-appointment reasons, OPM also anticipates that the proposal will result in improved efficiency of the service by freeing agencies' resources for facilitating an ongoing assessment of whether new positions or new hires are meeting the needs of the government. A study by the MSPB found that the success of probationary periods' ability to find and assess talent to meet agencies' missions and the Federal service is dependent upon supervisors' ability to evaluate new talent and take appropriate action to prevent less than successful candidates from becoming Federal employees.
The Director of the Office of Personnel Management certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule involves adjudicative authority of Federal agencies to adjudicate appeals filed by current and former Federal employees. While small entities representing current or former Federal employees will be impacted by the change in venue for appeals and complaints of discrimination, the procedures employed by the OPM and EEOC will not cause significant economic impacts on these small entities.
OPM has examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules with effects of $100 million or more in any one year. This rulemaking does not reach that threshold but has otherwise been designated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563.
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 10, 1999), it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and (b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Feb. 7, 1996).
This rulemaking will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted annually for inflation with the base year 1995). Thus, no written assessment of unfunded mandates is required.
This regulatory action will not impose any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OPM is reviewing its existing System of Records Notices (SORNs) in light of the changes proposed in this rulemaking. OPM will publish any proposed changes to any relevant SORNs in the
The Director of OPM, Scott Kupor, reviewed and approved this document and has authorized the undersigned to electronically sign and submit this document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
Civil defense, Government employees.
Government employees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR parts 230, 315, 432, 751, and 752 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, 3302. E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729. Sec. 230.402 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104.
(f)
(1) The first year of service of an emergency-indefinite employee is a probationary period.
(2) The agency may terminate the appointment of an emergency-indefinite employee at any time during the probationary period. The employee is entitled to the procedures set forth in part 751 of this chapter as appropriate.
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3301, and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218, unless otherwise noted; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729. Secs. 315.601 and 315.609 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 3651 and 3652. Secs. 315.602 and 315.604 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 1104. Sec. 315.603 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 8151. Sec. 315.605 also issued under E.O. 12034, 43 FR 1917, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p.111. Sec. 315.606 also issued under E.O. 11219, 30 FR 6381, 3 CFR, 1964-1965 Comp., p. 303. Sec. 315.607 also issued under 22 U.S.C. 2560. Sec. 315.608 also issued under E.O. 12721, 55 FR 31349, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 293. Sec. 315.610 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3304(c). Sec. 315.611 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3304(f). Sec. 315.612 also under E.O. 13473, 73 FR 56703, 3 CFR, 2009 Comp., p. 241. Sec 315.613 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 9602. Sec. 315.710 also issued under E.O. 12596, 52 FR 17537, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 264.
(a)
(b) An employee who alleges that an agency action under this subpart was based on partisan political affiliation or marital status may appeal to the Office of Personnel Management using the procedures in 5 CFR part 751.
5 U.S.C. 4303, 4305. E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729.
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(f)
(1) An employee in the competitive service who is serving a probationary period under an initial appointment;
(2) An employee in the competitive service serving in an appointment that requires no probationary period, who has not completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or similar positions under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(3) A preference eligible employee in the excepted service who has not completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or similar positions;
(4) A nonpreference eligible employee in the excepted service who has not completed 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment (see 5 CFR 213.104(a)) limited to 2 years or less;
5 U.S.C. 1103, 1302, 3301, 3302, 3321, 5596. E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729. 5 CFR 11.6.
(a)
(1) An employee may appeal to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM):
(i) Termination during a probationary period required under 5 CFR part 11 or other authority administered by the Office, and
(ii) Assignment to a nonsupervisory or nonmanagerial position for failure to complete a supervisory or managerial probationary period required under subpart I of part 315 of this chapter.
(2) An individual serving a probationary period does not have a right to appeal their termination under this part if the individual has completed one year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less. Such individual may have a right to appeal under the provisions of 5 CFR 432.106 or 752.405, as appropriate, provided that such appeal is not excluded by the provisions of § 432.102(b), (d), and (f) and 752.401(b) and (d) of this chapter.
(b)
(1) The timeliness and form of the written appeal,
(2) That OPM possesses jurisdiction over the appeal, and
(3) The agency's action was discriminatory based on partisan political reasons or marital status or failed to follow the procedures for terminating the employee for reasons based in whole or in part on conditions arising before the employee's appointment.
(c)
(i) Termination not required by statute,
(ii) Assignment to a nonsupervisory or nonmanagerial position under 315.907 of this chapter,
(iii) An agency's decision not to certify the continuation of the appointment of an employee serving a probationary or trial period, or
(iv) An agency's failure to certify and finalize the appointment of an employee serving a probationary or trial period.
(2)
(i) advance written notice stating the reasons, specifically and in detail, for the proposed action;
(ii) a reasonable time for filing a written answer to the notice of proposed adverse action and for furnishing affidavits in support of his or her answer. If the employee answers, the agency shall consider the answer in reaching its decision; and
(iii) a written decision at the earliest practicable date delivered at or before the effective date of the action. The decision shall inform the employee of the reasons for the action, the right to appeal to OPM, the need to include documented supporting facts, and time limits within which the appeal must be submitted under this Section.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) to the competitive service as described in 5 CFR 11.2 who has not completed one year of current continuous service under other than a temporary appointment limited to one year or less;
(2) to the competitive service and serving a probationary period on an initial appointment to a supervisory or managerial position under subpart I of part 315 of this chapter;
(3) to the competitive service under an emergency-indefinite appointment in a national emergency serving a probationary period under subpart D of part 230 of this chapter and who is in the first year of service; or
(4) to the excepted service before the end of their first year on an initial appointment under part 307 of this chapter. Employees serving in an appointment in the excepted service outside of part 307 are not covered under this section and, therefore, may not appeal a termination during their trial period unless otherwise entitled by statute.
(a)
(b)
(1) In computing the number of days allowed for filing an appeal, the first day counted is the day after the effective date of an Agency action. If the date that ordinarily would be the last day for filing falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the filing period will include the first workday after that date.
(2) If an employee does not file an appeal within the time set by this section, the appeal will be dismissed as untimely filed unless the employee demonstrates good cause for an untimely appeal. The determination of good cause will be in the sole and exclusive discretion of OPM.
(c)
(1) All parties and their representatives to an appeal or reconsideration must register as instructed by OPM on its probationary appeals website using a unique email address.
(2) Registration as an e-filer constitutes consent to accept electronic service of pleadings, evidence, notices, orders, and other documents filed by other e-filers or issued by OPM. No party may electronically file any document with OPM or access an appeal or reconsideration of an appeal unless registered as an e-filer.
(3) All notices, orders, decisions, and other documents issued by OPM, as well as all documents filed by parties, will be made available for viewing and downloading at OPM's electronic filing system. Access to documents is limited to the parties and their representatives who are registered e-filers in the cases in which they were filed.
(4) All parties and their representatives must follow the instructions on OPM's website for properly filing all pleadings, evidence, and other documents. OPM may strike a document where an e-filer repeatedly fails to follow these instructions subsequent to a show cause order.
(5) Each e-filer must promptly update their profile in OPM's electronic filing system and notify OPM and other parties of any change in their address, telephone number, or email address by filing a pleading in each pending case with which they are associated. E-filers are responsible for monitoring case activity regularly in OPM's electronic filing system to ensure that they have received all case-related documents.
(6) A party or representative may withdraw their registration as an e-filer pursuant to the requirements posted on OPM's website. Withdrawing registration in OPM's electronic filing system means that, effective upon OPM's processing of a proper withdrawal, pleadings, evidence, orders, and other documents filed by a party or party's representative and OPM will no longer be served on that person electronically and that person will no longer have electronic access to their case records through OPM's electronic filing system. OPM may still process an appeal or request for reconsideration after a party withdraws as an e-filer. Withdrawal as a party or party's representative will not be considered good cause for staying a case. As the e-file system is the only accepted method for filing an appeal, a withdrawal of registration as an e-filer may preclude future re-registering as an e-filer.
(7) OPM, in its sole and exclusive discretion, may exempt a party or representative from registering as an e-filer for good cause. A party or representative must promptly contact OPM as instructed on OPM's website to request an exemption from the e-filing requirements in this Part. OPM will not find good cause for failing to timely file an appeal or seek reconsideration if the party or representative fails to contact OPM to request an exemption before any deadline to appeal or seek reconsideration.
(8) Documents filed in OPM's electronic filing system are deemed
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
An appellant may select a representative of his or her choice to assist in the preparation and presentation of an appeal, provided that the appellant submits his or her designation of representative in writing related to the specific appeal. If the selected representative is a Federal employee, the representative may not perform such representational functions while in a duty status (including while on official time under 5 U.S.C. 7131), nor may the representative claim agency reimbursement for any expenses incurred while performing such representational function. OPM or the responsible agency may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, disallow an appellant's choice of representative when the representative is an employee of the responsible agency or OPM and his or her activities as a representative would cause a conflict of interest or position; that employee cannot be released from his or her official duties because of the priority needs of the Government; or that employee's release would give rise to unreasonable costs to the Government.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Inform the employee, the employee's representative, and the agency of an investigation or audit, and
(2) Provide the employee, the employee's representative, and the agency with the results of an investigation or audit, and a reasonable opportunity to submit arguments or additional information to support their positions.
(d)
(e)
(1) If the employee is the prevailing party, OPM will order relief including correction of the personnel action and any back pay, interest, and reasonable attorney fees consistent with subpart H of part 550 of this chapter. The employee as a prevailing party is not entitled to compensatory damages or other relief not authorized under 5 U.S.C. 5596(b).
(2) If the agency timely requests reconsideration of an initial decision or the OPM reopens and reconsiders an initial decision, the agency must continue to provide the relief ordered unless OPM issues an order staying any such relief. No such stay may be ordered that would deprive pay and benefits to the employee while the initial decision is pending reconsideration.
(a)
(b)
(1) Draw all inferences in opposition to the noncompliant party with regard to the appeal in question;
(2) Prohibit the noncompliant party from introducing evidence, or additional evidence, concerning the appeal, or otherwise relying on the record; or
(3) Eliminate from consideration any appropriate part of the filings or other submissions of the noncompliant party.
(a) Upon a request from either party to the dispute or upon its own initiative, OPM may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, reopen and reconsider an initial decision issued under this subpart. An employee, the employee's representative, or agency may request reconsideration of an initial decision within 30 calendar days from issuance of the decision. The request for reconsideration must be filed as directed in the initial decision.
(b) Grounds for which OPM may grant a request for reconsideration are:
(1) The initial decision contains erroneous findings of material fact sufficient to warrant an outcome different from that of the initial decision;
(2) The initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case. The party must explain how the error affected the outcome of the case;
(3) New and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the party's due diligence, was not available when the record closed. To constitute new evidence, the information contained in the documents, not just the documents themselves, must have been unavailable despite due diligence when the record closed; or
(4) OPM finds good cause to reconsider an appeal.
(c) In any case that is reopened or reviewed, OPM may:
(1) Issue a reopened and reconsidered decision (“R&R decision”) that affirms, reverses, modifies, vacates, or otherwise decides the case, in whole or in part;
(2) Require the parties to submit argument and evidence;
(3) Take any other action necessary for final disposition of the case; and
(4) Issue an order with a date for compliance with the R&R decision.
(d) There is no further right of administrative appeal from the R&R decision.
The Director may, at his or her discretion,
(a) The initial decision becomes OPM's final decision if a party does not request OPM to reopen or reconsider the initial decision, or OPM does not do so on its own initiative, within 30 calendar days from the date of the initial decision.
(b) A R&R decision pursuant to § 751.107 becomes OPM's final decision if the OPM Director does not reopen the decision pursuant to § 751.108 within 30 calendar days from the date on which the R&R decision was issued.
(c) A decision by the Director pursuant to § 751.108 is the final decision of OPM and effective upon issuance.
(d) There is no further right of appeal of a final decision of OPM.
(e) OPM shall maintain a publicly accessible website containing all final decisions issued on this part that address a party's claim on the merits. Any final decision not made publicly available shall be made available upon request by a concerned party. For purposes of this subsection,
5 U.S.C. 6329b, 7504, 7514, 7515, and 7543; 38 U.S.C. 7403. Sec. 512, Pub. L. 114-328, 130 Stat. 2112; E.O. 10577, 19 FR 7521, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; E.O. 14284, 90 FR 17729.
(b) Employees covered. This subpart covers:
(1) An employee in the competitive service who has completed a probationary period, or who has completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or similar positions under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(2) An employee in the competitive service serving in an appointment which requires no probationary period, and who has completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or similar positions under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less;
(c) * * *
(1) A career or career conditional employee in the competitive service who is not serving a probationary period;
(2) * * *
(i) Who is not serving a probationary period under an initial appointment; or
(d) * * *
(10) A nonpreference eligible employee serving a trial period under an initial appointment in the excepted service pending conversion to the competitive service, unless he or she meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(5) of this section;
(11) * * *
(12) An employee in the competitive service serving a probationary period, unless he or she meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; revised guidelines.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is proposing to amend its guidelines relating to heightened standards for insured national banks, insured Federal savings associations, and insured Federal branches (Guidelines) to increase the average total consolidated assets threshold for applying the Guidelines from $50 billion to $700 billion. In addition, the proposal would clarify certain compliance dates and make other technical amendments.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 2, 2026.
You may submit comments to the OCC by any of the methods set forth below. Commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Please use the title “OCC Guidelines Establishing Heightened Standards for Certain Large Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and Insured Federal Branches” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
Go to
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this action by the following method:
•
Go to
The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.
Eden Gray, Assistant Director, Martin Chavez, Counsel, Elijah Jenkins, Counsel, Chief Counsel's Office, (202) 649-5490, 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.
The 2008 financial crisis demonstrated the destabilizing effect that large, interconnected financial companies can have on the national economy, capital markets, and the overall financial stability of the banking system. Following the financial crisis, the OCC developed a set of “heightened expectations” to enhance the agency's supervision and strengthen the governance and risk management practices of large institutions.
The Guidelines apply to “covered banks.” The term “covered bank” means any insured national bank, insured Federal savings association, or insured Federal branch of a foreign bank with: (i) average total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion; (ii) average total consolidated assets less than $50 billion if that bank's parent company controls at least one covered bank; and (iii) average total consolidated assets less than $50 billion if the OCC determines such bank's operations are highly complex or otherwise present a heightened risk.
The Guidelines provide that a covered bank should establish and adhere to a formal, written risk governance framework that includes well-defined risk management roles and responsibilities for front line units, independent risk management, and internal audit, commonly referred to as the “three lines of defense.”
The OCC recognizes that the Guidelines, as currently formulated, establish prescriptive standards for banking organizations. For instance, the Guidelines articulate highly specific roles and responsibilities for front line units, independent risk management, and internal audit. These include, for example, provisions that: (i) specify when independent risk management should convey material risks and noncompliance with the risk governance framework to the Chief Executive Officer, the board, or the board's risk committee;
The prescriptiveness of the Guidelines is also apparent in the standards that they establish for the board. For instance, the Guidelines impose certain standards on boards related to “credible challenge,”
Since the Guidelines were adopted in 2014, the OCC has acquired significant experience regarding the burdens and benefits of the Guidelines on covered banks. Considering the extreme prescriptiveness of the Guidelines and their associated burden on covered banks, the OCC believes that the standards may only be justified for the largest and most complex institutions as their size, complexity, and risk profile pose the greatest risk to financial stability and the banking system. Accordingly, the OCC believes that it is appropriate to increase the average total consolidated assets threshold for applying the Guidelines to covered banks from $50 billion to $700 billion and requests comment on other potential revisions and improvements to the Guidelines in light of their prescriptive and burdensome approach.
By generally excluding institutions with average total consolidated assets less than $700 billion (Excluded Institutions) from the Guidelines' scope,
The OCC also expects that this proposal would facilitate innovation and development in risk management practices by providing Excluded Institutions with the latitude to develop new ways of managing risk that are more efficient and effective. For instance, the OCC supports banking organization efforts to use new technologies and techniques in a safe and sound manner to identify and manage risks. These innovative technologies and techniques may be used, for example, to identify suspicious or anomalous transactions, facilitate textual analysis of consumer complaint data, or enhance cybersecurity by detecting malicious activity, identifying compromised systems, and supporting threat mitigation. Excluded Institutions' innovations in risk management have the potential to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their risk management efforts, improve employee performance, and reduce the cost of regulatory compliance, thereby providing banking organizations with the ability to further optimize their cost structure. This would allow Excluded Institutions to invest their financial resources in other endeavors such as product and service development, upgrades to information technology systems and infrastructure, and customer service improvements.
Similarly, the proposal would enhance the effectiveness of Excluded Institutions' boards by allowing them to refocus on executing their core responsibilities. A board's core responsibilities include, but are not limited to, overseeing the execution of the firm's strategy, understanding and overseeing the firm's material risk exposures, and exercising effective oversight of senior management. Rather than expending effort to satisfy the Guidelines' prescriptive standards, the proposal would provide Excluded Institutions' boards with more time to fulfill their core responsibilities which, when executed effectively, promotes their firms' safety and soundness.
Consistent with the OCC's risk-based supervision approach,
The OCC believes that it is critical that examiners and institutions prioritize material financial risks over concerns related to policies, process, documentation, and other nonfinancial risks. This proposal reflects the OCC's judgment and experience that its supervisory resources are best focused on practices that are likely to materially harm an institution's financial condition, such as risks that are more likely than other risks to lead to material financial losses, bank failures, and instability in the banking system. This means that, for Excluded Institutions, the OCC will no longer focus on assessing a firm's internal policies, processes, or governance practices relative to prescriptive standards. Rather, the OCC expects Excluded Institutions to establish and maintain internal policies, processes, or governance practices that are best suited to their firm and consistent with safety and soundness.
By further distinguishing applicable risk governance standards based on size, complexity, and risk profile, this proposal appropriately recognizes the fact that banks with average total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $50 billion differ in the degree of risk they present. Under the proposal, the Guidelines' enhanced risk governance standards would continue to apply to the largest, most complex banking organizations that present the greatest risk to financial stability and the banking system. The proposal would no longer include Excluded Institutions within the Guidelines' scope and would provide them with the ability to design and implement a risk governance framework that is consistent with safety and soundness and tailored to their individual operations. In addition, this proposed change would reduce regulatory burden and enable the OCC to optimize the deployment of its supervisory resources. As set forth below, the OCC requests comment on other potential revisions and improvements to the Guidelines given their prescriptive and burdensome approach.
The OCC also proposes certain technical amendments to the Guidelines.
The OCC invites comment on all aspects of the proposed revisions to the Guidelines and the following specific questions:
Alternatively, should the OCC provide a conditional exclusion from the Guidelines for a “covered bank” that applies as long as the bank remains “well capitalized” and “well managed,” as those terms are defined in 12 CFR 5.3? If so, why, and, if not, why not?
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
The Guidelines contain recordkeeping requirements previously approved by OMB, which are found in 12 CFR part 30, appendix D. Appendix D establishes minimum standards for the design and implementation of a risk governance framework and minimum standards for a board in providing oversight of the framework's design and implementation. Appendix D also addresses, in part, the responsibilities of front line units, independent risk management, and internal audit, as well as banks' strategic plan, risk appetite statement, concentration and front line unit risk limits, risk limit breaches, risk data aggregation and reporting, talent management processes, and compensation and performance management programs. Standards for the board include training and annual self-assessments.
Under the proposal, the threshold for applying the Guidelines to a bank would be increased from $50 billion to $700 billion in average total consolidated assets. The proposal would implement this change by modifying the Guidelines' definition of “covered bank.” Under this revised definition, the term “covered bank” would mean any insured national bank, insured Federal savings association, or insured Federal branch of a foreign bank: (i) with average total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $700 billion; (ii) with average total consolidated assets less than $700 billion if that bank's parent company controls at least one covered bank; or (iii) with average total consolidated assets less than $700 billion if the OCC determines such bank's operations are highly complex or otherwise present a heightened risk. The proposed revisions would revise the number of respondents required to comply with the Guidelines' recordkeeping requirements.
The following revised information collection was submitted to OMB for review.
(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.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
For these reasons, the OCC certifies that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, an initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. The OCC currently supervises 609 small entities based on the SBA's definition of small entities for RFA purposes. As discussed in the
The OCC has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).
The OCC estimates that this proposal would not require additional expenditures from OCC-regulated institutions. As discussed in the
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994,
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023
The OCC is proposing to amend its Guidelines relating to heightened standards for insured national banks, insured Federal savings associations, and insured Federal branches to increase the average total consolidated assets threshold for applying the Guidelines from $50 billion to $700 billion. In addition, the proposal would clarify certain compliance dates and make other technical amendments.
The proposal and the required summary can be found at
Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget to determine whether a proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” prior to the disclosure of the proposed rule to the public. If OIRA finds the proposed rule to be a “significant regulatory action,” Executive Order 12866 requires the OCC to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule and for OIRA to conduct a review of the proposed rule prior to publication in the
OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is an economically significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, was subject to review under Executive Order 12866. The OCC's analysis conducted in connection with Executive Order 12866 is available at
This proposed rule would apply to any insured national bank, insured Federal savings association, or insured Federal branch of a foreign bank: (i) with average total consolidated assets equal to or greater than $700 billion; (ii) with average total consolidated assets less than $700 billion if that bank's parent company controls at least one covered bank; or (iii) with average total consolidated assets less than $700 billion if the OCC determines such bank's operations are highly complex or otherwise present a heightened risk.
The most probable cost savings for Excluded Institutions may result from staffing reductions that reduce duplicative roles and responsibilities. For example, Excluded Institutions may consider streamlining their staffs' roles and responsibilities as they may have established redundant risk management processes across lines of defense. While Excluded Institutions' efforts to seek greater operational efficiencies may result in staff reductions, the OCC notes that this outcome likely depends on idiosyncratic, institution-specific characteristics. For example, some Excluded Institutions, such as those
In addition to potential staff reductions, Excluded Institutions may also experience time savings benefits associated with personnel that no longer devote time to complying with the Guidelines. The OCC estimates annual time savings of approximately 3,776 hours per Excluded Institution.
There may also be indirect savings and indirect costs associated with the proposal. With respect to indirect savings, increasing the average total consolidated assets threshold as proposed may, on the margin, affect institutions' strategic asset size decisions. However, any cost savings associated with this potential development may be minimal and the net impact is uncertain. With respect to indirect costs, increasing the average total consolidated assets threshold could lead Excluded Institutions to devote fewer resources to maintaining adequate risk governance and risk management practices. However, this risk should be low because the proposal does not modify the OCC's supervisory oversight or standards
The OCC's analysis indicates a lower and upper bound of aggregate potential cost savings from expected staff reductions and time savings of approximately $13 million and $233 million, respectively. The OCC estimated a range of potential outcomes based on different approaches and operational and strategic decisions by institutions. For example, the OCC's analysis indicates aggregate cost savings from both expected staff reductions and time savings ranging from $54 million to $123 million, using an assumption of a 10 percent staff reduction. The OCC preliminarily concludes that the most plausible outcome is a 10 percent staff reduction with the assumption that the three largest banks not subject to the Guidelines would not change their behavior. In this scenario, the potential cost savings from both expected staff reductions and time savings would amount to approximately $67 million.
There are no explicit mandates in the proposal for OCC-supervised institutions. Excluded Institutions' operational and strategic decisions will ultimately determine the impact of the proposal over the long term.
Executive Order 14192, entitled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” requires that an agency, unless prohibited by law, identify at least ten 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 ten prior regulations. The OCC expects the proposed rule as finalized will be a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192 because, as explained elsewhere, the final rule should have total costs less than zero.
Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, National banks, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety and soundness.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 93a, chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1, 93a, 371, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831p-1, 1881-1884, 3102(b) and 5412(b)(2)(B); 15 U.S.C. 1681s, 1681w, 6801, and 6805(b)(1).
The revision and additions read as follows:
1. A covered bank with average total consolidated assets, as calculated according to paragraph I.A. of these Guidelines, equal to or greater than $700 billion as of [EFFECTIVE DATE] should be in compliance with these Guidelines on [EFFECTIVE DATE].
2. A covered bank with average total consolidated assets, as calculated according to paragraph I.A. of these Guidelines, less than $700 billion that is a covered bank because that bank's parent company controls at least one other covered bank as of or subsequent to [EFFECTIVE DATE] should be in compliance with these Guidelines on the date that such other covered bank should comply.
3. A covered bank that does not come within the scope of these Guidelines on [EFFECTIVE DATE], but subsequently becomes subject to the Guidelines because average total consolidated assets, as calculated according to paragraph I.A. of
4. A bank with average total consolidated assets, as calculated according to paragraph I.A. of these Guidelines, equal to or greater than $50 billion but less than $700 billion as of [EFFECTIVE DATE] is not a covered bank, provided it does not meet the definition of a covered bank set forth at paragraph I.E. of these Guidelines, and should no longer comply with these Guidelines on [EFFECTIVE DATE].
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The OCC is proposing to issue a preemption determination concluding that federal law preempts state laws that eliminate OCC-regulated banks' flexibility to decide whether and to what extent to (1) pay interest or other compensation on funds placed in real estate escrow accounts; or (2) assess fees in connection with such accounts. This preemption determination would provide much needed clarity to banks and other stakeholders.
Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2026.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Please use the title “Preemption Determination: State Interest-on-Escrow Laws” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
Go to
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this action by the following method:
•
Go to
The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.
Karen McSweeney, Special Counsel, Graham Bannon, Counsel, Priscilla Benner, Counsel, and Harry Naftalowitz, Attorney, 202-649-5490; 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.
The dual banking system, which is “made up of parallel federal and state banking systems” that “co-exist and compete,” is foundational to the American financial system.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the National Economic Council (NEC) recently recognized the
Given that federal preemption has long been a critical feature of the dual banking system, the OCC is well positioned to support the Administration's preemption efforts. For example, in response to the DOJ and NEC request for comment, banking industry commenters specifically highlighted state laws that eliminate banks' flexibility to decide whether and to what extent to pay interest or other compensation on funds placed in escrow accounts (interest-on-escrow laws), observing that these laws could cause banks to increase mortgage prices or even reduce their mortgage lending.
To provide much needed clarity, the OCC is proposing to issue a preemption determination addressing state interest-on-escrow laws. Specifically, this preemption determination would conclude that (1) the National Bank Act
New York's Gen. Oblig. Law section 5-601 requires “mortgage investing institutions” to pay “dividends or interest at a rate of not less than two per centum per year . . . or a rate prescribed by the [New York] superintendent of financial services” on escrow account balances. This statutory obligation applies whenever the institution “maintains an escrow account pursuant to any agreement executed in connection with a mortgage on any one to six family residence occupied by the owner or on any property owned by a cooperative apartment corporation” located in New York.
The U.S. Constitution provides that federal law is the supreme law of the land and contrary state law is preempted.
In 2024, in
In
In
In
In
The Supreme Court has also recognized that when a state law does not prevent or significantly interfere with the national bank's exercise of its powers, it is not preempted.
In
While the Supreme Court precedent discussed above does “not purport to establish a clear line to demarcate” which state laws are and are not preempted by federal law, they offer a lens through which the standard comes into focus.
As part of Dodd-Frank, Congress addressed National Bank Act preemption, primarily with respect to “State consumer financial laws,”
Specifically, Dodd-Frank provides that the OCC may issue a preemption determination by regulation or order on a case-by-case basis, which means that the determination may address the impact of (1) a particular state consumer financial law; and (2) the law of any other state with substantively equivalent terms. When making a determination that the law of another state has substantively equivalent terms, the OCC must first consult with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and take its views into account. In addition, Dodd-Frank requires that the preemption determination be supported by “substantial evidence, made on the record of the proceeding.”
National banks “are instrumentalities of the Federal government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily subject to the paramount authority of the United States.”
Real estate lending has been core to the business of national banks for over 100 years. Congress has specifically authorized national banks to “make, arrange, purchase or sell loans or extensions of credit secured by liens on interests in real estate, subject to . . . such restrictions and requirements as the Comptroller of the Currency may prescribe by regulation or order.”
The OCC is concurrently proposing a regulation to codify national bank's authority to establish and maintain escrow accounts and to clarify that the terms and conditions of any such escrow account, including the investment of escrowed funds, fees assessed for the use of such accounts, or whether and to what extent interest or other compensation is calculated and paid to customers whose funds are placed in the escrow account, are business decisions to be made by each national bank in its discretion.
Contrary to the flexibility granted by federal law as proposed to be codified by the OCC, New York's interest-on-escrow law dictates a minimum interest national banks must pay on funds held in escrow accounts and generally prohibits them from assessing related service charges, regardless of whether paying this interest or assessing such charges is consistent with the bank's business judgment. As such, the nature and degree of interference caused by the New York interest-on-escrow law is “more akin” to the interference identified in at least three of the antecedent cases where the Court found preemption:
Similarly, in
Moreover, while
These cases make clear that New York's interest-on-escrow law prevents or significantly interferes with a national bank's exercise of federally authorized powers. The conflict is especially clear in light of the OCC's proposed escrow rule.
In addition, much like the state law in
As federal courts have recognized, “ `the level of interference that gives rise to preemption under the [National Bank Act] is not very high.' ”
In addition to New York, at least 11 other states have interest-on-escrow laws that purport to apply to national banks: California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
The OCC invites comments on all aspects of this proposed preemption determination. The OCC specifically requests comment on whether there are any additional laws that have substantively equivalent terms to New York's law, including regarding the payment of interest-on-escrow or the assessment of related fees.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The OCC currently supervises 1,005 institutions (national banks, Federal savings associations, and branches or agencies of foreign banks),
In general, the OCC classifies the economic impact on an individual small entity as significant if the total estimated impact in one year is greater than 5 percent of the small entity's total annual salaries and benefits or greater than 2.5 percent of the small entity's total non-interest expense. Furthermore, the OCC considers 5 percent or more of OCC-supervised small entities to be a substantial number, and at present, 30 OCC-supervised small entities would constitute a substantial number. While the proposed rule would impact all OCC-supervised small entities, it would likely result in some cost savings for those institutions. Therefore, the OCC certifies that this proposed preemption determination, if adopted, will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The OCC has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).
This proposal imposes no new mandates and would likely result in a decrease in expenditures from OCC-supervised entities that may elect not to pay interest on funds held in escrow accounts. Therefore, the OCC concludes that this proposal determination, if finalized, would not result in an expenditure of $187 million or more annually by any State, local, and Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA) of 1994,
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023
The OCC is proposing to issue a preemption determination concluding that federal law preempts state laws that eliminate OCC-regulated banks' flexibility to decide whether and to what extent to (1) pay interest or other compensation on funds placed in real estate escrow accounts; or (2) assess fees in connection with such accounts. This preemption determination would provide much needed clarity to banks and other stakeholders.
The proposal and required summary can be found for the OCC at
Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), OMB, to determine whether a proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” prior to the disclosure of the proposed rule to the public. If OIRA finds the proposed rule to be a “significant regulatory action,” Executive Order 12866 requires the OCC to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule and for OIRA to conduct a review of the proposed rule prior to publication in the
OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to review under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” requires that an agency, unless prohibited by law, 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
Accounting, Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth-in-lending.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of 12 U.S.C. 93a, chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1
(a)
(b)
(1) Cal. Civ. Code § 2954.8;
(2) Conn. Gen. Stat. § 49-2a;
(3) Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 33, § 504; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 9-B, § 429;
(4) MD. Comm. Law Code Ann. § 12-109, § 12-109.2;
(5) Mass. Gen. L. ch. 183, § 61;
(6) Minn. Stat. Ann. § 47.20, subd. 9;
(7) N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-601;
(8) OR. Rev. Stat. § 86.245; § 86.250;
(9) R.I. Gen. Laws § 19-9-2;
(10) Utah Code Ann. § 7-17-3;
(11) Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 8, § 10404;
(12) Wis. Stat. §§ 138.051; 138.052; and
(13) The laws of any other state with substantively equivalent terms.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The OCC is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking to codify longstanding powers of national banks and Federal savings associations (collectively, banks) to establish or maintain real estate lending escrow accounts and to exercise flexibility in making business judgment as to the terms and conditions of such accounts, including whether and to what extent to offer any compensation or to assess any fees related thereto.
Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2026.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Please use the title “Real Estate Lending Escrow Accounts” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
Go to
•
•
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this action by the following method:
•
Go to
The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.
Karen McSweeney, Special Counsel, Graham Bannon, Counsel, and Priscilla Benner, Counsel, Chief Counsel's Office, 202-649-5490; 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.
Real estate lending has been core to the business of national banks for over 100 years and of Federal savings associations for their entire existence of over 90 years. Banks are a key pillar supporting homeownership and commercial real estate in the U.S. In order for banks to engage in effective and efficient real estate lending, they use a variety of tools to safely and soundly manage the associated risks. Mortgages have several features that set them apart from most of banks' other extensions of credit, including that they are typically overcollateralized and the collateral is unique, is often illiquid, and can be subject to acts of nature that rapidly depreciate its value. As such, a significant risk in mortgage lending is related to a bank's ability to assess, manage, and preserve the underlying collateral.
From the lender's perspective, escrow accounts can ensure in advance that these payments will be met, which in turn enables the lender to protect the priority of its mortgage lien and the value of the collateral. Should a borrower fail to pay property taxes, for example, a tax lien is, in general, superior to the lender's mortgage lien.
From the borrower's perspective, escrow accounts can help the borrower budget for tax, insurance, and other payments.
In light of those benefits to both lenders and borrowers, escrow accounts are widely used. For example, approximately 80% of U.S. residential real estate mortgages use an escrow account.
The terms and conditions of escrow accounts, including whether and to what extent banks pay interest or other compensation, are ultimately a business judgment made by each bank in accordance with safe and sound banking principles. This discretion ensures that banks have the flexibility to make business decisions about how to effectively and efficiently set the terms and conditions of their escrow accounts, which allows them to appropriately balance the costs and benefits of these accounts and the risks and rewards of real estate lending more generally. As such, it is a core component of banks' mortgage lending powers under applicable law, including provisions of the Federal Reserve Act,
The Federal Reserve Act and HOLA, respectively, evince clear Congressional intent to provide banks with broad, discretionary real estate lending powers, which includes the flexibility to make business decisions about how to effectively and efficiently set the terms and conditions of escrow accounts. Each of these statutes also provides the OCC broad discretionary grants of rulemaking authority. Additionally, the flexibility to make business judgments concerning the investment and use of escrowed funds has long since been inherent to the business of banking codified in the National Bank Act. These practices are the logical outgrowth or functional equivalent of other longstanding permissible bank practices regarding collateral protection. They benefit the bank and its customers and are well within the types of risks national banks manage in the ordinary course of business.
National banks are authorized under the Federal Reserve Act to “make, arrange, purchase or sell loans or extensions of credit secured by liens on interests in real estate,” subject to requirements imposed by the OCC.
Likewise, residential mortgage lending is the central business of Federal savings associations.
Since the earliest days of the Federal banking system, courts have held that banks have wide latitude in managing and protecting property acquired in the usual course of banking, even where such activities are not otherwise permissible.
This history, and the statutory role of the OCC as the agency delegated discretion in enacting real estate lending regulations for both national banks and Federal savings associations, evince a clear Congressional intent to provide banks with broad, discretionary real estate lending powers.
This intent is clear too from the primary piece of Federal legislation governing escrow accounts. In the
Congress has largely refrained from interfering with the flexibility of banks in setting the terms and conditions of how escrowed funds are handled by the bank.
More generally, neither the Federal Reserve Act, HOLA, nor the National Bank Act displaces a national bank's or Federal savings association's general business judgment with respect to compensation paid to or fees assessed on customers. For example, no Federal law dictates or contemplates a minimum interest rate that national banks or Federal savings associations must pay on general deposit accounts. Additionally, a national bank's non-interest charges and fees are subject only to the bank's “discretion, according to sound banking judgment and safe and sound banking principles.”
Furthermore, national banks are permitted to engage in the business of banking more generally and “all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking.”
Given the discussion in the preceding section, the OCC has consistently taken the position that escrow accounts activities are part of the business of banking.
(i) Whether the activity is the functional equivalent to, or a logical outgrowth of, a recognized banking activity;
(ii) Whether the activity strengthens the bank by benefiting its customers or its business;
(iii) Whether the activity involves risks similar in nature to those already assumed by banks; and
(iv) Whether the activity is authorized for State-chartered banks.
Flexibility to exercise a national bank's business judgment as to how to structure its escrow operations and whether and what extent to offer any compensation to customers is a clear logical outgrowth of national banks' other powers to manage and protect collateral. As discussed above, courts have long recognized the wide latitude that banks have in the activities they may undertake in managing and protecting collateral on loans.
Flexibility to exercise a national bank's business judgment as to how to structure the financing of its escrow operations can also strengthen a national bank by benefiting its customers or its business. As noted above, this flexibility allows banks to defray the costs of providing escrow services, including coordinating payments by the customer to multiple different parties free of charge.
National banks also have a core competency in managing risks associated with fee structures and investing funds. In exercising its business judgment as to how to structure the financing of its escrow operations, a bank does not “assume[ ] material burdens other than those of a lender of money and is [not] subject to significant risks not ordinarily incident to a secured loan.”
Finally, roughly three quarters of states permit state-chartered banks flexibility to exercise their business judgment as to how to structure the financing of their escrow operations for residential real estate lending, either explicitly
As such, these statutory schemes make clear that the flexibility of banks to make the appropriate business judgment in structuring escrow accounts and investing related funds is a core component of banks' broad mortgage lending powers under applicable law. The OCC has broad authority to prescribe regulations that would codify this flexibility.
The proposed rule would amend the OCC's real estate lending and appraisals regulations applicable to national banks and its lending and investment regulations applicable to Federal savings associations to add a definition of “escrow account,” expressly codify banks' power to establish and maintain escrow accounts, and to clarify that the terms and conditions of escrow accounts, including the extent of any compensation paid to customers, are business decisions to be made by each bank. The OCC proposes to define “escrow accounts” used by national banks as an account established in connection with a loan or extension of credit secured by a lien on interest in real estate in which the borrower places funds for the purpose of assuring payment of taxes, insurance premiums, or other charges with respect to the property. The OCC proposes to define “escrow accounts” in substantially similarly terms in the context of Federal savings associations.
The OCC also proposes to codify national banks' escrow powers, including the flexibility such banks have as to how to organize and manage escrow accounts. Specifically, the OCC proposes to codify that (1) the powers of national banks include establishing and maintaining escrow accounts in connection with real estate loans; and (2) the terms and conditions of such escrow accounts (including, but not limited to, the investment of escrowed funds, fees assessed for the use of such accounts, and whether and to what extent interest or other compensation is calculated and paid to customers whose funds are placed in the escrow account) are business decisions to be made by each national bank in its discretion. The OCC proposes to codify these powers in the context of Federal savings associations in substantially similar terms.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
The OCC currently supervises 1,005 institutions (national banks, Federal savings associations, and branches or agencies of foreign banks),
In general, the OCC classifies the economic impact on an individual small entity as significant if the total estimated impact in one year is greater than 5 percent of the small entity's total annual salaries and benefits or greater than 2.5 percent of the small entity's total non-interest expense. Furthermore, the OCC considers 5 percent or more of OCC-supervised small entities to be a substantial number, and at present, 30 OCC-supervised small entities would constitute a substantial number. Since the proposed rule would affect all OCC-supervised institutions, a substantial number of OCC-supervised small entities would be impacted.
However, this proposed rulemaking imposes no new mandates, and thus no direct costs, on affected OCC-supervised institutions. Therefore, the OCC certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The OCC has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).
This proposed rulemaking imposes no new mandates, and thus no direct costs, on affected OCC-supervised institutions. Therefore, the proposal would not require additional expenditure by any State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $187 million or more in any one year.
Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (RCDRIA) of 1994,
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023
The OCC is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking to codify longstanding powers of national banks and Federal savings associations (collectively, banks) to establish or maintain real estate lending escrow accounts and to exercise flexibility in making business judgment as to the terms and conditions of such accounts, including whether and to what extent to offer any compensation or to assess any fees related thereto.
The proposal and required summary can be found for the OCC at
Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as amended, requires the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), OMB, to determine whether a proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” prior to the disclosure of the proposed rule to the public. If OIRA finds the proposed rule to be a “significant regulatory action,” Executive Order 12866 requires the OCC to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule and for OIRA to conduct a review of the proposed rule prior to publication in the
OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to review under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” requires that an agency, unless prohibited by law, 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. This proposed rule is a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192 because it would provide legal clarity (and therefore a potential reduction in legal-related costs) on how banks may structure the financing of their escrow operations and whether (and, if so, to what extent) to offer any compensation to customers or assess any fee.
Accounting, Banks, Banking, Consumer protection, Credit, Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Truth-in-lending.
Consumer protection, Investments, Manufactured homes, Mortgages, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations, Securities, Usury.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the OCC proposes to amend parts 34 and 160 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1
The revisions read as follows:
(b)
(d) National banks may establish or maintain escrow accounts. The terms and conditions of any such escrow account, including the investment of escrowed funds, fees assessed for the provision of such accounts, or whether and to what extent interest or other compensation is calculated and paid to customers whose funds are placed in the escrow account, are business decisions to be made by each national bank in its discretion.
12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1701j-3, 1828, 3803, 3806, 5412(b)(2)(B); 42 U.S.C. 4106.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) Federal savings associations may establish or maintain escrow accounts. The terms and conditions of any such escrow account, including the investment of escrowed funds, fees assessed for the provision of such accounts, or whether and to what extent interest or other compensation is calculated and paid to customers whose funds are placed in the escrow account, are business decisions to be made by each Federal savings association in its discretion.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and remove the Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface, at Denver International Airport, Denver, CO. Additionally, this action proposes an administrative modification to the airport's Class E airspace legal description. These actions would support the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the airspace proposed herein.
Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-5384 and Airspace Docket No. 25-ANM-152 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11K, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3460.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify Class E airspace to support IFR operations in Denver, CO.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Class E2 and Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, 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 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 transitional Class E airspace at Denver International Airport, Denver, CO, by expanding the portion of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface and removing the portion extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface.
The transitional Class E airspace at Denver serves Denver International Airport and also provides containment for IFR aircraft departing/arriving at Denver's surrounding airports. The Class E airspace at Denver extends to 17.8 miles south of Centennial Airport, Denver, CO, to provide containment for Centennial Airport's arriving IFR aircraft operations below 1,500 feet above the surface. The extension is not sufficient in size to fully capture the ZOMBZ SIX ARRIVAL Area Navigation (RNAV) procedure that guides aircraft arriving at Centennial Airport until established on an instrument arrival procedure (or otherwise). The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Denver should be extended approximately four miles to the south to better contain the ZOMBZ SIX ARRIVAL (RNAV) procedure. The portion of Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface at Denver should be removed, as the Denver Class E Domestic En Route Airspace provides sufficient containment and duplication is not necessary.
Finally, the legal description for Denver's Class E airspace extending upward from at least 700 feet above the surface uses the Denver Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) as its reference point (which is incorrectly listed as a VOR). In accordance with the VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) Implementation Program (81 FR 48694), the Denver VOR/DME should no longer be used to describe the airspace as it was selected for phase two discontinuance from the National Airspace System. A “Point of Origin” with identical geographical coordinates as the Denver VOR/DME should be used to describe the airspace in its place.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 28-mile radius of the Point of Origin, and within 13 miles west of the Point of Origin's 178° bearing extending to 37 miles south.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace area designated as a surface area for an airport and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan, AK. Additionally, this action proposes administrative modifications to the airport's Class E airspace legal descriptions. These actions would support the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before February 13, 2026.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-5579 and Airspace Docket No. 23-AAL-58 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3460.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan, AK.
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
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Class E2 and Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, 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 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 airspace area designated as a surface area for an airport and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ketchikan International Airport, Ketchikan, AK.
An airspace evaluation was conducted to analyze the airspace containment of a new special procedure at the airport. The evaluation identified several areas where the airspace at Ketchikan was not providing the minimum containment necessary for IFR operations within surface and transitional Class E airspace.
The Class E surface area airspace at the airport does not fully contain IFR departures until reaching the base of the next adjacent controlled airspace, nor does it fully contain the airport's approach procedures when operating less than 1,000 feet above the surface, with the only exception being the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS])-B approach procedure. FAA Order JO 7400.2,
The airspace review conducted on Ketchikan International Airport also revealed that its transitional Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface (Class E5) is not sized properly to contain arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface and departing IFR operations until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. The area immediately surrounding the airport should be expanded to a 4.3-mile radius to better contain the circling portions of the Localizer (LOC) X Runway (RWY) 11, RNAV (GPS)-B, and RNAV (GPS)-C approach procedures. The northwestern portion of the Class E5 airspace should be expanded approximately 3 miles and lengthened approximately 10 miles to better contain arriving and departing IFR operations when utilizing the Instrument Landing System (ILS) Y or LOC Y RWY 11, LOC X RWY 11, and WIGUL ONE DEPARTURE instrument flight procedures. The southeast portion of the Class E5 airspace should be expanded by approximately 2 miles, lengthened by approximately 1 mile, and re-oriented to the south by approximately 10 degrees to better contain arriving and departing IFR operations when utilizing the ILS Y or LOC Y RWY 11, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, ILS Z or LOC Z RWY 11, KETCHIKAN SIX DEPARTURE (Obstacle), ANNETTE THREE DEPARTURE (RNAV), DOOZI TWO DEPARTURE (RNAV), and UDENE THREE DEPARTURE (RNAV) procedures. Further transitional containment above 1,200 feet above the surface is provided by the “Southeast Class E6” airspace the extends upward from 1,200 feet above the surface.
Lastly, the airspace review identified administrative errors within the Ketchikan Class E airspace legal descriptions. Ketchikan's geographic location (airport reference point) should be updated to reflect the FAA's database, and the airspace areas should be described using the updated location. If adopted, this change would create a negligible shift in the airspace's lateral boundaries of approximately 700 feet. Additionally, Ketchikan's Class E airspace areas are partly described in relation to the Ketchikan LOC. Any reference to its LOC should be removed as it is no longer needed to describe the airspace. Furthermore, the Ketchikan Class E Surface Area Airspace contains a cut-out at the northwestern portion of the airspace near Ward's Cove that is
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 3-mile radius of the airport, within 1.1 miles northeast and 1 mile southwest of the airport's 136° bearing extending to 4 miles southeast, and within 1 mile either side of the airport's 316° bearing extending to 4.7 miles northwest, excluding that airspace within a boundary defined by a line beginning at Refuge Recreation Site, thence to Danger Island, to Wrong Benchmark, thence northeast along the Ward Cove shoreline to the airport's 355° bearing at 3 miles, thence to the point of beginning.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.3-mile radius, within 3 miles either side of the airport's 146° bearing extending to 10 miles southeast, within 2.2 miles either side of the airport's 316° bearing extending to 7.8 miles northwest, and within 3.5 miles either side of the airport's 316° bearing extending from 7.8 miles northwest of the airport to 20.2 miles northwest.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is proposing to amend its regulations in order to fully implement the Administrative False Claims Act (AFCA), as amended by the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. This updated rule establishes clear and comprehensive administrative procedures for investigating, evaluating, and imposing civil penalties and monetary assessments on individuals or entities that knowingly make, submit, or present false claims, representations, or misleading statements to NASA. The AFCA offers a streamlined, agency-level enforcement remedy that enables NASA to more effectively address smaller, lower-dollar fraud cases, safeguard critical Federal funds, and strongly deter fraudulent conduct.
NASA must receive comments on or before February 13, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by RIN 2700-AE79 through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Robert Vogt, 202-763-3659,
On December 23, 2024, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY 2025 NDAA) (Pub. L. 118-159) was signed into law. Under section 5203, the FY 2025 NDAA revitalizes an existing but underutilized fraud enforcement mechanism: the Administrative False Claims Act of 2023 (AFCA). This Act, previously known as the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, offers a streamlined administrative remedy for addressing false claims and statements that the Department of Justice (DOJ) opts not to prosecute. The new statute requires
E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. This rule is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action.
E.O. 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in the order, and NASA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect or federalism implications on the states and would not preempt any state law or regulation or affect the states' ability to discharge traditional state governmental functions. Therefore, consultation with the states is not necessary.
This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13175. NASA has determined that the removal of Subpart 1204.3 does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them; the funding and consultation requirements of E.O. 13175 do not apply.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.
No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
This rule will not impose a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
Administrative practice and procedure; Claims; Fraud.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NASA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 1264 as follows:
31 U.S.C. 3809, 51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
(a)
(e) * * *
(3) Made to the authority which has the effect of concealing or improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay, transmit or account for property, services, or money to the authority.
(g)
(l)
(m)
(1) Has actual knowledge that the claim or statement is false, fictitious, or fraudulent;
(2) Acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the claim or statement; or
(3) Acts in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the claim or statement and no proof of specific intent to defraud is required.
(p)
(1) In the case of an authority to which the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 apply, an ALJ appointed in the authority pursuant to section 3105 of such title or detailed to the authority pursuant to section 3344 of such title.
(2) If the authority is not subject to the provisions of Subchapter II of Chapter 5, Title 5, U.S.C. an officer or employee of the Authority who—
(i) Is appointed by the Authority head to conduct hearings under this part;
(ii) Is assigned to cases in rotation so far as practicable;
(iii) May not perform duties inconsistent with the duties and responsibilities of a presiding officer.
(iv) Is entitled to pay prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management independently of ratings and recommendations made by the authority and in accordance with Chapter 51 Title 5 and Subchapter III of Chapter 53 of Title 5;
(v) Is not subject to performance appraisal pursuant to Chapter 43 of Title 5; and
(vi) May be removed, suspended, furloughed, or reduced in grade or pay only for good cause established and determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board on the record after opportunity for hearing by such Board.
(3) A member of the board of contract appeals pursuant to section 7105 of title 41, if the Authority does not employ an available presiding officer under subparagraph (1) of this section.
(r)
(v) Is made to an authority which has the effect of concealing or improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay or transmit property, services, or money to the authority,
(2) Shall be subject, in addition to any other remedy that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $14,308 for each such claim.
(b) If the investigating official concludes that an action under the Administrative False Claims Act may be warranted, the investigating official shall submit a report containing the findings and conclusions of such investigation to the reviewing official.
(a) If, based on the report of the investigating official under § 1264.103(b), the reviewing official determines that there is adequate evidence to believe that a person is liable under the Administrative False Claims Act, and there is a reasonable prospect of collecting, from a person with respect to whom the reviewing official is referring allegations of liability in such notice, the amount for which such person may be liable, the reviewing official shall transmit to the Attorney General a written notice of the reviewing official's intention to issue a complaint under § 1264.106.
(b) * * *
(4) An estimate of the amount of money or the value of property, services, or other benefits requested or demanded in violation of the Administrative False Claims.
(a) * * *
(2) In the case of allegations of liability under § 1264.102(a) with respect to a claim, the reviewing official determines that, with respect to such claim or a group of related claims submitted at the same time such claim is submitted (as defined in paragraphs (b) of this section), the amount of money or the value of property or services demanded or requested in violation of § 1264.102(a) does not exceed $1,000,000.
(c) * * *
(1) Notice to Consent to the chairperson of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), or Designee, as presiding officer;
(c) * * *
(7) Scheduling dates for the exchange of witness lists, statements, and of proposed exhibits;
(d) * * *
(1) A party seeking discovery must file a motion with the presiding officer. Such a motion shall be accompanied by a copy of the discovery request or, in the cast of depositions, a summary of the scope of the proposed deposition.
(6) The presiding officer shall regulate the timing of discovery.
(b) * * *
(9) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information as directed by the presiding officer.
(a) Any amount collected under this chapter shall be credited first to reimburse the authority or other Federal entity that expended costs in support of the investigation or prosecution of the action, including any court or hearing costs; and amounts reimbursed under clause shall be deposited in:
(i) the appropriations account of the authority or other Federal entity from which the costs described in subparagraph (a) were obligated;
(ii) a similar appropriations account of the authority or other Federal entity; or
(iii) if the authority or other Federal entity expended nonappropriated funds, another appropriate account; and remain available until expended.
(b) Any amount remaining after reimbursements described in above shall be deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury of the United States.
(a) A notice to the person alleged to be liable with respect to a claim or statement shall be mailed or delivered in accordance with 14 CFR 1264.107 not later than the later of—
(1) 6 years after the date on which the violation is committed; or
(2) 3 years after the date on which facts material to the action are known or reasonably should have been known by the authority head, but in no event more than 10 years after the date on which the violation is committed.
(b) Such notice shall specify the allegations of liability against such person and shall state the right of such person to request a hearing with respect to such allegations.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a permanent safety zone for certain navigable waters of the Rio Grande River. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by cryogenics and structural tests of SpaceX rockets at their Massey's test site. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 29, 2026.
To submit comments and view available documents, go to the Federal Docket Management System at
If you have questions about this proposed rule, contact Lieutenant Timothy Cardenas, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-244-4784, or email
The Coast Guard has long monitored commercial spaceflight activities impacting the maritime domain and taken actions to ensure the safety of vessels, persons, and the marine environment. In conducting this activity, the Coast Guard engages with other government agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and private space operators, including Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX). Through this engagement, the Coast Guard became aware of an area within the Rio Grande River, known as the Massey's Test Site, which SpaceX uses for pre-launch static fire test operations. Potential hazards from activities at this site include accidental discharge of cryogenic fuel and test failures resulting in dangerous projectiles and falling hot embers or other debris. SpaceX conducts these tests weekly, with plans to increase test frequency. Testing frequency may be as often as daily by the end of 2025.
The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with static fire tests are a safety concern for anyone on the Rio Grande River within a half mile of the test site. While SpaceX does follow certain safety protocols during these tests, which include ensuring the area around the test site on the Rio Grande River is clear, the Coast Guard believes that a legally enforceable safety zone will provide a greater measure of safety. Therefore, the COTP is proposing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the safety zone. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
This proposed rule would establish a safety zone that would be activated during times when rocket testing is conducted. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters within a half mile radius of the testing facility. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
The area of the Rio Grande River that will be impacted by this safety zone is a shallow water area with little to no regular commercial or recreational vessel traffic. While it will not be possible to transit around the safety zone, any vessels needing to transit through this area will only be delayed for short periods of time as the zone will be activated immediately before a test operation, and will be cancelled once the operation is safely completed. The expected duration of each safety zone activation is between 4-6 hours. The Coast Guard will issue public advisories in advance of each safety zone activation so that persons transiting through this area on the Rio Grande may plan accordingly.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this proposed rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
This proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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 proposed rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 1(800)874-2143. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice to solicit nominees.
USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is seeking nominations for individuals to serve on the USDA Grain Inspection Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee meets no less than once annually to advise AMS on the programs and services it delivers under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (USGSA). Recommendations by the Advisory Committee help AMS better meet the needs of its customers who operate in a dynamic and changing marketplace.
AMS will consider nominations received by January 29, 2026.
Submit nominations for the Advisory Committee by completing form AD-755 and sending via email as an attachment to:
Anthony Goodeman, telephone (202) 720-0291 or email
As required by section 21 of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 87j), as amended, the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) established the Advisory Committee on September 29, 1981, to provide advice to the AMS Administrator on implementation of the USGSA. As specified in the USGSA, no member may serve, successively, for more than 2 terms.
The Advisory Committee consists of 15 members, appointed by the Secretary, who represent the interests of grain producers, processors, handlers, merchandisers, consumers, exporters, and scientists with expertise in research related to the policies in section 2 of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 74). While members of the Advisory Committee serve without compensation, USDA reimburses them for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, for travel away from their homes or regular places of business in performance of Advisory Committee service (
A list of current Advisory Committee members and other relevant information are available on the USDA website at:
The grain industry utilizes official inspection and weighing services for barley, canola, corn, flaxseed, oats, rye, soybeans, sorghum, sunflower seed, triticale, wheat, and mixed grain at various points throughout the marketing chain. AMS is seeking nominations for the Advisory Committee that will reflect the varied interest and experience from these different sectors of the grain industry from producer to exporter, including, but not limited to, grain producers, processors, merchandisers, handlers, exporters, consumers, grain inspection agencies and scientists. Therefore, when making recommendations for appointments, the industry must consider the varied interests of the population served and the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the members to serve a range of stakeholders.
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
The final selection of Advisory Committee members is made by the Secretary.
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 29, 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
If FNS decides to use the uniform grant application package, FNS will note in the grant solicitation that applicants must use the uniform grant application package and that the information collection has already been approved by OMB. If FNS chooses not to use the uniform grant application package or finds it necessary for grant applicants to submit extra information not included in the uniform package, FNS will issue a notice of at least 30 days inviting public comments on its plan to gather different or additional information be making a grant solicitation, unless this has already been addressed in earlier published notices.
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 29, 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
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 September 7, 2022, 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.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of standard ex-vessel prices.
NMFS publishes standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish and halibut for the calculation of the observer fee under the North Pacific Observer Program (Observer Program). This notice is intended to provide information to vessel owners, processors, registered buyers, and other Observer Program participants about the standard ex-vessel prices that will be used to calculate the Observer Program fee associated with landings of groundfish and halibut made in 2026. NMFS will send invoices to processors and registered buyers subject to the fee by January 15, 2027. Fees are due to NMFS on or before February 15, 2027.
The standard prices take effect on January 1, 2026.
Additional information about the Observer Program is available on NMFS Alaska Region's website at
For general questions about the observer fee and standard ex-vessel prices, contact Amy Hadfield at (907) 586-7376. For questions about the fee billing process, contact Tristan Mandeville at (907) 586-7231.
Regulations at 50 CFR part 679, subpart E, governing the Observer Program, require the deployment of NMFS-certified observers (observers) and electronic monitoring (EM) systems to collect information necessary for the conservation and management of the
The Observer Program includes two observer coverage categories: the partial coverage category and the full coverage category. All groundfish and halibut vessels and processors subject to observer coverage are included in one of these two categories. Defined at § 679.51, the partial coverage category includes vessels and processors that are not required to have an observer or EM at all times when fishing, and the full coverage category includes vessels and processors required to have all of their fishing and processing activity observed. Vessels and processors in the full coverage category arrange and pay for observer services from a permitted observer provider. Observer coverage and EM for the partial coverage category is funded through a system of fees based on the ex-vessel value of groundfish and halibut. Throughout this notice, the term “processor” refers to shoreside processors, stationary floating processors, and catcher/processors in the partial coverage category.
Pursuant to section 313 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NMFS is authorized to assess a fee on all landings accruing against a Federal total allowable catch (TAC) for groundfish or commercial halibut quota landings made by vessels that are subject to Federal regulations and not included in the full coverage category. A fee is only assessed on landings of groundfish from vessels designated on a Federal Fisheries Permit or from vessels landing individual fishing quota (IFQ) or community development quota (CDQ) halibut or IFQ sablefish. Within the subset of vessels subject to the observer fee, only landings accruing against an IFQ allocation or a Federal TAC for groundfish are included in the fee assessment. A table with additional information about which landings are subject to the observer fee is at § 679.55(c) and on page 2 of an informational bulletin titled “Observer Fee Collection” that can be downloaded from the NMFS Alaska Region website at
A fee equal to 1.65 percent of the ex-vessel value is assessed on the landings of groundfish and halibut subject to the fee. Ex-vessel value is determined by multiplying the standard price for groundfish by the round weight equivalent for each species, gear, and port combination, and the standard price for halibut by the headed and gutted weight equivalent. Standard prices are determined by aggregating prices by species, gear, and area grouping to arrive at an average price per pound for each grouping. NMFS reviews each vessel landing report and determines whether the reported landing is subject to the observer fee and, if so, which groundfish species in the landing are subject to the observer fee. All IFQ or CDQ halibut in a landing subject to the observer fee will be included in the observer fee calculation. For any landed groundfish or halibut subject to the observer fee, NMFS will apply the appropriate standard ex-vessel prices for the species, gear type, and port and calculate the observer fee associated with the landing.
Processors and registered buyers can access the landing-specific, observer fee information through the NMFS Web Application (
Under the fee system, catcher vessel owners split the fee with the registered buyers or owners of shoreside or stationary floating processors. While the owners of catcher vessels and processors in the partial coverage category are each responsible for paying their portion of the fee, the owners of shoreside or stationary floating processors and registered buyers are responsible for collecting the fees from catcher vessels and remitting the full fee to NMFS. Owners of catcher/processors in the partial coverage category are responsible for remitting the full fee to NMFS.
NMFS sends invoices to processors and registered buyers by January 15 of each calendar year. The total fee amount is determined by the sum of the fees reported for each landing at that processor or registered buyer in the prior calendar year. Processors and registered buyers must pay the fees to NMFS using eFISH. Payments are due by February 15 of each year. Processors and registered buyers have access to this system through a User ID and password issued by NMFS. Instructions for electronic payment are provided on the NMFS Alaska Region website at
This notification provides the standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish and halibut species subject to the observer fee in 2026. Data sources for ex-vessel prices include the following:
• For groundfish other than sablefish IFQ and sablefish accruing against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve, the State of Alaska's Commercial Fishery Entry Commission's (CFEC) gross revenue data, which are based on the Commercial Operator Annual Report (COAR) and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) fish tickets; and
• For halibut IFQ, halibut CDQ, sablefish IFQ, and sablefish accruing against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve, the IFQ Buyer Report that is submitted to NMFS annually by each registered buyer that operates as a shoreside processor and receives and purchases IFQ landings of sablefish and halibut or CDQ landings of halibut under § 679.5(l)(7)(i).
The standard prices in this notification were calculated using the following procedures for protecting confidentiality of data submitted to or collected by NMFS. NMFS does not publish any price information that would permit the identification of an individual or business. For NMFS to publish a standard price for a particular species-gear-port combination, the price data used to calculate the standard price must represent landings from at least four different vessels delivered to at least three different processors in a port or port group. NMFS has aggregated price data that are confidential because fewer than four vessels or three processors contributed data to a particular species-gear-port combination.
Table 1 shows the groundfish species standard ex-vessel prices that will be used to calculate the fee for 2026. These prices are based on the CFEC gross
The standard ex-vessel prices for groundfish were calculated by adding ex-vessel value from the CFEC gross revenue files for 2022, 2023, and 2024 by species, port, and gear category, and adding the volume (round weight equivalent) from the CFEC gross revenue files for 2022, 2023, and 2024 by species, port, and gear category, and then dividing total ex-vessel value over the 3-year period in each category by total volume over the 3-year period in each category. This calculation results in an average ex-vessel price per pound by species, port, and gear category for the 3-year period. Three gear categories were used for the standard ex-vessel prices: (1) non-trawl gear, including hook-and-line, pot, jig, troll, and others (Non-Trawl); (2) non-pelagic trawl gear (NPT); and (3) pelagic trawl gear (PTR).
CFEC ex-vessel value and volume data are available in the fall of the year following the year the fishing occurred. Thus, it is not possible to base ex-vessel fee liabilities on standard prices that are less than 2 years old. For the 2026 groundfish standard ex-vessel prices, the most recent ex-vessel value and volume data available are from 2024.
If a particular groundfish species is not listed in table 1, the standard ex-vessel price for a species group (if it exists in the management area) will be used. If price data for a particular species remained confidential once aggregated to the outside of Alaska (ALL) level, data are aggregated by species group (Flathead Sole; GOA Deep-water Flatfish; GOA Shallow-water Flatfish; GOA Skate, Other; and Other Rockfish). Standard prices for the groundfish species groups are shown in table 2.
If a port-level price does not meet the confidentiality requirements, the data are aggregated by port group. Port-group data for Southeast Alaska (SEAK) and the Eastern GOA excluding Southeast Alaska (EGOAxSE) also are presented separately when price data are available. Port-group data are aggregated by regulatory area in the GOA (Eastern GOA, Central GOA, and Western GOA) and by subarea in the BSAI (BS subarea and AI subarea). If confidentiality requirements are still not met by aggregating prices across ports at these levels, the prices are aggregated at the level of BSAI or GOA, then statewide (AK) and ports outside of Alaska (OTAK), and finally all ports, including those outside of Alaska (ALL).
Standard prices are presented separately for non-pelagic trawl and pelagic trawl when non-confidential data are available. NMFS also calculated prices for a “Pelagic Trawl/Non-pelagic Trawl Combined” (PTR/NPT) category that can be used when combining trawl price data for landings of a species in a particular port or port group will not violate confidentiality requirements. Creating this standard price category allows NMFS to assess a fee on 2026 landings of some of the species with pelagic trawl gear based on a combined trawl gear price for the port or port group. If confidentiality requirements are still not met with the PTR/NPT category, fixed and trawl gear prices are combined for an all-gear price.
If no standard ex-vessel price is listed for a species or species group and gear category combination in table 1, table 2, or table 3, no fee will be assessed on that landing. Volume and value data for that species will be added to the standard ex-vessel prices in future years, if the data become available and display of a standard ex-vessel price meets confidentiality requirements.
Table 3 shows the observer fee standard ex-vessel prices for halibut and sablefish. These standard prices are calculated as a single annual average price, by species and port or port group. Volume and ex-vessel value data collected on the 2025 IFQ Buyer Report for landings made from October 15, 2024 through September 30, 2025 were used to calculate the standard ex-vessel prices for the 2026 observer fee for halibut IFQ, halibut CDQ, sablefish IFQ, and sablefish landings that accrue against the fixed gear sablefish CDQ reserve.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will host an online meeting of the Area 2A Pacific halibut governmental management entities that is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Monday, January 12, 2026, from 11 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. Pacific Time, or 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
Ms. Angela Forristall, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: 503-820-2419.
The primary purpose of the online meeting is to prepare and develop recommendations for the 2026 International Pacific Halibut Commission's (IPHC) annual meeting held in Bellevue, Washington from January 19 through January 22, 2026. Recommendations generated from the 2A managers' meeting will be communicated to the IPHC by the Pacific Council's representatives. Attendees may also address other topics relating to Pacific halibut management.
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 Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of Information Collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 2, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Allyson Olds, Technical Editor, Alaska Region Sustainable Fisheries Division, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99801, 907-586-7228,
This is a request for renewal of an approved information collection. The collection is sponsored by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Alaska Regional Office (AKR) and is authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) 16 U.S.C.
This collection contains collection-of-information requirements necessary for the transfer of License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses for the commercial groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries. The purpose of this collection is to determine whether a transfer is eligible and if endorsements meet regulatory requirements for licensing and permits. An essential feature of the LLP is the ability for participants to transfer their LLP license. Without the ability to track the movement of LLP licenses, NMFS would be unable to effectively manage the LLP and administer the Pacific Cod Trawl Cooperative (PCTC) Program. The LLP restricts access to the commercial groundfish, crab, and scallop fisheries in the exclusive economic zone off Alaska, except for certain areas where alternative programs exist. The intended effect of the LLP is to limit the number of participants and reduce fishing capacity in fisheries off Alaska. More information on the LLP can be found on the NMFS Alaska Region website and at 50 CFR part 679.
An LLP license is required for vessels participating in directed fishing for LLP groundfish species in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) or Gulf of Alaska (GOA), or fishing in any BSAI LLP crab fisheries. An LLP license is also required for any vessel deployed in scallop fisheries in Federal waters off Alaska except for some diving operations.
Vessels participating in directed fishing for LLP groundfish species in the GOA or BSAI, or fishing in any BSAI LLP crab fisheries, must be named on a valid copy of the LLP license that is on board the vessel, with some exceptions. An LLP groundfish or crab license authorizes the license holder to deploy the vessel in fisheries in accordance with the specific area and species endorsements, the vessel and gear designations, the maximum length overall (MLOA) specified on the license, and any exemption from the MLOA specified on the license.
An LLP scallop license authorizes the person named on the license to catch and retain scallops in compliance with State of Alaska regulations using a vessel that does not exceed the MLOA specified on the license and the gear designation specified on the license. Unlike the LLP groundfish license, the scallop license is not vessel specific. A valid copy of the LLP scallop license must be on board the vessel.
For program definitions, refer to 50 CFR 679.2, for permit and licensing requirements for scallop refer to 50 CFR 679.4(g), for permit and licensing requirements for groundfish and crab refer to 50 CFR 679.4(k), for PCTC Program refer to 50 CFR 679 subpart L, and for prohibitions refer to 50 CFR 679.7(i). Additional information on the LLP can be found on the NMFS Alaska Region website at
This collection contains the Application for the transfer of groundfish and crab LLP licenses, the Application for the transfer of scallop LLP licenses, and the Transfer appeal. The applications for transfers are each filled by two respondents, the transferor and the transferee. The type of information collected includes information on the transferor, transferee, and the LLP license to be transferred, as well as information on the quota share to be transferred, the vessel currently named on the LLP license, the vessel to be named on the LLP license, and the ownership interest and transaction data. Information is collected as needed by the respondent and is used to determine whether a transfer is eligible and if endorsements meet regulatory requirements for licensing and permits. All of the forms can now be submitted electronically via email. There are no other changes to this collection.
The applications are available as fillable PDFs on the NMFS Alaska Region website and may be downloaded and emailed, printed, faxed, or delivered. The Application for the transfer of groundfish and crab LLP licenses is found at
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this information collection request. 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 may 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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice; public hearings and webinars.
The Gulf Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) will hold two webinars to solicit public comments on Reef Fish Amendment 62: Modifications to Gulf Red Grouper Management Measures.
The public hearing webinars will take place Thursday, January 15 and Tuesday, January 20, 2026. The webinars will begin at 6 p.m. EST and will conclude no later than 8 p.m. EST. For specific dates and times, see
Please visit the Gulf Council website at
Emily Muehlstein; Public Information Officer;
The agenda for the virtual public hearings is as follows: Council staff will begin with a brief presentation on Reef Fish Amendment 62 that modifies the Gulf Red Grouper overfishing limit, acceptable biological catch, and total annual catch limit, sector allocations, and sector annual catch limits, as well as considers removal of the February-March recreational Shallow-water Grouper closure in the Gulf.
Staff and a Council member will be available to answer any questions, and the public will have the opportunity to provide testimony on the amendment and other related testimony.
Thursday, January 15, 2026; via webinar
Tuesday, January 20, 2026; via webinar
Visit
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of reports, public meetings, and hearings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) has begun its annual preseason management process for the 2026 ocean salmon fisheries. This document announces the availability of Pacific Council documents, as well as the anticipated dates and locations of upcoming Pacific Council meetings and public hearings hosted by the Pacific Council. These documents and events comprise the Pacific Council's complete schedule for determining the annual proposed and final modifications to ocean salmon fishery management measures. The agendas for the March and April 2026 Pacific Council meetings will be published in subsequent
Written comments on the salmon management alternatives must be submitted through the Pacific Council's e-portal (
Written documents will be available upon request from the Pacific Fishery Management Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384, telephone: 503-820-2280 (voice) or 503-820-2299 (fax).
Ms. Angela Forristall, telephone: 503-820-2419.
Written comments on the salmon management alternatives must be submitted through the Pacific Council's e-portal (
Specific meeting information, including instructions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in meeting announcements on the Pacific Council's website (see
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the STT meeting agendas may come before the STT for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal STT action during these meetings. STT action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and to any issues arising after publication of this document requiring emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the STT's 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
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 March 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 Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.
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
National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), U.S. Department of Education.
Notice of Membership.
This notice lists the members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). This notice is required under Section 114(e)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA).
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202.
George Alan Smith, Ed.D., Executive Director/Designated Federal Official, NACIQI, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202, telephone: (202) 453-7757, or email
The NACIQI is established under Section 114 of the HEA, and is composed of a maximum of 18 members, who are appointed—
(A) On the basis of the individuals' experience, integrity, impartiality, and good judgment;
(B) From among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, representing all sectors and types of institutions of higher education; and,
(C) On the basis of the individuals' technical qualifications, professional standing, and demonstrated knowledge in the fields of accreditation and administration of higher education.
The NACIQI meets at least twice a year and advises the Secretary of Education with respect to:
• The establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2, part H of Title IV of the HEA;
• The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations;
• The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations;
• The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvements in such process;
• The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions; and
• Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary of Education may prescribe by regulation.
The term of office of each member is six years. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term.
The current members of the NACIQI are:
• Robert S. Eitel, J.D., President and Co-Founder, Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies, Alexandria, Virginia. Appointed by Secretary Linda E. McMahon.
• Joshua D. K. Figueira, J.D., Deputy General Counsel and Managing Director of the Office of Compliance, Risk, and Legal Affairs, Brigham Young University-Idaho, Rexburg, Idaho. Appointed by Secretary Linda E. McMahon.
• Jay P. Greene, Ph.D., Director of Research, Do No Harm, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Appointed by Secretary Linda E. McMahon.
• Adam Kissel, Visiting Lecturer, Formal Organizations Program, Trinity College (Hartford), Charleston, West Virginia. Appointed by Secretary Linda E. McMahon.
• Emilee Reynolds, Student Appointee, Western Carolina University, Lincolnton, North Carolina. Appointed by Secretary Linda E. McMahon.
• Steven Taylor, D.B.A., Director and Senior Fellow, Economic Mobility, Stand Together Trust, Charlottesville, Virginia. Appointed by Secretary Linda E. McMahon.
• Kathleen Sullivan Alioto, Ed.D., Strategic Advisor, Fundraiser, and Consultant, New York, New York, San Francisco, California, and Boston, Massachusetts. Appointed by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
• Roslyn Clark Artis, J.D., Ed.D., President, Benedict College, Columbia, South Carolina. Appointed by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
• Jennifer Blum, J.D., Principal, Blum Higher Education Advising, PLLC, Washington, DC. Appointed by Congressman Kevin McCarthy.
• Arthur E. Keiser, Ph.D., Chancellor, Keiser University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Appointed by Congressman Kevin McCarthy.
• Robert Mayes, Jr., CEO, Columbia Southern Education Group, Elberta, Alabama. Appointed by Congressman Kevin McCarthy.
• Robert Shireman, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation, Berkeley, California. Appointed by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
• Debbie Cochrane, Bureau Chief, California Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, Alameda, California. Appointed by Senator Chuck Schumer.
• Zakiya Smith Ellis, Ed.D., Principal, Education Counsel, Atlanta, Georgia. Appointed by Senator Chuck Schumer.
• Michael Poliakoff, Ph.D., President, American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Washington, DC. Appointed by Senator Mitch McConnell.
• Gary Ransdell, Ed.D., President Emeritus, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky. Appointed by Senator Mitch McConnell.
• José Luis Cruz Rivera, Ph.D., President, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Appointed by Senator Chuck Schumer.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 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 Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.
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.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 March 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 Carolyn Rose, (202) 453-5967.
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.
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal prior to making a decision on the project, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 20, 2026. Instructions for filing comments are provided on page 3.
The proposed project is an amendment to the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Certificate) issued by the Commission on March 17, 2011, as amended on November 17, 2016, and on April 23, 2020, in Docket Nos. CP10-22-000, CP16-18-000, and CP20-77-000, respectively. Currently, Magnum is authorized to construct and operate a natural gas storage facility with a total working gas capacity of 21 billion cubic feet (Bcf) consisting of two storage caverns, one brine disposal pond and associated facilities, compression facilities, a 61.6-mile-long, 36-inch-diameter header pipeline, and other related facilities. The proposed modifications consist primarily of changes to the locations of previously approved facilities and utilities at the storage site. Magnum also requests authorization to redesign two authorized caverns for 5.2 Bcf of working gas each and to construct and operate two additional storage caverns with 5.2 Bcf of working gas capacity each, one additional brine disposal pond and related facilities, and two new pipeline interconnections. Magnum's stated purpose is to modify its Certificate to reflect new construction, operational and commercial needs, and provide new competitive firm and interruptible natural gas storage, hub, and wheeling services in the Western United States.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the Amendment Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the Amendment Project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The Amendment Project includes the following facilities within the storage site:
• four below-ground, solution mined storage caverns (CW-3, CW-4, CW-25, and CW-26);
• two water supply wells (GS-MH-4 and GS-MH-5);
• compression, substation, and dehydration and metering facilities;
• two large-scale brine evaporation ponds (Pond 3 and Pond 5);
• maintenance and laydown area;
• office/warehouse building;
• site-wide utility corridors containing water, brine and power lines;
• portions of the 4-inch-diameter, about 9-mile-long gas supply line connected to the local gas distribution company;
• portions of the 36-inch-diameter, about 61.5 mile long header pipeline (Header) and associated block valves that extend from the Storage Site near Delta in Millard County to the interstate pipeline system near Goshen in Utah County;
• two interconnection options to the adjacent Kern River Delta Lateral (a recently constructed pipeline located just east of the Amendment Project); and
• two interconnection options to the Intermountain Power Plant (IPP—a newly constructed hydrogen and natural
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The EA is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this proceeding.
Your comments should focus on the EA's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the Amendment Project docket number (CP25-233-000) in your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing or judicial review of the Commission's decision. At this point in this proceeding, the timeframe for filing timely intervention requests has expired. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene out-of-time pursuant to Rule 214(b)(3) and (d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d)) and show good cause why the time limitation should be waived. Motions to intervene are more fully described 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
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for a subsequent license to continue to operate and maintain the Warren Hydroelectric Project No. 2391 (project). The project is located on the Shenandoah River, near the Town of Front Royal, in Warren County, Virginia. Commission staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 20, 2026.
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 Kristine Sillett at (202) 502-6575 or by email at
Take notice that on December 10, 2025, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.208 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Transco's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-426-000, for authorization to construct the Facilities Relocation Project (Project). The Project will relocate Transco's existing 400-foot-long, 30-inch-diameter segment of Mainline A; the existing 10-inch-diameter Harrison Lateral Pipeline; and existing aboveground facilities located in Town of Kearny, Hudson County, New Jersey to accommodate National Railroad Passenger Corporation's Sawtooth Project. The estimated cost for the Project is $ 23.8 million, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Antauis Byrd, Regulatory Analyst, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, by phone at (713) 215-3741, or by email
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2026. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-38-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP26-38-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Antauis Byrd, Regulatory Analyst, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC, Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 77251-1396, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that on December 10, 2025, Eastern Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (EGTS), 10700 Energy Way, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205(b), 157.208(b) and 157.213(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and EGTS's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-537-000, for authorization to construct and operate one new horizontal storage injection/withdrawal well (Well no.UW-211), about 405 feet of connecting pipeline, a pipeline drip, and water tanks. All of the above facilities are located in Fayette County, Pennsylvania. (North Summit Well Installation Project) The project will allow EGTS to optimize the capability of North Summit Field and maintain its storage services for existing customers. The estimated cost for the project is $10,615,000 all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Grace Pietro, Associate, Regulatory Analyst, 10700 Energy Way, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060, by phone at 804-613-5156 or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2026. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-37-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP26-37-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at Grace Pietro, Associate, Regulatory Analyst, 10700 Energy Way, Glen Allen, Virginia 23060, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator 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, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener 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.
k. This application has been accepted for filing but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l. T
m. A copy of the application is available for review via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online 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
n. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION
TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
When the application is ready for environmental analysis, the Commission will issue a public notice requesting comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, or prescriptions.
o.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for a subsequent license to continue to operate and maintain the Shenandoah Project No. 2509 (project). The project is located on the South Fork of the Shenandoah River near the Town of Shenandoah in Page and Rockingham, Counties, Virginia. Commission staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 20, 2026.
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
For further information, contact Kristine Sillett at (202) 502-6575 or by email at
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission 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, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on December 12, 2025, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National Fuel) 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and National Fuel's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-4-000, for authorization to (1) replace approximately 2.86 miles of its vintage 16-inch diameter Line C46S pipeline with modern, high strength, coated steel pipeline, (2) modernize two existing metering and regulating stations, and (3) install associated appurtenances. All of the above facilities are located in Erie County, New York (Line C46S 2026 Modernization Project). The project will allow National Fuel to modernize older sections of its pipeline system to continue to provide safe and reliable natural gas transportation services. The estimated cost for the project is $14.55 million all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this application should be directed to Meghan Emes, Senior Counsel, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, by phone at (716) 857-7004, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2026. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 17, 2026. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-41-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP26-41-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Meghan Emes, Senior Counsel, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation, 6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
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
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR. Part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for a new major license to continue to operate and maintain the Luray and Newport
The EA contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 20, 2026.
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 Kristine Sillett at (202) 502-6575 or by email at
Document, 2025-22553, appearing on pages 57436 through 57442, in the issue of Thursday, December 11, 2025, was inadvertently categorized and published as a “Proposed Rule” and is hereby recategorized as a “Notice”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (EPA ICR Number 1055.14, OMB Control Number 2060-0021) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before January 29, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0657, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Pesticide Data Call-Ins (EPA ICR Number. 2288.21, OMB Control Number 2070-0174) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before January 29, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0693, to EPA online at
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Carolyn Siu, Office of Program Support (Mail Code 7602M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1205; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Grain Elevators (EPA ICR Number 1130.14, OMB Control Number 2060-0082) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before January 29, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0066, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Muntasir Ali, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0833; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of all affected facilities subject to NSPS.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Safe Management of Recalled Airbags Rule (EPA ICR Number 2589.06, OMB Control Number 2050-0221) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before January 29, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2018-0646, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Tracy Atagi, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-0511; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Certification and Compliance Requirements for Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines (EPA ICR Number 1695.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0338) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before January 28, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPAHQ-OAR-2021-0329, to EPA online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Julian Davis, Attorney Adviser, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4029; fax number 734-214-4869; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Review of New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Rules for New and Existing Chemical Substances (EPA ICR Number 1188.16, OMB Control Number 2070-0038) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before January 29, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0728, to EPA online
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Katherine Sleasman, Office of Program Support (Mail Code 7602M), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1204; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR which is currently approved through December 31, 2025. 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.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Under TSCA section 5, EPA is authorized to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use and promulgate a significant new use rule (SNUR). In certain instances, persons may pursue a significant new use, thus they must submit a notice and undergo a review. TSCA section 5 requires a significant new use notice (SNUN) from any person who proposes to manufacture or process a chemical for a use EPA determined to be a “significant new use.”
TSCA section 5 requires EPA to make one of five possible determinations before concluding its review of submitted notices about risk to human health & the environment from the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use and/or disposal of new chemical substances or significant new uses. EPA's determination on a new chemical substance or new use will dictate how and to what extent the chemical's manufacture, processing, distribution, use, and/or disposal may be restricted. If EPA fails to make a timely determination, fees may be refunded; however, EPA's obligation to make a determination remains. EPA requires the submitter of a PMN or MCAN inform EPA when non-exempt commercial manufacture of the substance in question begins by submitting a Notice of Commencement; EPA would then add the new chemical substance to the TSCA section 8(b) Inventory.
Persons who intend to export a substance identified in a proposed or final SNUR are subject to the export notification provisions of TSCA section 12(b), and regulations that interpret TSCA section 12(b) at 40 CFR part 707; and the associated paperwork activities and burdens approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0030 (EPA ICR No. 0795.16), “Notification of Chemical Exports—TSCA Section 12(b)”.
Existing chemicals are chemicals already listed on the TSCA Inventory; and therefore “existing chemical SNURs” are often written to require notice for significant new uses of chemicals already in commerce.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice.
This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (“EXIM”) has received an application for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in excess of $100 million. Comments received within the comment period specified below will be presented to the EXIM Board of Directors prior to final action on this Transaction.
Comments must be received on or before January 26, 2026 to be assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction by the Board of Directors of EXIM.
Comments may be submitted through
10 a.m., Thursday, January 8, 2026.
You may observe this meeting in person at 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, or virtually. If you would like to observe, at least 24 hours in advance, visit
This meeting will be open to the public.
The following matters will be considered:
• Approval of December 11, 2025, Minutes
• Report on Integrated Technology Plan
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking—Permanent Capital Proposed Rule and Other Capital-Related Revisions
If you need more information or assistance for accessibility reasons, or have questions, contact Ashley Waldron, Secretary to the Board. Telephone: 703-883-4009. TTY: 703-883-4056.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 2, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by MAC Industries Inc. dba MAC Container Line (the “Complainant”) against COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd. and COSCO Shipping Lines (North America) Inc. (the “Respondents”). Complainant states that the Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to the Shipping Act, 46 U.S.C. 41301-41307; the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022; and 46 CFR part 502 and jurisdiction over Respondents as a vessel-operating common carrier and its United States agent.
Complainant is a non-vessel-operating common carrier organized and existing under the laws of the state of California with its principal place of business in San Clemente, California.
Complainant identifies Respondent COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd. as a vessel-operating common carrier organized and existing under the laws of the People's Republic of China with its principal place of business in Shanghai, China whose agent in the United States is Respondent COSCO Shipping Lines (North America) Inc., a corporation with its principal place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey.
Complainant alleges that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c) and 41104(a)(2), (3), and (10). Complainant alleges these violations arose from Respondents' unreasonable assessment of detention charges even after Respondents had taken control of the equipment in dispute, retaliatory actions against Complainant by way of refusing to accept future bookings, failure to meet service commitments in attempting to cancel a shipment without cause, and other acts or omissions by Respondents.
An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjamin W. McDonough, Deputy Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than January 14, 2026.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Information collection notice
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the a revision of the currently approved information collection project “Medical Expenditure Panel Survey—Household Component, OMB No. 0935-0118.”
Comments on this notice must be received by March 2, 2026.
Written comments should be submitted to: Margie Shofer, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at
Margie Shofer, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1696, or by email at
The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), which began in 1996, is a set of large-scale surveys of families and individuals, their medical providers (doctors, hospitals, pharmacies, etc.), and employers across the United States. MEPS collects data on the specific health services that Americans use, how frequently they use them, the cost of these services, and how they are paid for, as well as data on the cost, scope, and breadth of health insurance held by and available to U.S. workers. MEPS data have become the linchpin for economic health care use and expenditures models. These data are vital in estimating the impact of changes in financing, coverage, and reimbursement policy on the U.S. healthcare system. No other survey provides the foundation for estimating the impact of changes in national policy on various segments of the U.S. population. These data continue to be essential for evaluating healthcare reform policies and analyzing the effect of tax code changes on healthcare expenditures and tax revenue.
(1) To produce nationally representative estimates of health care use, expenditures, sources of payment, and health insurance coverage for the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population.
(2) To produce nationally representative estimates of respondents' health status, demographic and socio-economic characteristics, employment, access to care, and satisfaction with health care.
Each year a new panel of sample households is selected. Recent annual MEPS-HC sample sizes average about 10,350 households. Data can be analyzed at either the person, family, or event level. The panel design of the survey, which includes 5 Rounds of interviews covering 2 full calendar years, provides data for examining person level changes in selected variables such as expenditures, health insurance coverage, and health status. Using a combination of computer assisted personal interviewing (CAPI), computer assisted video interviewing (CAVI), and self-administered paper and web questionnaires, information about each household member is collected, and the survey builds on this information from interview to interview. CAVI is a newer data collection technology and offers the best of both telephone and in-person interviewing, while offering opportunities for cost savings and more accurate reporting.
These changes will be fielded in the Fall of 2026 and include:
• MEPS-HC Core Interview—Minor changes to twenty-four questions include revising language to make the questions clearer for a better response rate.
• MEPS Preventive Care Self-Administered Questionnaire (PSAQ):
○ Removing four questions on counseling and treatment, one question about birth control, two questions about aspirin use, and two questions about gender.
○ Reverting to the question used in the 2022 PSAQ about respondent sex.
○ Replacing two exercise items with five new items for exercise and strength training.
○ Adding questions about use of sleep medication, trouble getting to sleep, screen time, use of wearable devices, self-assessed diet quality, fruit and vegetable consumption, meals eaten away from home, former smoking, and weight loss attempt.
○ Minor changes in response categories to two questions.
• Burdens and Economic Impacts of Medical Care Self-Administered Questionnaire (ESAQ) and Diabetes Care Supplement (DCS): Both will be discontinued.
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractors, Westat for the MEPS-HC and RTI for the MEPS-MPC, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), and to conduct a survey on the cost, use, and quality of health care. 42 U.S.C. 299b-2.
To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the MEPS-HC and the MEPS-MPC.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The total annual burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the MEPS-HC is estimated to be 42,219 hours.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The total burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the MEPS-MPC is estimated to be 8,045 hours. The total annual burden hours for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be 50,264 hours.
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annual cost burden associated with the respondents' time to participate in this information collection. The annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC is estimated to be $2,757,745 and the annual cost burden for the MEPS-MPC is estimated to be $350,960. The total annual cost burden for the MEPS-HC and MPC is estimated to be $3,108,705.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
NIOSH gives notice of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from the United Nuclear Corporation in Hematite, Missouri, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.
Lori Marion-Moss, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to
Pursuant to 42 CFR 83.12, the initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) federal agencies are also required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by March 2, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party.
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, the accuracy of the estimated burden, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
1.
This solicitation for public review and comment is an additional comment period that is specific to the aforementioned supporting statement and attachments. This notice provides an additional 60-day comment period that will not be supplemented with a subsequent 30-day notice or comment period.
The CY 2026 PFS final rule revised § 414.804(a)(5) adding submission requirements for ASP data reporting to include: (1) reasonable assumptions for calculating the manufacturer's ASP, including a summary of the methodology used to determine fair market value for fee arrangements as described at § 414.804 and (2) warranty or certification letter from the recipient of a fee from a manufacturer as evidence that a fee was not passed on in accordance with submission requirements at § 414.804.
Currently, in the absence of specific guidance in statute or Federal regulations, the manufacturer may make reasonable assumptions in its calculations of the manufacturer's ASP, consistent with the general requirements and intent of the law, Federal regulations, and the manufacturer's customary business practices. The reasonable assumptions explain the methodology used by the manufacturer to calculate ASP.
The rule specifies that for sales beginning January 1, 2026, the reasonable assumptions document, which is currently submitted voluntarily by some manufacturers along with ASP data, is a required component of the quarterly ASP data submission. The warranty or certification from the recipient of a bona fide service fee is a new document that we finalized to be required as evidence of whether or not a fee was passed on. As discussed in the final rule, the new requirements are effective for sales occurring on or after January 1, 2026; that data would be due to CMS by April 30, 2026, and used in the July 2026 Medicare Part B Drug Payment Limit File.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by January 28, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Under the current centralized review process, interested parties (such as study sponsors) that wish to seek Medicare coverage related to Category A or B IDE studies have a centralized point of contact for submission, review and determination of Medicare coverage IDE study requests. In order for CMS (or its designated entity) to determine if the Medicare coverage criteria are met, as described in our regulations, CMS (or its designated entity) must review documents submitted by interested parties or study sponsors. Such information submitted will be a FDA IDE approval letter, IDE study protocol, IRB approval letter, National Clinical Trials (NCT) number, and Supporting materials as needed.
Refugee Program Bureau, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of Issuance of a Single-Source Cooperative Agreement.
ACF, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) announces the intent to award a single-source cooperative agreement in the amount of up to $1,000,000 to the Welcoming Initiative for Newcomers (WIN) in San Diego, CA to conduct a baseline assessment of state readiness and capacity to implement a state-centered refugee resettlement framework under the Program of Initial Resettlement. The purpose is to empower states with the tools and insights needed to take control of their refugee resettlement recommendations. This nationwide baseline assessment will strengthen each state's capacity to implement a state-centered refugee resettlement framework and will include a nationwide baseline assessment of state readiness and capacity, including a nationwide readiness map, state capacity catalog, and implementation roadmap. The baseline will also include state-specific labor force shortages and corresponding industries.
The proposed period of performance is January 5, 2026 to September 29, 2026.
Miro Marinovich, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: (202) 729-3638; Email:
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) intends to conduct a nationwide State Capacity and Readiness Assessment to support implementation of the Program of Initial Resettlement (PIR). The purpose of this assessment is to develop the analytical tools, data structures, and partnerships necessary for states to assess and communicate their capacity and infrastructure related to refugee placement. The assessment will include
ORR proposes to issue a single-source cooperative agreement to the Welcoming Initiative for Newcomers (WIN) to complete this work. WIN possesses long-standing partnerships with State Refugee Coordinators, resettlement agencies, and community organizations across all 50 states and has expertise in labor market analysis, credential transferability, economic inclusion, and large-scale assessment design. These qualifications position WIN to rapidly engage state partners and produce a comprehensive readiness assessment within the required timeframes.
This initiative is intended to support state and local preparedness in advance of PIR implementation by strengthening data readiness, capacity analysis, and systems alignment. The assessment will help ensure that state recommendations reflect local conditions and that placement decisions account for housing, workforce, and social service capacity. The activity supports evidence-based decision making, intergovernmental coordination, and effective administration of refugee resettlement activities.
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.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Advisory Council for Nursing Research.
The meeting will be held as virtual meeting and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The meeting identified below has been scheduled in the event the Council is unable to complete all agenda items identified for the January 27, 2026, meeting. Information on the agenda items and/or the necessity to hold the meeting listed below will be posted on the Institute/Center homepage (link identified below).
Registration is not required to attend the open session of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board Ad hoc Working Group on Extramural Research Concepts and Programs.
The meeting will be held in-person and is open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Registration is not required to attend this meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: NCAB:
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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of open Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold its quarterly meeting on Wednesday, January 14, 2026, in Washington, DC. The meeting will be open to the public via webinar only.
The Committee will meet on Wednesday, January 14, 2026, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). Please note the meeting may close early if the Committee has completed its business. Comments must be submitted in writing no later than 5 p.m. EST on January 9, 2026.
The meeting will be open to the public via webinar only. The webinar link will be posted by 5 p.m. EST on January 13, 2026, at
Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
•
•
Comments must be submitted in writing no later than 5 p.m. EST on January 9, 2026, and must be identified by Docket No. USCBP-2025-00XX. All submissions received must also include the words “Department of Homeland Security.” All comments received will be posted without change to
Mrs. Latoria Martin, Office of Trade Relations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Room 3.5A, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-1440; or Mr. Christopher J. Siepmann, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 344-1440 or
Notice of this meeting is given under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 U.S.C., ch. 10. The Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (Committee) provides advice to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on matters pertaining to the commercial operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and related functions within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Treasury.
The Committee is committed to ensuring all participants have equal access regardless of disability status. If you require reasonable accommodation due to a disability to fully participate, please contact Mrs. Latoria Martin at (202) 344-1440 as soon as possible.
Please feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.
To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comments on the issues the Committee will consider prior to the formulation of recommendations as listed in the Agenda section below.
There will be a public comment period after each subcommittee update during the meeting on January 14, 2026. During the meeting, comments may be submitted via the trade events mailbox at
With the sunset of the traditional subcommittees and working groups after the September public meeting, a change in structure for the Committee was expected. However, close to the onset of the new fiscal year, the ability for the Committee to meet was affected by the lapse in funding of the Federal Government. While U.S. Customs and Border Protection was able to continue to work, the members of the Committee had no engagement with U.S. Customs and Border Protection during that time. Despite that, the Committee has been able to generate conversation for communications on new and existing Section 232 tariffs and the importance of the definitions for determining dates that affect all modes of transportation from import through to export. The Committee believes that recommendations could be possible for the January Committee meeting relating to Section 232 tariff implementation, but more conversation will be needed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to articulate the focus for meetings beyond this quarter.
Meeting materials will be available on January 5, 2026, at:
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of determination.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations, and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border in the state of Texas.
This determination takes effect on December 30, 2025.
Important mission requirements of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) include border security and the detection and prevention of illegal entry into the United States. Border security is critical to the nation's national security. Recognizing the critical importance of border security, Congress has mandated DHS to achieve and maintain operational control of the international land border. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, section 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Congress defined “operational control” as the prevention of all
Congress has provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security a number of authorities necessary to carry out DHS's border security mission. One of those authorities is found at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554 (Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, section 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, section 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress mandated that in carrying out the authority of section 102(a), I provide for the installation of additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors to achieve and maintain operational control of the border. Finally, in section 102(c) of IIRIRA, Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.
The United States Border Patrol Del Rio Sector is an area of high illegal entry. Between fiscal year 2021 and fiscal year 2025, Border Patrol apprehended over 1,410,330 illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States between border crossings in the Del Rio Sector. In that same time period Border Patrol seized over 277 pounds of marijuana, over 198 pounds of cocaine, over 353 pounds of methamphetamine, and over five pounds of fentanyl.
Since the President took office, DHS has delivered the most secure border in history. More can and must be done, however. As the statistics cited above demonstrate, the Del Rio Sector is an area of high illegal entry where illegal aliens regularly attempt to enter the United States and smuggle illicit drugs, and given my mandate to achieve and maintain operational control of the border, I must use my authority under section 102 of IIRIRA to install additional barriers and roads in the Del Rio Sector. Therefore, DHS will take immediate action to construct additional barriers and roads in a segment of the border in the Del Rio Sector. The segment where such construction will occur is referred to herein as the “project area,” which is more specifically described in Section 2 below.
I determine that the following area in the vicinity of the United States border, located in the state of Texas within the U. S. Border Patrol Del Rio Sector, is an area of high illegal entry (the “project area”): Starting at approximately GPS point 29.449888, −101.058072 and extending south and east to approximately GPS point 29.084630, −100.663800.
There is presently an acute and immediate need to construct additional physical barriers and roads in the vicinity of the border of the United States in order to prevent unlawful entries into the United States in the project area pursuant to section 102(a) and 102(b) of IIRIRA. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of additional physical barriers and roads in the project area, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of IIRIRA.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of physical barriers and roads (including, but not limited to, accessing the project areas, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of physical barriers, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, safety features, lighting, cameras, and sensors) in the project area, all of the following statutes, including all federal, state, or other laws, regulations, and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following statutes, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This waiver does not revoke or supersede any other waiver determination made pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA. Such waivers shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their terms. I reserve the authority to execute further waivers from time to time as I may determine to be necessary under section 102 of IIRIRA.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Lennar Homes of California, LLC (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher incidental to construction of the Piraeus Point Project, in the City of Encinitas, San Diego County, California. We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), and on the Service's preliminary determination that the proposed permitting action may be eligible for a categorical exclusion pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Department of the Interior's (DOI) NEPA regulations, and the DOI Departmental Manual (DM). To make this preliminary determination, we prepared a joint draft environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, both of which are available for public review. We invite comment from the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies.
We must receive your written comments on or before January 29, 2026.
•
•
Mr. Jonathan Snyder, Acting Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office,
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Lennar Homes of California, LLC (applicant) for a 10-year ITP for one covered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
We request public comment on the application, which includes the applicant's HCP, and on the Service's preliminary determination that this proposed ITP qualifies as “low effect” and may qualify for a categorical exclusion pursuant to DOI's NEPA regulations (43 CFR part 46), and the DOI's DM (516 DM 1, DOI NEPA Handbook appendix 2, 8.5 C.(2)). To make this preliminary determination, we prepared a joint draft environmental action statement and low-effect screening form which are available for public review.
The Service listed the gnatcatcher as threatened on March 30, 1993 (58 FR 16742) and published a revised final rule designating critical habitat on December 19, 2007 (72 FR 72010). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered (16 U.S.C. 1538).
Under the ESA, “take” is defined to include the following activities: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). Section 4(d) of the ESA allows the Secretary of the Interior to extend protections for endangered species to those listed as threatened.
Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), we may issue permits to authorize take of listed fish and wildlife species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.32. Issuance of an ITP also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species, pursuant to section 7 of the ESA and 50 CFR 402.02. The permittee would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.32(b)(5)).
The proposed project site includes a 5.99 acres (ac) development footprint in a 6.88 ac undeveloped property located east of Piraeus Street and north of Plato Place, and 0.68 ac street vacation along portions of Piraeus Street and Plato Place, in the City of Encinitas, in San Diego County, California. The proposed Piraeus Point project includes the construction of 134 residential units spread across 14 three-story residential buildings, a pool, pool house, lounge seating, and 6.41 ac of land set aside (1.46 ac onsite and 4.95 ac offsite) as a biological open space preserve in the City of Encinitas, California.
The applicant requests a 10-year ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. If we approve the permit, the applicant anticipates taking gnatcatcher resulting from impacts to the project site, including about 2.64 ac of native coastal sage scrub vegetation that this species uses for breeding, feeding, and sheltering. The take would be incidental to the applicant's activities associated with the construction of the Piraeus Point project.
The applicant's proposed HCP contains measures to minimize the
The applicant proposes restore 1.59 ac of non-native vegetation to coastal sage scrub within the adjacent off-site preserve. In total, 6.41 ac of coastal sage scrub habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher will be conserved through a biological conservation easement, with funding secured in a non-wasting endowment account, to ensure management and monitoring in perpetuity.
The proposed action consists of the issuance of an ITP to address the incidental take of gnatcatchers from implementing the proposed HCP. To comply with the requirements for an HCP under ESA section 10(a), alternatives to the project and the incidental take of gnatcatcher were evaluated.
Under the no project/no development alternative, the project would not be constructed, and no ITP would be issued. The applicant would have no use of the privately owned property. Under the reduced development footprint alternative, the 2.64 ac of coastal sage scrub gnatcatcher habitat onsite would be avoided. The gnatcatcher habitat consists of 2.64 ac of coastal sage scrub and southern mixed/maritime chaparral habitat in two main patches in the northern and center portion of the project site. Therefore, the total avoidance of habitat would also prevent any reasonable economic use of the site. With implementation of the project, the development would be situated primarily in the southern portion of the project site. A 1.46 ac preserve would be established in the northern portion of the project site, and an off-site preserve of 4.95 ac would be preserved in perpetuity.
The applicant selected the project as proposed over these alternatives because it achieves the project's primary goal of providing housing, is financially feasible to implement, and would result in the preservation, restoration, and management of coastal California gnatcatcher habitat and prevent it from being further degraded.
The Service made a preliminary determination that the applicant's HCP would have minor or negligible effects on the gnatcatcher. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP would be a low-effect ITP that may qualify for application of a categorical exclusion pursuant to NEPA, DOI's NEPA regulations, and the DOI DM. Please see the draft environmental action statement and low-effect screening form for more information.
The Service will evaluate the application and any comments received resulting from this notice to determine whether to issue the requested ITP. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue the permit to the applicant for incidental take of the gnatcatcher.
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 may 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.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Department of the Interior (Department) announces that the group known as the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation (STN) has submitted a request for authorization to re-petition for Federal acknowledgment as an American Indian Tribe to the Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA). The Department invites public comment and evidence concerning the request.
Comments and evidence must be postmarked by April 29, 2026.
The narrative portion of the re-petition request, submitted by STN (with any redactions in accordance with 25 CFR 83.50(b)), is available at the OFA website:
Ms. Nikki Bass, OFA Director, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, by phone: (202) 513-7650; or by email:
On March 21, 2025, the Department revised the Federal acknowledgment regulations in 25 CFR part 83 to establish a conditional and time-limited opportunity for petitioners denied Federal acknowledgment to request authorization to re-petition.
On September 29, 2025, OFA received a request for authorization to re-petition from STN, in accordance with 25 CFR 83.50. This group has been assigned Petition Number R003.
The contact information for STN is Richard L. Velky, 101 Elizabeth Street, Derby, Connecticut 06418.
Under 25 CFR 83.51(b)(1), OFA publishes on its website the following:
i. The narrative portion of the request for authorization to re-petition, as submitted by the petitioner (with any redactions appropriate under 25 CFR 83.50(b));
ii. The name, location, and mailing address of the petitioner and other information to identify the entity;
iii. The date of receipt;
iv. The opportunity for individuals and entities to submit comments and evidence supporting or opposing the petitioner's request for acknowledgment within 120 days of this notice of the request; and
v. The opportunity for individuals and entities to request to be kept informed of general actions regarding the petitioner.
The Department publishes this notice and request for comment in the exercise of authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by Department Manual part 209, chapter 8.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will take place and is open to members of the public.
The following meeting will be held virtually:
• Wednesday, January 28, 2026, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; and Thursday, January 29, 2026, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The following meeting will be held in person and virtually:
• Wednesday, March 25, 2026, from 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, March 26, 2026, from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The January 2026 meeting will be held virtually. The March 2026 meeting will be held in-person in the South Penthouse Conference Room of the Department of the Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC and virtually. Members of the public may attend the March meeting in person or can attend either meeting virtually. Instructions for registration to attend the meetings will be posted at
Ms. Megan Compton, Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), USGS, by mail at 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 590, Reston, VA 20192; by email at
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, blind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the FACA of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Ch. 10), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR part 102-3.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of expedited reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether
November 24, 2025.
Caitlyn Costello (202) 205-2058), 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 (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult 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).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to these reviews must be served on all other parties to these reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on tow-behind lawn groomers from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.
November 24, 2025.
Alexis Yim (202-708-1446), 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 (
For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult 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).
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review three initial determinations (“ID”) (Order Nos. 20, 21, 22) issued by the presiding Chief Administrative Law Judge (“Chief ALJ”) granting three separate unopposed motions to terminate, respectively, respondents Shanghai Sakura Plastic Products Co., Ltd. (d/b/a Shanghai Yinghua Plastic Products Co., Ltd.) of Shanghai, China (“Sakura”); Shandong Jinshan Jieyuan Container Co., Ltd. of Zhengjiang City, China (“Jinshan”); and Zibo Jielin Plastic Pipe Manufacture Co. Ltd. of Zibo City, China (“Jielin”) from the investigation due to settlement agreements, consent order stipulations, and consent orders.
Carl P. Bretscher, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On January 27, 2025, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint filed by Schütz Container Systems, Inc. of North Branch, New Jersey and Protechna S.A. of Fribourg, Switzerland (collectively, “Complainants”). 90 FR 8222-23 (Jan. 27, 2025). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,718,581; 8,708,150; 8,919,562; 8,567,626; 9,004,310; and 8,276,299.
On April 22, 2025, the Commission terminated the investigation as to certain patent claims based on withdrawal of the complaint.
On July 7, 2025, the Commission amended the complaint and notice of investigation to assert claims 1-3 and 5 of the '150 patent against respondent Jinshan and claims 1-3 of the '150 patent against respondent Sakura. Order No. 12 (June 13, 2025),
On July 7, 2025, the Commission found respondent Hebei Shijiheng in default for failure to respond to the complaint and notice of investigation or an order to show cause (Order No. 11) issued on June 2, 2025. Order No. 13 (June 17, 2025),
On September 11, 2025, Complainants filed a declaration pursuant to section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) and Commission Rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)) seeking immediate entry of relief against defaulting respondent Hebei Shijiheng. Specifically, Complainants request a limited exclusion order prohibiting entry into the United States of Hebei Shijiheng's infringing articles. Complainants also request that the Commission set a bond of one hundred percent (100%) of the entered value of the infringing articles during the period of Presidential review.
On November 18, 2025, Complainants and respondents Sakura, Jinshan, and Jielin filed respective joint unopposed motions to terminate the investigation with respect to those respondents based on a settlement agreement, consent order, and consent order stipulation. On November 28, 2025, OUII filed responses in support of granting the three joint motions. No other party filed a response to any of the three motions.
On December 8, 2025, the presiding Chief ALJ issued the three subject IDs (Order Nos. 20, 21, and 22) granting the unopposed motions to terminate Sakura, Jinshan, and Jielin, respectively, from the investigation.
No party filed a petition for review of any of the three subject IDs.
The Commission has determined not to review any of the three subject IDs (Order Nos. 20, 21, 22). Accordingly, consent orders are issued to respondents Sakura, Jinshan, and Jielin, and this investigation is terminated with respect to remaining active respondents. As noted above, respondent Hebei Shijiheng was previously found in default.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation as to defaulting respondent Hebei Shijiheng, the statute authorizes issuance of: (1) an exclusion order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) a cease and desist order that could result in the respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background, see
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of any remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease-and-desist order would have on: (1) the public health and welfare; (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy; (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation; and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's action.
Written Submissions: Parties to this investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are requested to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. In their initial submission, Complainants are also requested to identify the remedy sought and Complainants and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainants are further requested to state the dates that the Asserted Patents expire, to provide the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused products are imported, and to supply the identification information for all known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. The initial written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on January 9, 2026. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on January 16, 2026. No further submissions on any of these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1434”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed with the Commission and served on any parties to the investigation within two business days of any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for
The Commission's vote for this determination took place on December 22, 2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-768-770 and 731-TA-1751-1754 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of steel concrete reinforcing bar (“rebar”) from Algeria, provided for in subheadings 7213.10.0000, 7214.20.0000, and 7228.30.8010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold at less-than-fair-value (90 FR 59503, December 19, 2025). Commerce's preliminary determinations with respect to rebar from Bulgaria, Egypt, and Vietnam that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and with respect to rebar alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of Algeria, Egypt, and Vietnam are pending.
December 19, 2025.
Sharon Fisher ((202) 205-2431), 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 (
Scope.—For purposes of these investigations, Commerce has defined the subject merchandise as “steel concrete reinforcing bar imported in either straight length or coil form (rebar) regardless of metallurgy, length, diameter, or grade or lack thereof. The subject merchandise includes rebar that has been further processed in the subject country or a third country, including but not limited to cutting, grinding, galvanizing, painting, coating, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of this investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the rebar. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (
Background.—The final phase of these investigations is being scheduled pursuant to sections 705(b) and 731(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 1673d(b)), as a result of an affirmative preliminary determination by Commerce that rebar from Algeria is being sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of § 733 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). Commerce's preliminary determinations with respect to rebar from Bulgaria, Egypt, and Vietnam that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value and with respect to rebar alleged to be subsidized by the Governments of Algeria, Egypt, and Vietnam are pending. The investigations were requested in petitions filed on June 4, 2025, by Rebar Trade Action Coalition, Washington, DC. The individual members of the Rebar Trade Action Coalition are Byer Steel Corporation; Commercial Metals Company; Gerdau Ameristeel US Incorporated; Nucor Corporation; Optimus Steel; and Steel Dynamics, Incorporated.
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Participation in the investigations and public service list.—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 final phase of these investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in § 201.11 of the Commission's rules, no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance during the preliminary phase of the investigations need not file an additional notice of appearance during this final phase. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to § 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in the final phase of these investigations available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made no later than 21 days prior to the hearing date specified in this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the investigations. A party granted access to BPI in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those
Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 17, 2026, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.22 of the Commission's rules.
Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the final phase of this investigation beginning at 9:30 a.m. on March 3, 2026. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before 5:15 p.m. on February 25, 2026. Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the investigation, may in their discretion for good cause shown, grant such a request. Requests to appear as remote witness due to illness or a positive COVID-19 test result may be submitted by 3:00 p.m. on the business day prior to the hearing. Further information about participation in the hearing will be posted on the Commission's website at
A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference, if deemed necessary, to be held at 9:30 a.m. on March 2, 2026. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than noon on February 27, 2026. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 207.24 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party shall submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of § 207.23 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is 5:15 p.m. on February 24, 2026. Parties shall also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of § 207.25 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is 5:15 p.m. on March 10, 2026. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigations may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the investigations, including statements of support or opposition to the petition, on or before 5:15 p.m. on March 10, 2026. On March 25, 2026, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before 5:15 p.m. on March 27, 2026, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with § 207.30 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of § 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
December 22, 2025.
Laurel Schwartz (202-205-2398), 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 September 29, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 47820, October 2, 2025). On November 14, 2025, the Commission established a revised schedule for the subject proceeding (90 FR 52096, November 19, 2025). On December 12, 2025, the Commission established a revised schedule for the subject proceeding (90 FR 59203, December 18, 2025). As a result of the closure of the agency on Wednesday, December 24, 2025, and Friday, December 26, 2025, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: the Commission will reach preliminary determinations by January 2, 2026, and the Commission's views will be transmitted to Commerce within five business 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 and B (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective September 30, 2024, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Bakelite Synthetics (Atlanta, Georgia). The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigations following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of hexamine from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The investigation schedules became staggered when Commerce did not align its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations with respect to China with its antidumping duty investigations with respect to Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia, and its countervailing duty investigation with respect to India, and reached earlier final antidumping and countervailing duty determinations with respect to China. On September 3, 2025, the Commission issued final affirmative determinations in its antidumping and countervailing duty investigations of hexamine from China (90 FR 43234, September 8, 2025). Following notification of final determinations by Commerce that imports of hexamine from Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 735(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(a)) and that imports of hexamine from India were being subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)), notice of the supplemental scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's antidumping duty investigations with respect to Germany, India, and Saudi Arabia and its countervailing duty investigation with respect to India was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on December 22, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5693 (December 2025), entitled
By order of the Commission.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of intent to grant exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license to practice the inventions described and claimed in the patents and/or patent applications listed in
The prospective exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument, no later than January 14, 2026 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than January 14, 2026 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Written objections relating to the prospective license or requests for further information may be submitted to Agency Counsel for Intellectual Property, NASA Headquarters at Email:
Requests for additional information should be directed to Oliver Sheuer, 202.358.3437,
NASA intends to grant an exclusive, co-
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
License amendment request; notice of opportunity to comment, request a hearing, and petition for leave to intervene; order imposing procedures.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received and is considering approval of three amendment requests. The amendment requests are for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; and Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. For each amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that it involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC). Because each amendment request contains sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information (SUNSI), the NRC is issuing an order imposing procedures to obtain access to SUNSI for contention preparation by persons who file a hearing request or petition for leave to intervene.
Comments must be received by January 29, 2026. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by March 2, 2026. Any potential party as defined in section 2.4 of title 10 of the
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject); however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Karen Zeleznock, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1118; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1930, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly
Pursuant to section 189a.(1)-(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the NRC is publishing this notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves NSHC, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This notice includes notices of amendments containing SUNSI.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve NSHC. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown as follows.
The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed determinations. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish a notice of issuance in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056), and on the NRC's public website (
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
The following table provides the plant names, docket numbers, date of application, ADAMS accession numbers, and location in the application of the licensee's proposed NSHC determination. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, publicly available portions of which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
A. This Order contains instructions regarding how potential parties to this proceeding may request access to documents containing Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI).
B. Within 10 days after publication of this notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing, any potential party who believes access to SUNSI is necessary to respond to this notice may request access to SUNSI. A “potential party” is any person who intends to participate as a party by demonstrating standing and filing an admissible contention under 10 CFR 2.309. Requests for access to SUNSI submitted later than 10 days after publication of this notice will not be considered absent a showing of good cause for the late filing, addressing why the request could not have been filed earlier.
C. The requestor shall submit a letter requesting permission to access SUNSI to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and provide a copy to the Deputy General Counsel for Licensing, Hearings, and Enforcement, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The expedited delivery or courier mailing address for both offices is: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The email addresses for the Office of the Secretary and the Office of the General Counsel are
(1) A description of the licensing action with a citation to this
(2) The name and address of the potential party and a description of the potential party's particularized interest that could be harmed by the action identified in C.(1); and
(3) The identity of the individual or entity requesting access to SUNSI and the requestor's basis for the need for the information in order to meaningfully participate in this adjudicatory proceeding. In particular, the request must explain why publicly available versions of the information requested would not be sufficient to provide the basis and specificity for a proffered contention.
D. Based on an evaluation of the information submitted under paragraph C, the NRC staff will determine within 10 days of receipt of the request whether:
(1) There is a reasonable basis to believe the petitioner is likely to establish standing to participate in this NRC proceeding; and
(2) The requestor has established a legitimate need for access to SUNSI.
E. If the NRC staff determines that the requestor satisfies both D.(1) and D.(2), the NRC staff will notify the requestor in writing that access to SUNSI has been granted. The written notification will contain instructions on how the requestor may obtain copies of the requested documents, and any other conditions that may apply to access to those documents. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement or Affidavit, or Protective Order
F. Filing of Contentions. Any contentions in these proceedings that are based upon the information received as a result of the request made for SUNSI must be filed by the requestor no later than 25 days after receipt of (or access to) that information. However, if more than 25 days remain between the petitioner's receipt of (or access to) the information and the deadline for filing all other contentions (as established in the notice of hearing or opportunity for hearing), the petitioner may file its SUNSI contentions by that later deadline.
G. Review of Denials of Access.
(1) If the request for access to SUNSI is denied by the NRC staff after a determination on standing and requisite
(2) The requestor may challenge the NRC staff's adverse determination by filing a challenge within 5 days of receipt of that determination with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; or (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, then with that officer.
(3) Further appeals of decisions under this paragraph must be made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.311.
H. Review of Grants of Access. A party other than the requestor may challenge an NRC staff determination granting access to SUNSI whose release would harm that party's interest independent of the proceeding. Such a challenge must be filed within 5 days of the notification by the NRC staff of its grant of access and must be filed with: (a) the presiding officer designated in this proceeding; or (b) if no presiding officer has been appointed, the Chief Administrative Judge, or if this individual is unavailable, another administrative judge, or an Administrative Law Judge with jurisdiction pursuant to 10 CFR 2.318(a); or (c) if another officer has been designated to rule on information access issues, then with that officer.
If challenges to the NRC staff determinations are filed, these procedures give way to the normal process for litigating disputes concerning access to information. Interlocutory review by the Commission on orders ruling on such NRC staff determinations (whether granting or denying access) is governed by 10 CFR 2.311.
I. The Commission expects that the NRC staff and presiding officers (and any other reviewing officers) will consider and resolve requests for access to SUNSI, and motions for Protective Orders, in a timely fashion in order to minimize any unnecessary delays in identifying those petitioners who have standing and who have propounded contentions meeting the specificity and basis requirements in 10 CFR part 2. The attachment to this Order summarizes the general target schedule for processing and resolving requests under these procedures.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes new Rule 8.201 (Generic) to permit the generic listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the requirements of such rule. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes new Rule 8.201 (Generic), which would permit the generic listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the requirements of the Rule. Current Rule 8.201 would continue to provide for the listing and trading of series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares for which the Exchange would file separate proposals under Section 19(b) of the Act.
As further discussed below, proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) is based on Rule 8.201-E (Generic) of the Exchange's affiliated exchange, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), with only the following non-substantive conforming changes:
• Deletion of references to “ETP Holder” or replacement with references to “Participant”; and
• Replacement of internal references to NYSE Arca rules with references to NYSE Texas rules (
Proposed Rule 8.201(a) (Generic) would provide that the Exchange will consider for trading, whether by listing or pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the criteria of this Rule and that the Exchange may list and/or trade Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the standards set forth in this Rule 8.201 (Generic) pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Exchange Act. If a series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) does not satisfy these requirements, the Exchange may suspend trading in the shares and will initiate delisting proceedings pursuant to Article 22, Rule 4. Proposed Rule 8.201(a) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(a) (Generic), with non-substantive changes to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic) and to refer to Article 22, Rule 4, which is the Exchange's rule relating to delisting proceedings, instead of Rule 5.5-E(m).
Proposed Rule 8.201(b) (Generic) would provide that Rule 8.201 (Generic) is applicable only to Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to this Rule. Except to the extent inconsistent with this Rule, or unless the context otherwise requires, the provisions of the Bylaws and all other rules and procedures of the Board of Directors shall be applicable to the trading on the Exchange of such securities. Commodity-Based Trust Shares are included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Bvlaws and Rules of the Exchange and are subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Proposed Rule 8.201(b) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(b) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c) (Generic) would set forth definitions for purposes of Rule 8.201 (Generic). Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(1) (Generic), would define Commodity-Based Trust Shares for purposes of Rule 8.201 (Generic) as a security that:
• Is issued by a trust, limited liability company, partnership, or other similar entity (“Trust”) that, if applicable, is operated by a registered commodity pool operator pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act, and is not registered as an investment company pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940, or series or class thereof (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(i) (Generic));
• Is designed to reflect the performance of one or more reference assets or an index of reference assets, less expenses and other liabilities (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(ii) (Generic));
• In order to reflect the performance as provided in (c)(1)(ii) above, is issued by a Trust that holds (A) one or more commodities or commodity-based assets as defined in (c)(3) below, and (B) in addition to such commodities or commodity-based assets, may hold securities, cash, and cash equivalents (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(iii) (Generic));
• Is issued by a Trust in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of (A) a specified quantity of the underlying commodities, commodity-based assets, securities, cash, and cash equivalents or (B) a cash amount with a value based on the next determined net asset value per Trust share (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(iv) (Generic)); and
• When aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request by a Trust which will deliver to the redeeming holder (A) the specified quantity of the-underlying commodities, commodity-based assets, securities, cash, and cash equivalents or (B) a cash amount with a value based on the next determined net asset value per Trust share (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(v) (Generic)).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(2) (Generic) would define the term “commodity” to have the same meaning as set forth in Section 1a(9) of the Commodity Exchange Act and to exclude “excluded commodity” as defined in Section 1a(19) of the Commodity Exchange Act.
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(3) (Generic) would define the term “commodity-based asset” to mean a future, option, or swap on a commodity as defined in proposed Rule 8.201(c)(2) above. Proposed Rule 8.201-E(c)(3) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201(c)(3) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(4) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(4) (Generic), would define the term “cash equivalent.” The Exchange proposes that “cash equivalents” would refer to short-term instruments with maturities of less than three months and include the following, as defined in proposed Rules 8.201(c)(4)(i) (Generic) through (vii) (Generic):
• U.S. Government securities, including bills, notes, and bonds differing as to maturity and rate of interest, which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S. Government agencies or instrumentalities;
• Certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association;
• Bankers' acceptances, which are short-term credit instruments used to finance commercial transactions;
• Repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements;
• Bank time deposits, which are monies kept on deposit with banks or savings and loan associations for a stated period of time at a fixed rate of interest;
• Commercial paper, which are short-term unsecured promissory notes; and
• Money market funds.
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(5) (Generic) would define “net asset value” as an amount reflecting the current market value of the assets held by the Trust, less expenses and liabilities, used to periodically compute the current price for the purpose of creation and redemption of Trust shares. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(5) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(5) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(6) (Generic) would define “designated contract market” as a board of trade or exchange that has been designated as a contract market under Section 5 of the Commodity Exchange Act and operates under the regulatory oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, pursuant to Section 5 of the Commodity Exchange Act. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(6) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(6) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(7) (Generic) would define “exchange-traded fund” as an open-end management investment company or a unit investment trust as defined in Section 4(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 or series or class thereof, the shares of which are listed and traded on a national securities exchange, and that has formed and operates under an exemptive order under the Investment Company Act of 1940 or in reliance on an exemptive rule adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(7) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(7) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(8) (Generic) would define “indicative trust value” as the estimated indicative value of a Trust share based on current information regarding the value of the Trust's underlying assets. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(8) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(8) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(9) (Generic) would define “market price” as the official closing price of a Trust share or, if it more accurately reflects the market value of a Trust share at the time as of which the Trust calculates current net asset value per share, the price that is the midpoint between the national best bid and national best offer as of that time. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(9) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(9) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(10) (Generic) would define “premium or discount” as the positive or negative difference between the market price of a Trust share at the time as of which the current net asset value is calculated and the Trust's current net asset value per share, expressed as a percentage of the Trust share's current net asset value per share. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(10) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(10) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(d) (Generic) would set forth the eligibility criteria for the holdings of Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic). Proposed Rule 8.201(d)(1) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(d)(1) (Generic) with a non-substantive change to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic), would provide for the following criteria, at least one of which must be met for each commodity or commodity that underlies a commodity-based asset held by a Trust:
• On an initial and continuing basis, the commodity trades on a market that is an Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) member, provided that the Exchange may obtain information about trading in such commodity from the ISG member (proposed Rule 8.201(d)(1)(i) (Generic));
• On an initial and continuing basis, the commodity underlies a futures contract that has been made available to trade on a designated contract market for at least six months;
• On an initial basis, an exchange-traded fund designed to provide economic exposure of no less than 40% of its net asset value to the commodity lists and trades on a national securities exchange (proposed Rule 8.201(d)(1)(iii) (Generic)).
Proposed Rule 8.201(d)(2) (Generic) would provide that, on an initial and continuing basis, each security held by the Trust shall meet the criteria of Rule 8.600 (Managed Fund Shares), Commentary .01(a) and (b) or, if the security is a listed option, trades on an ISG market. Proposed Rule 8.201(d)(2) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(d)(2) (Generic), with a non-substantive change to refer to Rule 8.600 instead of Rule 8.600-E.
Proposed Rule 8.201(e) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(e) (Generic), would set forth the information that the Trust must disclose prominently on its website, which must be publicly available free of charge:
• Before the opening of regular trading on the Exchange, for the Trust's commodities, commodity-based assets, securities, cash and cash equivalent, to the extent applicable: (i) ticker symbol; (ii) identifier; (iii) description of the holding; (iv) the quantity of each commodity, commodity-based asset, security, cash, and cash equivalents held; and (v) percentage weighting of the Trust's assets (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(1) (Generic) and subparagraphs (i) through (v) thereunder);
• The Trust's current net asset value per share, market price, and premium or discount, each as of the end of the prior business day (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(2) (Generic));
• A table showing the number of days the Trust's shares traded at a premium or discount during the most recently completed calendar year and the most recently completed calendar quarters since that year (or the life of the Trust, if shorter) (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(3) (Generic));
• A line graph showing the Trust share's premiums or discounts for the most recently completed calendar year and the most recently completed calendar quarters since that year (or the life of the Trust, if shorter) (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(4) (Generic));
• The Trust share's median-ask spread, expressed as a percentage rounded to the nearest hundredth, computed by: (i) identifying the Trust share's national best bid and national best offer as of the end of each 10 second interval during each trading day of the last 30 calendar days; (ii) dividing the difference between each such bid and offer by the midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer; and (iii) identifying the median of those values (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(5) (Generic));
• Liquidity risk policies and procedures as described in paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(6) (Generic));
• The Trust's methodology for the calculation of its net asset value (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(7) (Generic));
• The Trust's trading volume for the previous day (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(8) (Generic)); and
• The Trust's effective prospectus, in a form available for download (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(9) (Generic)).
Proposed Rule 8.201(f) (Generic) would provide that the Trust may not seek, directly or indirectly, to provide investment returns that correspond to the performance of an index, benchmark, or reference value by a specified multiple, or to provide investment returns that have an inverse or multiple inverse relationship to the performance of an index, benchmark, or reference value, over a predetermined period of time. Proposed Rule 8.201(f) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(f) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(g) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(g) (Generic), would provide that, if a Trust has on a daily basis less than 85% of its assets readily available to meet redemption requests, the Trust must have written liquidity risk policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address the risk that it could not meet requests to redeem shares
• The Trust's investment strategy and liquidity of the Trust's assets during normal and stressed conditions, including holdings in derivatives and whether the investment strategy is appropriate for effective and efficient arbitrage (proposed Rule 8.201(g)(1) (Generic));
• Holdings of cash and cash equivalents, as well as borrowing arrangements and other funding sources (proposed Rule 8.201(g)(2) (Generic)); and
• Percentage and description of the Trust's assets that are segregated, pledged, hypothecated, encumbered, or otherwise restricted or prevented from being liquidated, sold, transferred or assigned (proposed Rule 8.201(g)(3) (Generic)).
Proposed Rule 8.201(h) (Generic) would provide that Commodity-Based Trust Shares may be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic) provided that, upon initial listing, the Exchange will establish a minimum number of Commodity-Based Trust Shares required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Exchange, and all Commodity-Based Trust Shares shall have a stated investment objective, which shall be adhered to under normal market conditions. Proposed Rule 8.201(h) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(h) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(i) (Generic) would provide for continued listing standards for Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic). Proposed Rule 8.201(i) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(i) (Generic), with a non-substantive change in proposed Rule 8.201(i)(9) (Generic) to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic). The Exchange will maintain surveillance procedures for Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed under Rule 8.201 (Generic) and will consider the suspension of trading in and the delisting of such Trust shares under any of the following circumstances:
• If, following the initial twelve-month period following commencement of trading on the Exchange of Commodity-Based Trust Shares, the Trust has more than 60 days remaining until termination and there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of Commodity-Based Trust Shares (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(1) (Generic)); or
• If, following the initial twelve-month period following commencement of trading on the Exchange of Commodity-Based Trust Shares, the Trust has fewer than 50,000 shares issued and outstanding (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(2) (Generic)); or
• If, following the initial twelve-month period following commencement of trading on the Exchange of Commodity-Based Trust Shares, the market value of all shares issued and outstanding is less than $1,000,000 (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(3) (Generic)); or
• If the value of the underlying reference asset(s) or index is no longer calculated or made widely available on at least a 15-second basis from a source unaffiliated with the sponsor or the Trust (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(4) (Generic));
• If the Indicative Trust Value is no longer calculated or made widely available to all market participants at the same time on at least a 15-second basis during the Core Trading Session (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(5) (Generic));
• If the net asset value is not calculated at least once daily or made widely available to all market participants at the same time (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(6) (Generic));
• If the information as set forth in this Rule 8.201 is no longer being disclosed in accordance with the requirement of paragraph (e) above (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(7) (Generic));
• If any of the other continued listing requirements set forth in this Rule are not continuously maintained (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(8) (Generic));
• If the Exchange submits a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to permit the listing and trading of a series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that do not otherwise meet the standards set forth in this Rule and any of the statements or representations regarding (a) the description of the index, portfolio, or reference asset, (b) limitations on the index, portfolio holdings, or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in such rule filing are not continuously maintained; or if such other event shall occur or condition exists which in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(9) (Generic));
• Upon termination of a Trust, the Exchange requires that Commodity-Based Trust Shares issued in connection with such Trust be removed from Exchange listing. A Trust may terminate in accordance with the provisions of the Trust prospectus, which may provide for termination if the value of the Trust falls below a specified amount (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(10) (Generic)).
Rule 8.201(j) (Generic) would set forth requirements applicable to Commodity-Based Trust Shares issued by an entity structured as a trust, on an initial and continuing basis. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(1) (Generic) would require that the stated term of the trust be as stated in the trust prospectus, provided that a trust may be terminated under such earlier circumstances as may be specified in the trust prospectus. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(2) (Generic) would set forth requirements that apply to the trustee of a trust. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(2)(i) (Generic) would require that the trustee of a trust must be a trust company or banking institution having substantial capital and surplus and the experience and facilities for handling corporate trust business and that, if an individual has been appointed as trustee, a qualified trust company or banking institution must be appointed co-trustee. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(2)(ii) (Generic) would provide that no change is to be made in the trustee of a listed issue without prior notice to and approval of the Exchange. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(3) (Generic) would provide that voting rights will be as set forth in the applicable trust prospectus. Proposed Rule 8.201(j) (Generic) and the subparagraphs thereunder are based on current Rule 8.201(e)(3) through (5) without any substantive changes, as well as on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(j) (Generic).
Rule 8.201(k) (Generic) would provide that an issuer of Commodity-Based Trust Shares must promptly notify the Exchange of any non-compliance with any of the applicable continued listing standards set forth in Rule 8.201 (Generic). Proposed Rule 8.201(k) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule
Rule 8.201(l) (Generic) would set forth rules relating to trading halts. Proposed Rule 8.201(l)(1) (Generic) would provide that the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the following occurs: (i) the value of the underlying reference asset(s) or index is not made widely available on at least a 15-second basis from a source unaffiliated with the sponsor or the Trust; (ii) the Indicative Trust Value is not made widely available to all market participants at the same time on at least a 15-second basis during the Core Trading Session; or (iii) the information required by proposed Rule 8.201(e) (Generic) to be publicly disclosed on a Trust's website, free of charge, is not being disclosed in that manner. If the interruption persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. If Commodity-Based Trust Shares are trading on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, the Exchange will halt trading as specified in Rule 7.34(a). Proposed Rule 8.201(l)(2) (Generic) would provide that, if the Exchange becomes aware that the net asset value is not disseminated to all the market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Commodity-Based Trust Shares until such time as the net asset value is available to all market participants. Finally, proposed Rule 8.201(l)(3) (Generic) would provide that the Exchange also may halt trading because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. Proposed Rule 8.201(l) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(l) (Generic), with a non-substantive change in proposed Rule 8.201(l)(1) to refer to Rule 7.34 instead of Rule 7.34-E.
Proposed Rule 8.201(m) (Generic) would set forth rules related to Market Maker accounts. A Market Maker in Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic) must file with the Exchange in a manner prescribed by the Exchange and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading in each underlying commodity and commodity-based asset which the Market Maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion. If a Market Maker in Commodity-Based Trust Shares that have exposure to, but do not, consistent with the definition of Commodity-Based Trust Shares in this Rule 8.201 (Generic), hold one or more non-U.S. currencies (“Underlying FX”), such Market Maker also must file with the Exchange, in a manner prescribed by the Exchange, and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading in Underlying FX and derivatives overlying Underlying FX which the Market Maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion, as well as a list of all commodity and commodity-related accounts referenced above. No Market Maker in Commodity-Based Trust Shares shall trade in a commodity, commodity-based asset, Underlying FX, or any related derivative thereon in an account that the Market Maker (1) directly or indirectly controls trading activities or has direct interest in the profits or losses thereof, (2) is required by this rule to disclose to the Exchange, and (3) has not reported to the Exchange. In addition to the existing obligations under Exchange rules regarding the production of books and records, a Market Maker in Commodity-Based Trust Shares shall make available to the Exchange such books, records or other information pertaining to transactions by such entity or registered or non-registered employee affiliated with such entity for its or their own accounts for trading the underlying commodity or commodity-based asset, applicable Underlying FX, or applicable derivatives of each of the foregoing, as may be requested by the Exchange. Proposed Rule 8.201(m) (Generic) is based on current Rule 8.201(g) without any substantive changes, as well as on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(m) (Generic) with non-substantive changes to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic) and to eliminate references to “ETP Holders” as inapplicable to trading on NYSE Texas.
Proposed Rule 8.201(n) (Generic) would provide for the establishment of firewalls. Specifically, proposed Rule 8.201(n)(1) (Generic) would provide that, if the value of a Commodity-Based Trust Share listed pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic) is based in whole or in part on an index that is maintained by a broker-dealer, the broker-dealer shall erect and maintain a “firewall” around the personnel responsible for the maintenance of such index or who have access to information concerning changes and adjustments to the index. Proposed Rule 8.201(n)(2) (Generic) would provide that any advisory committee, supervisory board, or similar entity that advises an index licensor or administrator or that makes decisions regarding the index composition methodology, and related matters must implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the applicable index. Proposed Rule 8.201(n)(3) (Generic) would provide that, if the Trust is affiliated with any entity that has the ability to influence the price or supply of a commodity, or a commodity underlying a commodity-based asset, held by the Trust, the Trust shall (i) implement and maintain a “firewall” between any such entity and the Trust, (ii) have written policies and procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public information regarding the Trust; and (iii) have written policies and procedures designed to prevent fraudulent, deceptive or manipulative acts, practices, or courses of business with respect to the Trust and such commodity. Proposed Rule 8.201(n) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(n) (Generic), with a non-substantive change in proposed Rule 8.201(n)(1) to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(o) would set forth rules relating to the limitation of Exchange liability. Neither the Exchange nor any agent of the Exchange shall have any liability for damages, claims, losses or expenses caused by any errors, omissions, or delays in calculating or disseminating any underlying commodity value, the current value of the underlying commodity required to be deposited to the Trust in connection with issuance of Commodity-Based Trust Shares pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic); resulting from any negligent act or omission by the Exchange, or any agent of the Exchange, or any act, condition or cause beyond the reasonable control of the Exchange, its agent, including, but not limited to, an act of God; fire; flood; extraordinary weather conditions; war; insurrection; riot; strike; accident; action of government; communications or power failure; equipment or software malfunction; or any error, omission or delay in the reports of transactions in an underlying commodity. Proposed Rule 8.201(o) (Generic) is based on current Rule 8.201(f), as well as on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(o) (Generic) with a non-substantive change to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic).
Finally, the Exchange proposes Commentary to Rule 8.201 (Generic) as follows. Proposed Commentary .01 would provide that the Exchange requires that Participants provide all purchasers of newly issued Commodity-Based Trust Shares a prospectus for the series of Commodity-Based Trust
The Exchange proposes conforming changes to Rule 5.2(j)(6), which provides that Commodity-Linked Securities provide for payment at maturity based on the performance of one or more physical commodities or commodity futures, options or other commodity derivatives or Commodity-Based Trust Shares (as defined in Rule 8.201) or a basket or index of any of the foregoing. The Exchange proposes a conforming change to Rule 5.2(j)(6) to specify that the reference to Commodity-Based Trust Shares is as defined in Rule 8.201 (Non-Generic) or Rule 8.201 (Generic) to ensure that this rule accommodates Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to either rule.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest by establishing generic standards for listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares. Proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) would allow Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the requirements of the Rule to be listed and traded on the Exchange without prior Commission approval order or notice of effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest because it would facilitate efficient procedures for listing Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the requirements of proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic), thereby reducing the time, resources, and costs associated with bringing new series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares to market and promoting competition among issuers of such products, to the benefit of the market participants. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would further the intended objective of Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act by permitting Commodity-Based Trust Shares that satisfy the proposed listing standards in proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) to be listed and traded without separate Commission approval.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest because the proposed rules are based on the rules of the Exchange's affiliated market, NYSE Arca, which rules have been approved by the Commission. Accordingly, the proposed rule changes would facilitate the Exchange's ability to list and trade Commodity-Based Trust Shares under generic listing standards identical to NYSE Arca's. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by promoting consistency across the rules of affiliated exchanges.
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 proposed rule change would facilitate the listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares through an efficient process that would enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The Exchange believes that the proposed generic listing standards in Rule 8.201 (Generic) would reduce the timeframe for bringing additional series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares to market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants and promoting competition among issuers of such products.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Specialized Quote Feed
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments become operative on January 1, 2026.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
GEMX proposes to amend its SQF Port and SQF Purge Port pricing at Options 7, Section 6, Ports and Other Services by offering an incentive to Market Makers
Pursuant to a prior rule change,
Today, NOM aggregates its SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees for purposes of the tier qualification. At this time, to make clear the manner in which GEMX will determine qualifications for the SQF Port and SQF Purge Port tiers, the Exchange proposes to note that, “The SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee are aggregated for the below incremental tiers as follows.”
Additionally, at this time, the Exchange proposes to offer an opportunity to lower SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to offer certain discounts to Market Makers that have transacted a certain percentage of Total National Volume in the prior month. For purposes of this proposal, the percentage of Total National Volume is calculated by taking the total Market Maker Penny Symbol and Market Maker Non-Penny Symbol volume (excluding index options) executed on the Exchange in the prior month and attributing a multiple of five times to that Non-Penny Symbol volume (numerator) and dividing that by Market Maker volume (“M” capacity at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”)) in multiply listed options across all options exchanges (denominator or Total National Volume).
With this proposal, a Market Maker that transacted less than 0.10% of Total National Volume in the prior month would not receive a discount on SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees. A Market Maker that transacted greater than or equal to 0.10% and less than 0.25% of Total National Volume in the prior month will be afforded a discount of 10% on their SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees. A Market Maker that transacted greater than or equal to 0.25% and less than 0.40% of Total National Volume in the prior month will be afforded a discount of 30% on their SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees. Finally, a Market Maker that transacted greater than or equal to 0.40% of Total National Volume in the prior month will be afforded a discount of 50% on their SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees. By way of example, a Market Maker that executed 3,000,000 in Penny Volume and 200,000 in Non-Penny Volume in a given month on the Exchange, where the Total National Volume was 1,000,000,000, would qualify for a discount of 50% on their SQF Port and SQF Purge Port fees ((200,000 × 5 = 1,000,000) + 3,000,000 = 4,000,000 which is 0.40% of 1,000,000,000).
The Exchange proposes to calculate Market Maker Non-Penny Symbol volume at five times the weight as compared to Market Maker Penny Symbol volume because Non-Penny Symbols tend to have lower volumes and this incentive should encourage a greater amount of volume in Non-Penny Symbols. Overall, the proposed discounts should encourage Market Makers to transact additional order flow on GEMX with which other market participants may interact, for an opportunity to lower SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees. The Exchange proposes to exclude index options as index options are generally not multiply listed.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .”
The proposed fee discounts for SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports are reasonable because they will attract a greater amount of order flow to GEMX with which other market participants may interact while also lowering costs for certain Market Makers that are able to transact greater than 0.10% of Total National Volume in the prior month. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to lower costs for certain Market Makers that transact greater than 0.10% of Total National Volume on GEMX because those Market Makers are affording other GEMX Members an opportunity to interact with that order flow. The proposal provides an incremental incentive for Market Makers that transact at least 0.10% of Total National Volume, which provides a higher benefit for satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria. The Exchange believes that the value of the proposed discounts is commensurate with the difficulty to achieve the corresponding threshold. Additionally, the discounts may incentivize and attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which will benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery. The Exchange's proposed discounts are substantially similar to Cboe Exchange, Inc.'s (“Cboe”) credit for their BOE Bulk Port Fees.
GEMX believes it is reasonable to offer fee discounts to those Market Makers that primarily provide and post liquidity to the Exchange, as it should encourage Market Makers to continue to participate on the Exchange and add liquidity. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The proposal would also mitigate the costs incurred by Market Makers on GEMX.
Calculating Market Maker Non-Penny Symbol volume at five times the weight as compared to Penny Symbol volume is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as Non-Penny Symbols tend to have lower volumes and this incentive should encourage a greater amount of volume in Market Maker Non-Penny Symbols.
A GEMX Market Maker requires only one SQF Port to submit quotes in its assigned options series into GEMX. A Market Maker may submit all quotes through one SQF Port. This is also the case for an SQF Purge Port. While a Market Maker may elect to obtain multiple SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports to organize its business,
The proposed fee discounts for SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as they would apply uniformly to each GEMX Market Maker. The Exchange would uniformly calculate the Market Maker's percentage each month. Although only Market Makers may receive the proposed discounts, the Exchange notes that Market Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other market participants do not incur. Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis,
The Exchange's proposal to note that, “The SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee are aggregated for the below incremental tiers as follows” and to relocate the tier qualifications to one table instead of two separate tables is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will reflect that GEMX intends to calculate the SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fees by aggregating them for purposes of the tier calculation. This reflects the intent of SR-GEMX-2025-22, which stated that the GEMX SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee would be identical to the NOM SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In terms of intra-market competition, the proposed discounts for SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports do not impose a burden on competition because they would apply uniformly to each Market Maker and the Exchange would uniformly calculate the Market Maker's percentage each month. Although only Market Makers may receive the proposed discounts, the Exchange notes that Market Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other market participants do not incur. Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis,
The Exchange's proposal to note that, “The SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee are aggregated for the below incremental tiers as follows” and to relocate the tier qualifications to one table instead of two separate tables does not impose an undue burden on competition as it will reflect that GEMX intends to calculate the SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fees by aggregating them for purposes of the tier calculation. This reflects the intent of SR-GEMX-2025-22, which stated that the GEMX SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee would be identical to the NOM SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other options exchanges. In addition to the Exchange, market participants have alternative options exchanges that they may participate on and direct their
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act, as well as from certain disclosure requirements in rule 20a-1 under the Act, Item 19(a)(3) of Form N-1A, Items 22(c)(1)(ii), 22(c)(1)(iii), 22(c)(8) and 22(c)(9) of Schedule 14A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 6-07(2)(a), (b), and (c) of Regulation S-X (“Disclosure Requirements”).
The Commission:
Rachel Loko, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' third amended application, dated October 23, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Specialized Quote Feed
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments become operative on January 1, 2026.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
MRX proposes to amend its SQF Port and SQF Purge Port pricing at Options 7, Section 6, Ports and Other Services by offering an incentive to Market Makers
Pursuant to a prior rule change,
Today, NOM aggregates its SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees for purposes of the tier qualification. At this time, to make clear the manner in which MRX will determine qualifications for the SQF Port and SQF Purge Port tiers, the Exchange proposes to note that, “The SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee are aggregated for the below incremental tiers as follows.”
Additionally, at this time, the Exchange proposes to offer an opportunity to lower SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to offer certain discounts to Market Makers that have transacted a certain percentage of Total National Volume in the prior month. For purposes of this proposal, the percentage of Total National Volume is calculated by taking the total Market Maker Penny Symbol and Market Maker Non-Penny Symbol volume (excluding index options) executed on the Exchange in the prior month and attributing a multiple of five times to that Non-Penny Symbol volume (numerator) and dividing that by Market Maker volume (“M” capacity at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”)) in multiply listed options across all options exchanges (denominator or Total National Volume).
With this proposal, a Market Maker that transacted less than 0.10% of Total National Volume in the prior month would not receive a discount on SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees. A Market Maker that transacted greater than or
The Exchange proposes to calculate Market Maker Non-Penny Symbol volume at five times the weight as compared to Market Maker Penny Symbol volume because Non-Penny Symbols tend to have lower volumes and this incentive should encourage a greater amount of volume in Non-Penny Symbols. Overall, the proposed discounts should encourage Market Makers to transact additional order flow on MRX with which other market participants may interact, for an opportunity to lower SQF Port and SQF Purge Port Fees. The Exchange proposes to exclude index options as index options are generally not multiply listed.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The proposed fee discounts for SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports are reasonable because they will attract a greater amount of order flow to MRX with which other market participants may interact while also lowering costs for certain Market Makers that are able to transact greater than 0.10% of Total National Volume in the prior month. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to lower costs for certain Market Makers that transact greater than 0.10% of Total National Volume on MRX because those Market Makers are affording other MRX Members an opportunity to interact with that order flow. The proposal provides an incremental incentive for Market Makers that transact at least 0.10% of Total National Volume, which provides a higher benefit for satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria. The Exchange believes that the value of the proposed discounts is commensurate with the difficulty to achieve the corresponding threshold. Additionally, the discounts may incentivize and attract more volume and liquidity to the Exchange, which will benefit all Exchange participants through increased opportunities to trade as well as enhancing price discovery. The Exchange's proposed discounts are substantially similar to Cboe Exchange, Inc.'s (“Cboe”) credit for their BOE Bulk Port Fees.
MRX believes it is reasonable to offer fee discounts to those Market Makers that primarily provide and post liquidity to the Exchange, as it should encourage Market Makers to continue to participate on the Exchange and add liquidity. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The proposal would also mitigate the costs incurred by Market Makers on MRX.
Calculating Market Maker Non-Penny Symbol volume at five times the weight as compared to Penny Symbol volume is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as Non-Penny Symbols tend to have lower volumes and this incentive should encourage a greater amount of volume in Market Maker Non-Penny Symbols.
An MRX Market Maker requires only one SQF Port to submit quotes in its assigned options series into MRX. A Market Maker may submit all quotes through one SQF Port. This is also the case for an SQF Purge Port. While a Market Maker may elect to obtain multiple SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports to organize its business,
The proposed fee discounts for SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as they would apply uniformly to each MRX Market Maker. The Exchange would uniformly calculate the Market Maker's percentage each month. Although only Market Makers may receive the proposed discounts, the Exchange notes that Market Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other market participants do not incur. Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis,
The Exchange's proposal to note that, “The SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee are aggregated for the below incremental tiers as follows” and to relocate the tier qualifications to one table instead of two separate tables is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will reflect that MRX intends to calculate the SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fees by aggregating them for purposes of the tier calculation. This reflects the intent of SR-MRX-2025-20, which stated that the MRX SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee would be identical to the NOM SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In terms of intra-market competition, the proposed discounts for SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports do not impose a burden on competition because they would apply uniformly to each Market Maker and the Exchange would uniformly calculate the Market Maker's percentage each month. Although only Market Makers may receive the proposed discounts, the Exchange notes that Market Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other market participants do not incur. Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis,
The Exchange's proposal to note that, “The SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee are aggregated for the below incremental tiers as follows” and to relocate the tier qualifications to one table instead of two separate tables does not impose an undue burden on competition as it will reflect that MRX intends to calculate the SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fees by aggregating them for purposes of the tier calculation. This reflects the intent of SR-MRX-2025-20, which stated that the MRX SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee would be identical to the NOM SQF Port Fee and the SQF Purge Port Fee.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other options exchanges. In addition to the Exchange, market participants have alternative options exchanges that they may participate on and direct their order flow. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing options exchanges to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend Rule 11.630 of the Exchange's compliance rule (“CAT Compliance Rule”) regarding the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”)
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.630 of the CAT Compliance Rule to be consistent with the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan related to the BFMM Locate Exception. In 2023, the Commission amended the CAT NMS Plan to require the reporting to the CAT of reliance on the BFMM Locate Exception.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect this additional CAT reporting requirement. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph (G) to Rule 11.630, which would require each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the following:
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is consistent with the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan approved by the Commission and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the amendment to the CAT NMS Plan approved by the Commission and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. The Exchange also notes that the amendment to the CAT Compliance Rule will apply equally to all Industry Members that trade equity securities. In addition, all national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing these amendments to their CAT Compliance Rules. Therefore, this is not a competitive rule filing, and, therefore, it does not impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's rules related to round lot and normal unit of trading, specifically, Nasdaq Rules 5005(a)(40) and 5720(c)(6), Nasdaq Equity Rule 2, Section 5(a)(1) and Nasdaq Equity Rule 4, Section 4703(b)(1), to bring the rules into compliance with Regulation National Market System Rule 600(b)(93).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the amend the Exchange's rules related to round lot and normal unit of trading, specifically, Nasdaq Rules 5005(a)(40) and 5720(c)(6), Nasdaq Equity Rule 2, Section 5(a)(1) and Nasdaq Equity Rule 4, Section 4703(b)(1), to bring the rules into compliance with Regulation National Market System (“Reg NMS”) Rule 600(b)(93).
On December 9, 2020, the Commission adopted amendments to Reg NMS, specifically, the Market Data Infrastructure rules to modernize the NMS information provided within the national market system for the benefit of market participants and to better achieve Section 11A's goals of assuring “the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities that is prompt, accurate, reliable, and fair” (“MDI Rules”). These changes included a definition of “round lot” which assigns each NMS stock to a round lot size based on the stock's average closing price.
In light of delays in the implementation of the MDI Rules, including the definition of round lot, on September 18, 2024, the Commission, among other things, accelerated the implementation of the round lot definition. The Commission also revised the round lot definition as set forth below.
The primary listing exchange is required to collect and calculate information for an NMS stock and provide such information, including an indicator of the applicable round lot size, to competing consolidators and self-aggregators.
In various sections of its rulebook, the Exchange currently defines round lot and “normal unit of trading” as 100. Specifically, Nasdaq Rule 5005(a)(40) defines round lot and “normal unit of
The Exchange's rulebook also references 100 shares for round lot and “normal unit of trading” in Nasdaq Rule 5720(c)(6), which currently requires Trust Issued Receipts to only be made in round lots of 100 receipts or round lot multiples. The Exchange proposes to remove the reference to 100 receipts. “Normal Unit of Trading” is also defined in Nasdaq Equity Rule 2, Section 5(a)(1) as 100 shares. The Exchange proposes to remove the reference to 100 shares and add language noting that the Exchange shall publish semi-annual updates of the round lot unit for all Nasdaq-listed securities. Similarly, Nasdaq Equity Rule 4, Section 4703(b)(1) defines round lot and “normal unit of trading” as 100 shares in most instances. The Exchange proposes to remove the reference to 100 shares.
These proposed changes will bring the rules discussed above into compliance with Reg NMS Rule 600(b)(93) by eliminating references to 100 shares as the normal unit of trading.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Generally speaking, it is consistent with the Act to amend the Rulebook to comply with securities laws and regulations. The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments made in this filing are reasonable because they bring the rules into compliance with new Reg NMS Rule 600(b)(93). In order to bring these existing rules into compliance, the Exchange is modifying all references in the rulebook that define round lot and “normal unit of trading” as 100. The proposed changes remove any confusion that 100 is the default round lot size for all securities. The proposal also perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by making clear that the terms round lot and “normal unit of trading” are based on Rule 600(b)(93) of Reg NMS and that the Exchange will publish the round lot unit for all of its listed securities on a semi-annual basis.
The Exchange believes that the proposed updates will protect investors and the public because it brings our rules into compliance and aligns them with federal securities laws and regulations.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposal does not impose any burden on competition. However, even if these proposed amendments to the definition of round lot and “normal unit of trading” imposed a burden on competition, such a burden would be necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because these changes are being made to bring the Exchange's rulebook into compliance with new Reg NMS Rule 600(b)(93).
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposal to amend 14.13 (Company Listing Fees) to (1) explicitly state that an issuer will be charged the lowest of the applicable annual listing fees when multiple fee categories could apply to the issuer's securities, and (2) clarify the timing of annual fee assessments by specifying that the Exchange assesses all annual fees upon initial listing and annually in the first quarter of each calendar year. 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 is proposing to amend Rule 14.13 (Company Listing Fees) to provide clarification and codify existing Exchange practices regarding the assessment of annual listing fees. Specifically, the proposed amendments will: (1) explicitly state that an issuer will be charged the lowest of the applicable annual listing fees when multiple fee categories could apply to the issuer's securities, and (2) clarify the timing of annual fee assessments by specifying that the Exchange assesses all annual fees upon initial listing and annually in the first quarter of each calendar year.
These amendments are intended to address potential ambiguity in the current rule text and ensure that the Exchange's fee schedule is transparent and easily understood by current and prospective issuers. The proposed changes do not alter the Exchange's existing fee structure or introduce new fees; rather, they codify practices that the Exchange has consistently applied in administering annual listing fees.
First, the clarification that issuers will be charged the lowest applicable annual listing fee addresses situations where an issuer's securities may fall into multiple fee categories under Rule 14.13. By explicitly stating that the Exchange will apply the most favorable fee structure, the proposed amendment eliminates any potential confusion and ensures consistent, predictable treatment of all issuers. This practice is already followed by the Exchange and aligning the rule text with operational practice benefits issuers by providing certainty regarding their fee obligations.
Second, the clarification regarding the timing of annual fee assessments provides issuers with clear guidance on when fees will be invoiced and due. This timing has been the Exchange's longstanding practice and codifying it in the rule text enhances transparency and allows issuers to better plan and budget for their listing expenses. The proposed language does not change when or how fees are assessed; it simply makes the existing practice explicit in the rule.
Listed and prospective issuers will benefit from increased clarity and transparency regarding annual listing fees. The explicit statement that the lowest applicable fee will be charged provides certainty and may reduce inquiries or disputes regarding fee assessments. The timing clarification allows issuers to anticipate when annual fees will be invoiced, facilitating financial planning. No issuer will experience an increase in fees as a result of these amendments.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposed rule change promotes just and equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to a free and open market by enhancing transparency and eliminating potential ambiguity in the Exchange's annual listing fee structure. By explicitly codifying that issuers will be charged the lowest applicable annual listing fee when multiple fee categories could apply, the proposed amendment ensures that all issuers receive consistent and predictable treatment. This clarity reduces the potential for confusion or disputes regarding fee assessments and ensures that issuers are not subject to arbitrary or inconsistent fee determinations. Transparent and predictable fee structures facilitate informed decision-making by issuers when selecting a listing venue, thereby promoting competition among exchanges and contributing to the efficient operation of the national market system.
The proposed rule change protects investors and the public interest by ensuring that listed companies have clear visibility into their ongoing listing obligations and costs. This stability benefits investors by reducing the risk of unexpected delistings or financial strain on issuers due to unanticipated fee assessments. Additionally, by codifying the timing of annual fee assessments the proposed amendment provides issuers with the information necessary to plan for these obligations, further contributing to listing stability and investor protection.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among issuers using the Exchange's listing facilities. By explicitly stating that the Exchange will charge the lowest applicable fee when multiple categories could apply, the amendment ensures that no issuer is disadvantaged or charged a higher fee than warranted by the characteristics of its securities. This approach treats similarly situated issuers consistently and ensures that fee assessments are based on objective criteria rather than subjective interpretation. The clarification of fee timing similarly promotes equitable treatment by ensuring all issuers are assessed fees on the same schedule, eliminating any potential for preferential or discriminatory treatment in the timing of fee invoicing.
The proposed rule change does not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The amendments apply uniformly to all issuers listed on the Exchange and do not create different standards or treatment for different classes of issuers. By codifying that the lowest applicable fee will be charged, the Exchange is ensuring that all issuers benefit equally from this clarification, regardless of size, industry, or other characteristics. The timing clarification similarly applies uniformly to all issuers, ensuring consistent treatment across the Exchange's listing population.
Finally, the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by reducing administrative burdens and potential friction in the listing process. Clear, unambiguous rules regarding fee assessments allow issuers to focus on their business operations and capital formation activities rather than navigating uncertainty about listing costs. This efficiency benefits the broader market by facilitating capital formation and ensuring that exchanges can attract and retain listings based on the merits of their services rather than confusion about fee structures. Moreover, because the proposed amendments codify existing Exchange practices rather than introducing new requirements, they impose no new burdens on issuers while providing the benefits of enhanced clarity and transparency.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments are clarifications that codify existing Exchange practices and do not alter the substantive fee structure or create new obligations for any market participant.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition. The amendments apply uniformly to all issuers listed or seeking to list on the Exchange, regardless of issuer size, industry, security type, or other characteristics. By explicitly codifying that the Exchange will charge the lowest applicable annual listing fee when multiple fee categories could apply, the proposed rule change ensures consistent and equitable treatment of all issuers. No category of issuer is advantaged or disadvantaged relative to other issuers as a result of these clarifications. The timing clarification similarly applies uniformly to all issuers, ensuring that annual fees are assessed on the same schedule for all market participants. Because the amendments codify existing practices rather than introducing new requirements or fee structures, no issuer will experience any change in competitive position relative to other issuers on the Exchange.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition. The amendments enhance transparency and clarity regarding the Exchange's annual listing fee structure and assessment timing, which may make the Exchange's fee schedule more easily understood by prospective issuers comparing listing venues. To the extent that increased transparency benefits issuers listed on the Exchange, this reflects legitimate competition among exchanges based on the clarity and predictability of their fee structures. Issuers are free to choose among competing listing venues based on their evaluation of fees, services, and other factors. Other exchanges remain free to adopt similar clarifications to their own fee schedules or to compete on other dimensions of listing services. The proposed amendments do not create barriers to competition or prevent other exchanges from offering competitive listing services.
The proposed rule change does not involve the Exchange undertaking activities usually performed by other market participants. The amendments relate solely to the Exchange's administration of its own listing fee schedule, which is a core exchange function. No broker-dealer, service provider, or other market participant is displaced or burdened by these clarifications.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition. By enhancing transparency and eliminating potential ambiguity in
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”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Specialized Quote Feed
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the amendments become operative on January 1, 2026.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ISE proposes to amend its SQF Port pricing at Options 7, Section 7, C, “Ports and Other Services” by offering an incentive to Market Makers
Currently, ISE assesses an SQF Port Fee of $1,185 per port, per month. At this time, the Exchange proposes to offer an opportunity to lower SQF Port Fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to offer certain discounts to Market Makers that have transacted a certain percentage of Total National Volume in the prior month. For purposes of this proposal, the percentage of Total National Volume is calculated by taking the total Market Maker Penny Symbol and Market Maker Non-Penny Symbol volume (excluding index options) executed on the Exchange in the prior month and attributing a multiple of five times to that Non-Penny Symbol volume (numerator) and dividing that by Market Maker volume (“M” capacity at The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”)) in multiply listed options across all options exchanges (denominator or Total National Volume).
With this proposal, a Market Maker that transacted less than 0.10% of Total National Volume in the prior month would not receive a discount on SQF Port Fees. A Market Maker that transacted greater than or equal to 0.10% and less than 0.25% of Total National Volume in the prior month will be afforded a discount of 10% on their SQF Port Fees. A Market Maker that transacted greater than or equal to 0.25% and less than 0.40% of Total National Volume in the prior month will be afforded a discount of 30% on their SQF Port Fees. Finally, a Market Maker that transacted greater than or equal to 0.40% of Total National Volume in the prior month will be afforded a discount of 50% on their SQF Port Fees. By way of example, a Market Maker that executed 3,000,000 in Penny Volume and 200,000 in Non-Penny Volume in a given month on the Exchange, where the Total National Volume was 1,000,000,000, would qualify for a discount of 50% on their SQF Port Fees ((200,000 × 5= 1,000,000) + 3,000,000 = 4,000,000 which is 0.40% of 1,000,000,000).
The Exchange proposes to calculate Market Maker Non-Penny Symbol volume at five times the weight as compared to Market Maker Penny Symbol volume because Non-Penny Symbols tend to have lower volumes and this incentive should encourage a greater amount of volume in Non-Penny Symbols. Overall, the proposed discounts should encourage Market Makers to transact additional order flow on ISE with which other market participants may interact, for an opportunity to lower SQF Port Fees. The Exchange proposes to exclude index options as index options are generally not multiply listed.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . ..”
The proposed fee discounts for ISE SQF Ports are reasonable because they will attract a greater amount of order flow to ISE with which other market participants may interact while also lowering costs for certain Market Makers that are able to transact greater than 0.10% of Total National Volume in the prior month. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to lower costs for certain Market Makers that transact greater than 0.10% of Total National Volume on ISE because those Market Makers are affording other ISE Members an opportunity to interact with that order flow. The proposal provides an
ISE believes it is reasonable to offer fee discounts to those Market Makers that primarily provide and post liquidity to the Exchange, as it should encourage Market Makers to continue to participate on the Exchange and add liquidity. Greater liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The proposal would also mitigate the costs incurred by Market Makers on ISE.
Calculating Market Maker Non-Penny Symbol volume at five times the weight as compared to Penny Symbol volume is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as Non-Penny Symbols tend to have lower volumes and this incentive should encourage a greater amount of volume in Market Maker Non-Penny Symbols.
An ISE Market Maker requires only one SQF Port to submit quotes in its assigned options series into ISE. An ISE Market Maker may submit all quotes through one SQF Port. While an ISE Market Maker may elect to obtain multiple SQF Ports to organize its business,
The proposed fee discounts for ISE SQF Ports are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as they would apply uniformly to each ISE Market Maker. The Exchange would uniformly calculate the Market Maker's percentage each month. Although only Market Makers may receive the proposed discounts, the Exchange notes that Market Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other market participants do not incur. Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
In terms of intra-market competition, the proposed fee discounts for ISE SQF Ports do not impose a burden on competition because they would apply uniformly to each ISE Market Maker and the Exchange would uniformly calculate the Market Maker's percentage each month. Although only Market Makers may receive the proposed discounts, the Exchange notes that Market Makers are valuable market participants that provide liquidity in the marketplace and incur costs that other market participants do not incur. Unlike other market participants, Market Makers are required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis,
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
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-ISE-2025-41 and should be submitted on or before January 20, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt a Best Execution and Interpositioning rule at proposed Options 9, Section 26.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a Best Execution and Interpositioning rule at proposed Options 9, Section 26 that is identical to Nasdaq Phlx LLC (“Phlx”) Best Execution and Interpositioning rule at General 9, Section 11.
A broker-dealer has a legal duty to seek best execution of customer orders. The duty of best execution predates the Federal securities laws and is derived from an implied representation that a broker-dealer makes to its customers. The duty is established from “common law agency obligations of undivided loyalty and reasonable care that an agent owes to [its] principal.”
The Commission has previously stated that the duty of best execution requires a broker-dealer to execute customers' trades at the most favorable terms reasonably available under the circumstances,
In addition, the Commission has expressed concerns regarding interpositioning and the duty of best execution. Interpositioning can occur when a broker-dealer places a third party between itself and the best market for executing a customer trade in a manner that results in a customer not receiving the best available market price.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to codify the broker dealer's duty of best execution at Options 9, Section 26 and title the new rule, “Best Execution and Interpositioning.”
A broker-dealer that engages in a transaction for or with a customer or a customer of another broker-dealer, a Member and persons associated with a Member shall use reasonable diligence to ascertain the best market for the subject security and buy or sell in such market so that the resultant price to the customer is as favorable as possible under prevailing market conditions. Utilizing the Commission's non-exhaustive list of factors, FINRA Rule 5310 and identical to Phlx General 9, Section 11, the following are among the factors that will be considered in determining whether a Member has used “reasonable diligence” are:
the character of the market for the security,
the size and type of transaction;
the number of markets checked;
accessibility of the quotation; and
the terms and conditions of the order which result in the transaction, as communicated to the Member and persons associated with the Member.
To prevent a broker-dealer from avoiding its best execution obligation via a third-party, the Exchange proposes to state that in any transaction for or with a customer or a customer of another broker-dealer, no Member or person associated with a Member shall interject a third party between the Member and the best market for the subject security in a manner inconsistent with paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule.
Next, the Exchange notes that it is the Member's obligation to demonstrate best execution. To this end, the Exchange proposes to state that when a Member cannot execute directly with a market maker but must employ a broker's broker or some other means in order to ensure an execution advantageous to the customer, the burden of showing the acceptable circumstances for doing so is on the retail firm. Examples of acceptable circumstances are where a customer's order is “crossed” with another retail firm which has a corresponding order on the other side, or where the identity of the retail firm, if known, would likely cause undue price movements adversely affecting the cost or proceeds to the customer.
The Exchange further notes that a Member cannot using staffing or a third party as a reason to not execute a transaction in accordance with its best execution obligation. The Exchange proposes to state that failure to maintain or adequately staff a department assigned to execute customers' orders cannot be considered justification for executing away from the best available market; nor can channeling orders through a third party as described above as reciprocation for service or business operate to relieve a Member of its obligations.
The proposed rule also holds Members responsible where they are a party to the transaction chain where the best execution obligation was not met. The Exchange proposes to state that a Member through whom a retail order is channeled, as described above, and who knowingly is a party to an arrangement whereby the initiating Member has not fulfilled his obligations under this Rule, will also be deemed to have violated Options 9, Section 26.
A Member is subject the duty of best execution where it acts as agent for the account of his customer or executes a retail transaction as principal and the transaction is contemporaneously offset.
Finally, the duty of best execution applies when customer orders are routed to and from a broker/dealer to another broker/dealer for execution.
The Exchange proposes to note, identical to Phlx General 9, Section 11, that for the purposes of this Rule, the term “market” or “markets” is to be construed broadly, and it encompasses a variety of different venues, including, but not limited to, market centers that are trading a particular security. The rule text notes that this expansive interpretation is meant to both inform broker/dealers as to the breadth of the scope of venues that must be considered in the furtherance of their best execution obligations and to promote fair competition among broker/dealers, exchange markets, and markets other than exchange markets, as well as any other venue that may emerge, by not mandating that certain trading venues have less relevance than others in the course of determining a firm's best execution obligations.
Finally, identical to Phlx General 9, Section 11, the Exchange provides that a Member's duty to provide best execution in any transaction “for or with a customer of another broker/dealer” does not apply in instances when another broker/dealer is simply executing a customer order against the Member's quote. The duty to provide best execution to customer orders received from other broker/dealers arises only when an order is routed from the broker/dealer to the Member for the purpose of order handling and execution. Identical to Phlx, this rule text is intended to draw a distinction between those situations in which the Member is acting solely as the buyer or seller in connection with orders presented by a broker/dealer against the Member's quote, as opposed to those circumstances in which the Member is accepting order flow from another broker/dealer for the purpose of facilitating the handling and execution of such orders.
Members are subject to this rule today by virtue of having public customers. Brokers with public customers are required to be members of FINRA; accordingly, adoption of these rules by ISE could be seen as unnecessary. However, ISE believes that the requirements of these rules are sufficiently important that they should be reinforced through explicit inclusion in its rules.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
ISE's proposed Options 9, Section 26 seeks to make clear that a broker-dealer must seek to obtain for its customer orders the most favorable terms reasonably available under the circumstances, thereby protecting investors and general public. The proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing examples of reasonable diligence and identifying use of channeling and third parties that are and are not violative of the rule. ISE's interpretation of the term “market” or “markets” is intended to provide Members with context as to the scope of venues that must be considered in the furtherance of their best execution obligations. Finally, the Exchange notes that the duty to provide best execution to customer orders received from other broker/dealers arises only when an order is routed from the broker/dealer to the Member for the purpose of order handling and execution. Finally, the Exchange intends to harmonize ISE's rule with Phlx General 9, Section 11 which is identical to the proposed rule.
Members are subject to these rules today by virtue of having public customers. Brokers with public customers are required to be members of FINRA; accordingly, adoption of these rules by ISE could be seen as unnecessary. However, ISE believes that the requirements of these rules are sufficiently important that they should be reinforced through explicit inclusion in its rules.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Options 9, Section 26, Best Execution and Interpositioning, does not impose an undue burden on competition as all Members that conduct business with the public would be subject to the proposed rule.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 19, 2025, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (“FICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed rule change SR-FICC-2025-021, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On November 3, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the Proposed Rule Change.
FICC is a central counterparty (“CCP”), which means it interposes itself as the buyer to every seller and seller to every buyer for the financial transactions it clears. FICC's GSD provides trade comparison, netting, risk management, settlement and CCP services for the U.S. Government securities market.
In 2024, FICC consolidated its existing correspondent clearing and prime broker services into a single “Agent Clearing Service.”
FICC states that the Agent Clearing Service is designed to provide an avenue of access to FICC's clearance and settlement systems for indirect participants unable to onboard directly with FICC due to regulatory, cost, legal, operational or jurisdictional reasons.
The Agent Clearing Service allows Members to perfect their security interests in an Agent Clearing Transactions without filing a financing statement. According to an industry opinion obtained by SIFMA, the level of intermediation present in the Service means a court would treat Agent Clearing Transactions as “financial assets” in a “securities account,” with the Agent Clearing Member acting as the “securities intermediary” under New York's UCC Article 8. Under Articles 8 and 9, this automatically perfects the securities intermediary's interest and eliminates the need for the costly and time-consuming filing of a financing statement.
While the Agent Clearing Service and Sponsored Service share similarities including the ability of both to accommodate bilateral DVP repos, there are specific differences in the scope of transactions eligible for clearing, as discussed further in section II.B below, the treatment of haircuts, and the novation of Start Legs.
The Agent Clearing Service does not currently support Repo Transactions on securities represented by Generic CUSIP Numbers that settle through a clearing agent bank's triparty repo platform (“Triparty Trades”), whereas the Sponsored Service includes this type of transaction.
Under the Sponsored GC Service, the securities delivery and related payment obligations in a Sponsored GC Trade settle directly between the pre-novation counterparties through a Sponsored GC Clearing Agent Bank's triparty repo platform, rather than through FICC.
The Proposed Rule Change would: (A) amend the FICC Government Securities Division Rulebook to create the ACS Triparty Service as a new offering under the Agent Clearing Service; (B) align the treatment of Initial Haircuts within the Rules for done-with Agent Clearing Transactions with those for done-with Sponsored Member Trades; (C) clarify that FICC does not novate the Start Legs of Same-Day Settling Done-With Agent Clearing Transactions; and (D) make certain conforming and clarifying changes.
The ACS Triparty Service would allow an Agent Clearing Member to submit to FICC for comparison and novation triparty Repo Transactions entered by an Executing Firm Customer using securities represented by Generic CUSIP Numbers (each, an “ACS Triparty Trade”). As with other Agent Clearing Transactions, the Agent Clearing Member acts solely as agent of the Executing Firm Customer in connection with the clearing of Agent Clearing Transactions and remains fully liable to FICC for the performance of all obligations, financial or otherwise, arising in connection with these transactions. The Proposed Rule Change would accommodate transactions between an Executing Firm Customer and its Agent Clearing Member (done-with trades), as well as transactions between an Executing Firm Customer and another Netting Member or an Indirect Participant of any Netting Member (done-away trades).
FICC states that ACS Triparty Trades would be recorded in an Agent Clearing Member Omnibus Account along with other Agent Clearing Transactions, unless the Executing Firm Customer and Agent Clearing Member choose to record such trades in a Segregated Indirect Participants Account. If utilizing the Agent Clearing Member Omnibus Account, margin on the transaction would be calculated in a way that recognizes the risk offsets across all open positions within the Account at the time. ACS Triparty Trades recorded in both an Agent Clearing Member Omnibus Account or a Segregated Indirect Participants Account would be subject to all applicable charges according to the Margin Component Schedule of the Rules as other Agent Clearing Transactions recorded in the same Account.
The ACS Triparty Service will incorporate features from the extant Sponsored GC Service resulting in similar terms across both the ACS Triparty and Sponsored GC Service. FICC states that this similarity is to align terms across both the ACS Triparty and Sponsored GC Services, facilitating Agent Clearing Members in offering access to money market funds and other cash providers dependent on securities transfers for margin maintenance and triparty repo clearing banks for collateral management to access FICC's clearance and settlement services.
Both services will utilize identical schedules of eligible securities. The Start Leg of transactions within both services will settle on a gross basis between pre-novation counterparties via the triparty repo platform of a triparty clearing agent bank. Upon settling the Start Leg and satisfying other conditions, the End Leg becomes eligible for novation. Additionally, both services may apply, but are not required to apply, an initial haircut.
For purposes of calculating initial margin requirements, both services will treat triparty repos as GCF Repo Transactions. The only Funds-Only Settlement Amounts applicable will be the Forward Mark Adjustment Payment and Interest Rate Adjustment Payment. Daily accrued repo interest will be payable by or to FICC under both services. Furthermore, both allow the repo seller to substitute General
In connection with the final settlement, daily repo interest and margin calls related to mark-to-market movements of the triparty repo securities, as well as the transfer of these securities, will occur directly between pre-novation counterparties through the triparty repo platform of the clearing agent bank.
As an Agent Clearing Member might post a haircut to its Executing Firm Customers to address regulatory and/or investment guideline concerns similar to Sponsoring Members and their Sponsored Members under the Sponsored Service, or choose to collect a haircut from its Executing Firm Customer at the Start Leg to mitigate exposure from full liability for obligations to FICC in Agent Clearing Transactions. However, FICC's current funds-only settlement process could frustrate this purpose by requiring the recipient of a haircut at the Start Leg to transfer an equivalent amount of cash the next Business Day after the Start Leg has settled.
To prevent Initial Haircuts from being returned before final settlement in done-with Agent Clearing Transactions, FICC proposes new Rules to align the treatment of Initial Haircuts under Agent Clearing Transactions with those under Sponsored Member Trades. Specifically, the Collateral Mark for these transactions will be based on the Initial Haircut rather than the Contract Price. For instance, if the Initial Haircut is $2 and the value of Eligible Securities increases by $1, FICC would calculate a Collateral Mark of $1 instead of $3. This ensures the Initial Haircut remains with the intended party until final settlement.
Additionally, FICC plans to clarify that ACS Triparty Trades, like Sponsored GC Trades, may but are not required to include an Initial Haircut. Changes in mark-to-market values of Purchased GC Repo Securities for these trades will be passed between pre-Novation counterparties through the triparty repo platform rather than the Funds-Only Settlement Amount cycle, as in a Sponsored GC Trade.
Finally, FICC will specify that Agent Clearing Transactions with an Initial Haircut will be treated as Off-the-Market Transactions, similar to Sponsored Member Trades. The party posting the Initial Haircut bears the risk of loss if FICC ceases to act for the pre-Novation counterparty.
FICC does not Novate the Start Legs of same-day starting Agent Clearing Transactions due to operational and legal complexities. Revisions to Rule 1 will make clear that only certain Agent Clearing Transactions qualify as Same-Day Settling Trades. The only Agent Clearing Transaction that constitutes a Same-Day Settling Trade is one that: (1) is not an ACS Triparty Trade; (2) is executed between an Executing Firm Customer and a Netting Member or Indirect Participant other than its Agent Clearing Member; and (3) meets the requirements of clause (i) and (ii) of that definition. This aligns the treatment of these transactions with the Sponsored Service. Section 7(f) (formerly 7(e)) will also be updated to state that Same-Day Settling Trades do not settle at FICC, eliminating the need for notices from Agent Clearing Members.
Finally, FICC proposes several clarifying, conforming, and technical changes related to the Proposed Rule Changes.
FICC intends to revise the definitions of “Current Haircut,” “Haircut Deficit,” and “Haircut Surplus” to specify that these definitions only apply to done-with DVP Repo Transactions. This distinction is necessary because FICC does not support Initial Haircuts for done-away DVP Repo Transactions, but only in the context of done-with DVP Repo Transactions. Similarly, FICC aims to amend Section 9 of Rule 3A to clarify that it incorporates Initial Haircuts into its calculation of Funds-Only Settlement Amounts solely in relation to done-with Sponsored Member Trades.
Additionally, FICC would update Section 4 of Rule 5 to mandate that ACS Triparty Trades be submitted exactly as executed. Furthermore, Section 7(h) of Rule 8 would be relocated as a new sentence at the end of new Section 7(d).
FICC also proposes adding a new Section 7(c) to Rule 8, indicating that ACS Triparty Trades are not subject to the Schedule of Timeframes applicable to Agent Clearing Transactions in general, but rather to the Schedule of ACS Triparty Trade Timeframes. Lastly, FICC proposes renumbering Section 7(e) of Rule 8 as Section 7(f).
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
As outlined in Section II.A, FICC's current Agent Clearing Service supports trading in DVP repos but not triparty repos. The Commission understands that this restriction may disadvantage certain market participants due to regulatory, operational, legal, size, or other constraints that limit their ability to access clearance and settlement services for triparty repos.
Furthermore, an ACS Triparty Trade would be risk managed through FICC's existing margin methodology and liquidity risk management methodology. Transactions are recorded in either an Agent Clearing Member Omnibus Account or Segregated Indirect Participant Account. When recorded in an Agent Clearing Member Omnibus Account, ACS Triparty trades would be netted with other Agent Clearing Transactions, resulting in a lower margin obligation.
As discussed in section III.B, the Proposed Rule Change also aligns the treatment of Initial Haircuts with their treatment in Sponsored GC Trades. The change would base the Collateral Mark for the transaction with the Initial Haircut, and not the Contract Price. This change would ensure that the Initial Haircut remains with the intended party until final settlement. Furthermore, FICC specifies that Agent Clearing Transactions with an Initial Haircut will be treated as Off-The-Market Transactions, and that the party posting the Initial Haircut bears the loss of that haircut should FICC cease to act for the pre-novation counterparty. By aligning the treatment of Initial Haircuts in ACS Triparty Trades with their treatment in the Sponsored GC Service, FICC provides a consistent treatment for access to central clearing across both of their principle Indirect Participant triparty transaction models. This should ensure the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions. Furthermore, by basing the Collateral Mark of these transactions on the Initial Haircut, and not the Contract Price, FICC should ensure that the value of the Initial Haircut remains with the intended party, thus protecting investors and the public interest.
Moreover, as described in section III.C, the Proposed Rule Change clarifies which Agent Clearing Transactions qualify as Same-Day Settling Trades, aligning treatment of the same with their treatment within the Sponsored GC Service. Additionally, as described in section II.B.4, FICC proposes technical and grammatical amendments throughout the Rules. Enhancing and clarifying the Rules ensures accuracy and comprehensibility for both Members and Indirect Participants. When participants have a clear understanding of their rights and obligations under the Rules, they are more likely to comply, thereby protecting investors and the public interest and fostering the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Proposed Rule Change is designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(C) under the Act requires a covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to establish objective, risk-based, and publicly disclosed criteria for participation, which when the covered clearing agency provides central counterparty services for transactions in U.S. Treasury securities, ensure that it has appropriate means to facilitate access to clearance and settlement services of all eligible secondary market transactions in U.S. Treasury securities, including those of indirect participants.
As described in section III.A above, the Proposed Rule Change provides an additional avenue for Indirect Participants to clearance and settlement of done-with and done-away triparty repo transactions. The Commission understands that certain indirect participants who are limited in their ability to do so due to regulatory, operational, legal, size, or other challenges, and the creation of the ACS Triparty Service should allow such indirect participants the ability to use FICC to clear and settle triparty repos. In particular, the features of the ACS Triparty Service should make it easier for money market funds and other cash providers that depend on transfers of securities to maintain required margin, and typically rely on a triparty repo clearing bank to administer the collateral management to access FICC's clearance and settlement services and for clearing members to provide such access.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(C).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(19) requires that FICC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage the material risks to the covered clearing agency arising from arrangements in which firms that are indirect participants in FICC rely on the services provided by direct participants to access FICC's clearance and settlement facilities.
As outlined above in Sections II and III.A, the proposed ACS Triparty Service would be an additional part of FICC's Agent Clearing Service and leverage certain properties of the Sponsored GC Service, the two current Indirect Participant access models. As a result, FICC's practices of requiring Agent Clearing Members to identify their Executing Firm Customers while providing current Legal Entity Identifiers (“LEIs”) for these customers and confirming their agent clearing relationships before submitting trades on their behalf will apply to ACS Triparty Trades as with other Agent Clearing Transactions. Additionally, Agent Clearing Members serve at the processing agent for all Executing Firm Customer transactions and are responsible for posting margin and satisfying any losses arising from these transactions. Furthermore, FICC will maintain its authority to request reports and other information from Agent Clearing Members, helping FICC to
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(19).
Rule 17ad-22(e)(21) under the Act requires a CCA to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to be efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of its participants and the markets it serves, including the clearing agency's clearing and settlement arrangements and the scope of the products cleared or settled.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(21).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and, in particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F), and Rules 17ad-22(e)(18)(iv)(C),
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 13e-1 (17 CFR 240.13e-1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change would (i) modify the DTC Settlement Service Guide (“Settlement Guide”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would (i) modify the Settlement Guide to (a) change how DTC sets its maximum debit caps for Participants, including Unaffiliated Participants, and Affiliated Families, (b) incorporate Unaffiliated Participants into the calculation and allocation of DTC's Liquidity Fund, a component of the Required Participants Fund Deposit, and (c) make related definitional, technical and clarifying changes to the Settlement Guide; and (ii) modify the Rules to account for the Aggregate Affiliated Family Net Debit of an Affiliated Family, as applicable, all of which is described below.
Through its settlement services, DTC provides book-entry transfer and pledge of interests in Eligible Securities and end-of-day net funds settlement. DTC maintains a liquidity structure designed to facilitate its maintenance of sufficient financial resources to complete settlement each Business Day notwithstanding the failure to settle of a defaulting Participant, or Affiliated Family of Participants, with the largest settlement obligation. In this effort, the Collateral Monitor
DTC recently obtained approval to raise additional qualifying liquidity resources through the periodic issuance and private placement of senior notes (“Debt Issuance”).
The current maximum Net Debit Cap for an individual Participant is $2.15 BN,
The Net Debit Cap of $2.15 BN for an individual Participant was a recent change. In 2024, to reduce transaction blockage and the need to make SPPs, DTC increased the individual Participant Net Debit Cap from $1.8 BN to $2.15 BN.
Having reviewed transaction volumes, pending activity, and SPPs, as discussed below, DTC agrees that there is a need to further increase the Debit Caps and that there also is an opportunity to do so given the recent expansion of DTC's qualifying liquid resources to include proceeds from a Debt Issuance. DTC believes that further increases to the maximum Debit Caps would further reduce activity blockage and the need for Participants to submit SPPs, as described below.
DTC proposes to change the maximum Debit Caps for Participants and Affiliated Families from the current fixed amounts of $2.15 BN and $2.85 BN, respectively, to a flexible amount not to exceed the amount of available qualifying liquid resources at DTC.
As explained above, DTC's liquidity resources are a $1.15 BN Participants Fund, a $1.9 BN LOC,
By allowing for a flexible maximum Debit Cap, the proposed rule change would provide for transaction processing efficiencies that would lower the likelihood of transactions pending under a cap limit or a Receiving Participant needing to submit SPPs to reduce its intraday Net Debit Balance to allow a transaction to process. Moreover, any Participant that is a Deliverer in a DVP transaction may realize processing efficiencies when the
Maintaining a flexible maximum Debit Cap would benefit Participants. A Net Debit increase impact study (“Impact Study”) conducted by DTC for the period June 2, 2024, through January 31, 2025, showed that out of 179 Participant families, 17 (across 44 Accounts) would likely realize an immediate benefit from a Debit Cap increase. The liquidity needs across legal entities were determined by looking at families reaching 90 percent of the current $2.85 BN cap limit, and by identifying the transactions pending under cap limits and any incoming SPPs. An increase in the maximum cap by $0.75 BN to $1 BN would lead to a reduction of $3.62 BN to $4.43 BN in daily SPPs sent across the 17 families benefiting from the proposed change.
In the event DTC determined to adjust the Debit Caps downward, due to anticipation of a reduction in available liquidity resources or otherwise, DTC would provide Participants with a minimum of 10 Business Days' notice via Important Notice, in order to allow Participants to adjust their own liquidity management strategies, as needed.
As noted above, the Liquidity Fund component (set at $700 MM) of the Participants Fund applies to Participants whose Affiliated Families have Debit Caps that exceed $2.15 BN. Because an Unaffiliated Participant cannot currently have a Debit Cap that exceeds $2.15 BN, such Participants are not subject to a Liquidity Fund allocation.
Given that the maximum Debit Cap for an Unaffiliated Participant could exceed $2.15 BN under this proposal, thus relying in part on the Liquidity Fund to support the increase cap amount, DTC proposes to expand the allocation of the Liquidity Fund contribution to Unaffiliated Participants that have Debit Caps that exceed $2.15 BN.
The Impact Study conducted by DTC showed that with this proposed change, two Unaffiliated Participants now would be subject to the Liquidity Fund. The number of Affiliated Families, and Unaffiliated Participants paying into the Liquidity Fund (those whose Debit Caps would exceed $2.15 BN) is estimated to increase from 18 to 21, with an average daily contribution of $33.3 MM per family, ranging between $39.1 MM to $1.6 MM. However, given the increase in the number of Participants contributing to the Liquidity Fund overall, the highest amount paid by a single family is estimated to go down to $39.1 MM from $50.5 MM.
Second, the Amounts subsection of the Participants Fund and Preferred Stock Investment section of the Settlement Guide would be updated to more clearly describe the components of the Participants Fund. Although the Settlement Guide accurately describes the aggregate Participants Fund as including four components (
Third, the steps explaining the Liquidity Fund allocation formula in the Liquidity Fund subsection of the How the Required Deposit to the Participants Fund and the Required Preferred Stock Investment are Calculated for a Participant section of the Settlement Guide would be simplified, clarified, and adjusted to account for the proposed changes described above, in particular, the inclusion of Unaffiliated Participants in the calculation.
The subsection would begin by explaining that the Liquidity Fund would be proportionally shared among both Unaffiliated Participants and Participants of Affiliated Families that have Net Debit Caps that exceed $2.15 BN, thus removing language that limited the Liquidity Fund to only Affiliated Families. The steps for calculating that allocation would then be updated to reflect that change, so that Unaffiliated Participants would be part of the calculation. More specifically, Unaffiliated Participants would be added to the “Overage” calculation, which is the amount that an Affiliated Family's and now an Unaffiliated Participant's Net Debit Cap exceeds $2.15 BN up to $2.85 BN. Next, the calculation of the allocation percentage would be updated to include Unaffiliated Participants and then that percentage would be used to calculate the allocation amounts of Unaffiliated Participants too.
In addition to several clarification, grammatical, and organizational updates to the entire Liquidity Fund subsection for readability and simplicity, the subsection would conclude by stating that Unaffiliated Participants would not be part of calculation that determines the proportion of the Liquidity Fund allocation amount among Participants of Affiliated Families since Unaffiliated Participants are not part of an Affiliated Family. Rather, their proportion is simply their allocation amount.
Fourth, to maintain alignment of the Net Debit Cap with qualifying liquid resources, as described above, the Settlement Guide would further provide in the Net Debit Cap section that the
Lastly, the Calculation of Participant Net Debit Caps section of the Settlement Guide would be updated to (i) replace a reference to $2.15 BN being the maximum Participant Net Debit Cap with a general reference to the Net Debit Cap, since it would no longer be a fixed number, and (ii) provide for the minimum 10 Business Day notice that DTC would issue by Important Notice to Participants for any decrease in the maximum Debit Cap, including outreach to affected Participants.
DTC would implement the proposed rule changes upon approval by the Commission; however, the actual maximum Debit Cap amount for DTC would not increase until DTC secured additional qualifying liquid resources, such as with the Debit Issuance described above.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
The Impact Study indicates that by allowing for a flexible maximum Debit Cap that can be increased, as described above, the proposed rule change would help improve transaction processing by enabling more transactions to process without the need for a Receiving Participant to wait for DVP-related credits or submit SPPs to reduce its intraday Net Debit Balance. Moreover, any Participant that is a Deliverer of a DVP may see less of its deliveries pend because the Receiver may maintain a higher Debit Cap. Meanwhile, the proposed adjustable Debit Cap would continue to be supported by adequate DTC liquidity resources available to complete system-wide settlement in the event of a failure to settle by the largest Participant or Affiliated Family. By improving transaction processing within DTC's liquidity resources, as well as the readability and clarity of the Settlement Guide and Rules related to the proposed changes, DTC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, cited above, by helping to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(7)(i) promulgated under the Act requires,
DTC's liquidity needs are driven by its need to protect against a Participant failing to pay its settlement obligations. The tools available to DTC, including the above described Debit Caps, allow it to regularly test the sufficiency of its liquid resources on an intraday and end-of-day basis and adjust to stressed circumstances during a settlement day to protect itself and Participants against liquidity exposure under normal and stressed market conditions. DTC calculates its liquidity needs per Participant (at a legal entity level) and further aggregates these amounts at a family level (that is, including all affiliated Participants, based on the assumption that all such affiliates may fail simultaneously). In this regard, DTC monitors settlement flows and net-debit obligations daily, and its current available liquidity resources are sufficient to satisfy the Cover One standard.
As described above, the proposed rule change would only permit an increase to the maximum Debit Caps to an amount below DTC's total available liquidity, which is currently made up of the Participants Fund, LOC, and any Debt Issuance, and it would not otherwise alter the way DTC monitors settlement flows and net-debit obligations. Also, the proposed rule change would require Unaffiliated Participants to contribute to the Liquidity Fund to cover exposures relating to their use of liquidity above $2.15 BN, ensuring that all Participants contribute to DTC's liquidity resources in a proportionate manner. Moreover, DTC would provide all Participants notice at least 10 Business Days prior to
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose a burden on competition.
Also, the proposed rule change provides that Unaffiliated Participants that utilize liquidity in an amount above $2.15 BN would be obligated to contribute to the Liquidity Fund in the same way as an Affiliated Family does today. That is, the obligation only would apply to Unaffiliated Participants whose activity results in needing liquidity in excess of $2.15 BN and would be directly proportional to the Unaffiliated Participant's activity, as determined by the algorithms used to calculate allocations under the Liquidity Fund, as is done for Affiliated Families today. At the same time, it would be less likely that the Unaffiliated Participant's activity would pend or that it would need to submit SPPs since it would have a greater Debit Cap. Nevertheless, if an Unaffiliated Participant did not want to contribute to the Liquidity Fund, despite the benefits, then it could simply manage its activity to stay below the $2.15 BN liquidity threshold. Therefore, DTC does not believe this proposed change would impose a burden on competition.
DTC believes the proposed rule change may promote competition because it alleviates the need for some Participants to wait for DVP credits or submit SPPs for their transactions to process. Moreover, any Participant that is a Deliverer in a DVP transaction may realize processing efficiencies when the Receiver maintains a higher Debit Cap, as the transaction may not pend due to the higher maximum.
DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they would be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments,
DTC reserves the right to not respond to any comments received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes new Rule 8.201 (Generic) to permit the generic listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the requirements of such rule. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes new Rule 8.201 (Generic), which would permit the generic listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the requirements of the Rule. Current Rule 8.201 would continue to provide for the listing and trading of series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares for which the Exchange would file separate proposals under Section 19(b) of the Act.
As further discussed below, proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) is based on Rule 8.201-E (Generic) of the Exchange's affiliated exchange, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), with only the following non-substantive conforming changes:
• Replacement of references to “ETP Holder” with references to “member organization”; and
• Replacement of internal references to NYSE Arca rules with references to NYSE rules (
Proposed Rule 8.201(a) (Generic) would provide that the Exchange will consider for trading, whether by listing or pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the criteria of this Rule and that the Exchange may list and/or trade Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the standards set forth in this Rule 8.201 (Generic) pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Exchange Act. If a series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) does not satisfy these requirements, the Exchange may suspend trading in the shares and will initiate delisting proceedings pursuant to Rule 5.5(m). Proposed Rule 8.201(a) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(a) (Generic), with a non-substantive change to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(b) (Generic) would provide that Rule 8.201 (Generic) is applicable only to Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to this Rule. Except to the extent inconsistent with this Rule, or unless the context otherwise requires, the provisions of the Bylaws and all other rules and procedures of the Board of Directors shall be applicable to the trading on the Exchange of such securities. Commodity-Based Trust Shares are included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Bvlaws and Rules of the Exchange and are subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Proposed Rule 8.201(b) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(b) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c) (Generic) would set forth definitions for purposes of Rule 8.201 (Generic). Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(1) (Generic), would define Commodity-Based Trust Shares for purposes of Rule 8.201 (Generic) as a security that:
• Is issued by a trust, limited liability company, partnership, or other similar entity (“Trust”) that, if applicable, is operated by a registered commodity pool operator pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act, and is not registered as an investment company pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940, or series or class thereof (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(i) (Generic));
• Is designed to reflect the performance of one or more reference assets or an index of reference assets, less expenses and other liabilities (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(ii) (Generic));
• In order to reflect the performance as provided in (c)(1)(ii) above, is issued by a Trust that holds (A) one or more commodities or commodity-based assets as defined in (c)(3) below, and (B) in addition to such commodities or commodity-based assets, may hold securities, cash, and cash equivalents (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(iii) (Generic));
• Is issued by a Trust in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of (A) a specified quantity of the underlying commodities, commodity-based assets, securities, cash, and cash equivalents or (B) a cash amount with a value based on the next determined net asset value per Trust share (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(iv) (Generic)); and
• When aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request by a Trust which will deliver to the redeeming holder (A) the specified quantity of the-underlying commodities, commodity-based assets, securities, cash, and cash equivalents or (B) a cash amount with a value based on the next determined net asset value per Trust share (proposed Rule 8.201(c)(1)(v) (Generic)).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(2) (Generic) would define the term “commodity” to have the same meaning as set forth in Section 1a(9) of the Commodity Exchange Act and to exclude “excluded commodity” as defined in Section 1a(19) of the Commodity Exchange Act.
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(3) (Generic) would define the term “commodity-based asset” to mean a future, option, or swap on a commodity as defined in proposed Rule 8.201(c)(2) above. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(3) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(3) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(4) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(4) (Generic), would define the term “cash equivalent.” The Exchange proposes that “cash equivalents” would refer to short-term instruments with maturities of less than three months and include the following, as defined in proposed Rules 8.201(c)(4)(i) (Generic) through (vii) (Generic):
• U.S. Government securities, including bills, notes, and bonds differing as to maturity and rate of interest, which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S. Government agencies or instrumentalities;
• Certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association;
• Bankers' acceptances, which are short-term credit instruments used to finance commercial transactions;
• Repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements;
• Bank time deposits, which are monies kept on deposit with banks or savings and loan associations for a stated period of time at a fixed rate of interest;
• Commercial paper, which are short-term unsecured promissory notes; and
• Money market funds.
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(5) (Generic) would define “net asset value” as an amount reflecting the current market value of the assets held by the Trust, less expenses and liabilities, used to periodically compute the current price for the purpose of creation and redemption of Trust shares. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(5) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(5) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(6) (Generic) would define “designated contract market” as a board of trade or exchange that has been designated as a contract market under Section 5 of the Commodity Exchange Act and operates under the regulatory oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, pursuant to Section 5 of the Commodity Exchange Act. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(6) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(6) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(7) (Generic) would define “exchange-traded fund” as an open-end management investment company or a unit investment trust as defined in Section 4(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 or series or class thereof, the shares of which are listed and traded on a national securities exchange, and that has formed and operates under an exemptive order under the Investment Company Act of 1940 or in reliance on an exemptive rule adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(7) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(7) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(8) (Generic) would define “indicative trust value” as the estimated indicative value of a Trust share based on current information regarding the value of the Trust's underlying assets. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(8) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(8) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(9) (Generic) would define “market price” as the official closing price of a Trust share or, if it more accurately reflects the market value of a Trust share at the time as of which the Trust calculates current net asset value per share, the price that is the midpoint between the national best bid and national best offer as of that time. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(9) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(9) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(10) (Generic) would define “premium or discount” as the positive or negative difference between the market price of a Trust share at the time as of which the current net asset value is calculated and the Trust's current net asset value per share, expressed as a percentage of the Trust share's current net asset value per share. Proposed Rule 8.201(c)(10) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(c)(10) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(d) (Generic) would set forth the eligibility criteria for the holdings of Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic). Proposed Rule 8.201(d)(1) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(d)(1) (Generic) with a non-substantive change to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic), would provide for the following criteria, at least one of which must be met for each commodity or commodity that underlies a commodity-based asset held by a Trust:
• On an initial and continuing basis, the commodity trades on a market that is an Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) member, provided that the Exchange may obtain information about trading in such commodity from the ISG member (proposed Rule 8.201(d)(1)(i) (Generic));
• On an initial and continuing basis, the commodity underlies a futures contract that has been made available to trade on a designated contract market for at least six months;
• On an initial basis, an exchange-traded fund designed to provide economic exposure of no less than 40% of its net asset value to the commodity lists and trades on a national securities exchange (proposed Rule 8.201(d)(1)(iii) (Generic)).
Proposed Rule 8.201(d)(2) (Generic) would provide that, on an initial and continuing basis, each security held by the Trust shall meet the criteria of Rule 8.600 (Managed Fund Shares), Commentary .01(a) and (b) or, if the security is a listed option, trades on an ISG market. Proposed Rule 8.201(d)(2) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(d)(2) (Generic), with a non-substantive change to refer to Rule 8.600 instead of Rule 8.600-E.
Proposed Rule 8.201(e) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(e) (Generic), would set forth the information that the Trust must disclose prominently on its website, which must be publicly available free of charge:
• Before the opening of regular trading on the Exchange, for the Trust's
• The Trust's current net asset value per share, market price, and premium or discount, each as of the end of the prior business day (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(2) (Generic));
• A table showing the number of days the Trust's shares traded at a premium or discount during the most recently completed calendar year and the most recently completed calendar quarters since that year (or the life of the Trust, if shorter) (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(3) (Generic));
• A line graph showing the Trust share's premiums or discounts for the most recently completed calendar year and the most recently completed calendar quarters since that year (or the life of the Trust, if shorter) (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(4) (Generic));
• The Trust share's median-ask spread, expressed as a percentage rounded to the nearest hundredth, computed by: (i) identifying the Trust share's national best bid and national best offer as of the end of each 10 second interval during each trading day of the last 30 calendar days; (ii) dividing the difference between each such bid and offer by the midpoint of the national best bid and national best offer; and (iii) identifying the median of those values (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(5) (Generic));
• Liquidity risk policies and procedures as described in paragraph (g) of proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(6) (Generic));
• The Trust's methodology for the calculation of its net asset value (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(7) (Generic));
• The Trust's trading volume for the previous day (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(8) (Generic)); and
• The Trust's effective prospectus, in a form available for download (proposed Rule 8.201(e)(9) (Generic)).
Proposed Rule 8.201(f) (Generic) would provide that the Trust may not seek, directly or indirectly, to provide investment returns that correspond to the performance of an index, benchmark, or reference value by a specified multiple, or to provide investment returns that have an inverse or multiple inverse relationship to the performance of an index, benchmark, or reference value, over a predetermined period of time. Proposed Rule 8.201(f) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(f) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(g) (Generic), which is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(g) (Generic), would provide that, if a Trust has on a daily basis less than 85% of its assets readily available to meet redemption requests, the Trust must have written liquidity risk policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to address the risk that it could not meet requests to redeem shares issued by the Trust without significant dilution of remaining shareholders' interest in the Trust.
• The Trust's investment strategy and liquidity of the Trust's assets during normal and stressed conditions, including holdings in derivatives and whether the investment strategy is appropriate for effective and efficient arbitrage (proposed Rule 8.201(g)(1) (Generic));
• Holdings of cash and cash equivalents, as well as borrowing arrangements and other funding sources (proposed Rule 8.201(g)(2) (Generic)); and
• Percentage and description of the Trust's assets that are segregated, pledged, hypothecated, encumbered, or otherwise restricted or prevented from being liquidated, sold, transferred or assigned (proposed Rule 8.201(g)(3) (Generic)).
Proposed Rule 8.201(h) (Generic) would provide that Commodity-Based Trust Shares may be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic) provided that, upon initial listing, the Exchange will establish a minimum number of Commodity-Based Trust Shares required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Exchange, and all Commodity-Based Trust Shares shall have a stated investment objective, which shall be adhered to under normal market conditions. Proposed Rule 8.201(h) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(h) (Generic).
Proposed Rule 8.201(i) (Generic) would provide for continued listing standards for Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic). Proposed Rule 8.201(i) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(i) (Generic), with a non-substantive change in proposed Rule 8.201(i)(9) to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic). The Exchange will maintain surveillance procedures for Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed under Rule 8.201 (Generic) and will consider the suspension of trading in and the delisting of such Trust shares under any of the following circumstances:
• If, following the initial twelve-month period following commencement of trading on the Exchange of Commodity-Based Trust Shares, the Trust has more than 60 days remaining until termination and there are fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of Commodity-Based Trust Shares (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(1) (Generic)); or
• If, following the initial twelve-month period following commencement of trading on the Exchange of Commodity-Based Trust Shares, the Trust has fewer than 50,000 shares issued and outstanding (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(2) (Generic)); or
• If, following the initial twelve-month period following commencement of trading on the Exchange of Commodity-Based Trust Shares, the market value of all shares issued and outstanding is less than $1,000,000 (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(3) (Generic)); or
• If the value of the underlying reference asset(s) or index is no longer calculated or made widely available on at least a 15-second basis from a source unaffiliated with the sponsor or the Trust (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(4) (Generic));
• If the Indicative Trust Value is no longer calculated or made widely available to all market participants at the same time on at least a 15-second basis during the Core Trading Session (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(5) (Generic));
• If the net asset value is not calculated at least once daily or made widely available to all market participants at the same time (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(6) (Generic));
• If the information as set forth in this Rule 8.201 is no longer being disclosed
• If any of the other continued listing requirements set forth in this Rule are not continuously maintained (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(8) (Generic));
• If the Exchange submits a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to permit the listing and trading of a series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares that do not otherwise meet the standards set forth in this Rule and any of the statements or representations regarding (a) the description of the index, portfolio, or reference asset, (b) limitations on the index, portfolio holdings, or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in such rule filing are not continuously maintained; or if such other event shall occur or condition exists which in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealings on the Exchange inadvisable (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(9) (Generic));
• Upon termination of a Trust, the Exchange requires that Commodity-Based Trust Shares issued in connection with such Trust be removed from Exchange listing. A Trust may terminate in accordance with the provisions of the Trust prospectus, which may provide for termination if the value of the Trust falls below a specified amount (proposed Rule 8.201(i)(10) (Generic)).
Rule 8.201(j) (Generic) would set forth requirements applicable to Commodity-Based Trust Shares issued by an entity structured as a trust, on an initial and continuing basis. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(1) (Generic) would require that the stated term of the trust be as stated in the trust prospectus, provided that a trust may be terminated under such earlier circumstances as may be specified in the trust prospectus. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(2) (Generic) would set forth requirements that apply to the trustee of a trust. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(2)(i) (Generic) would require that the trustee of a trust must be a trust company or banking institution having substantial capital and surplus and the experience and facilities for handling corporate trust business and that, if an individual has been appointed as trustee, a qualified trust company or banking institution must be appointed co-trustee. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(2)(ii) (Generic) would provide that no change is to be made in the trustee of a listed issue without prior notice to and approval of the Exchange. Proposed Rule 8.201(j)(3) (Generic) would provide that voting rights will be as set forth in the applicable trust prospectus. Proposed Rule 8.201(j) (Generic) and the subparagraphs thereunder are based on current Rule 8.201(e)(3) through (5) without any substantive changes, as well as on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(j) (Generic).
Rule 8.201(k) (Generic) would provide that an issuer of Commodity-Based Trust Shares must promptly notify the Exchange of any non-compliance with any of the applicable continued listing standards set forth in Rule 8.201 (Generic). Proposed Rule 8.201(k) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(k) (Generic), with a non-substantive change to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic).
Rule 8.201(l) (Generic) would set forth rules relating to trading halts. Proposed Rule 8.201(l)(1) (Generic) would provide that the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the following occurs: (i) the value of the underlying reference asset(s) or index is not made widely available on at least a 15-second basis from a source unaffiliated with the sponsor or the Trust; (ii) the Indicative Trust Value is not made widely available to all market participants at the same time on at least a 15-second basis during the Core Trading Session; or (iii) the information required by proposed Rule 8.201(e) (Generic) to be publicly disclosed on a Trust's website, free of charge, is not being disclosed in that manner. If the interruption persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. If Commodity-Based Trust Shares are trading on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, the Exchange will halt trading as specified in Rule 7.34(a). Proposed Rule 8.201(l)(2) (Generic) would provide that, if the Exchange becomes aware that the net asset value is not disseminated to all the market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Commodity-Based Trust Shares until such time as the net asset value is available to all market participants. Finally, proposed Rule 8.201(l)(3) (Generic) would provide that the Exchange also may halt trading because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. Proposed Rule 8.201(l) (Generic) is based on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(l) (Generic), with a non-substantive change in proposed Rule 8.201(l)(1) to refer to Rule 7.34 instead of Rule 7.34-E.
Proposed Rule 8.201(m) (Generic) would set forth rules related to Market Maker accounts. A Market Maker in Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic) must file with the Exchange in a manner prescribed by the Exchange and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading in each underlying commodity and commodity-based asset which the Market Maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion. If a Market Maker in Commodity-Based Trust Shares that have exposure to, but do not, consistent with the definition of Commodity-Based Trust Shares in this Rule 8.201 (Generic), hold one or more non-U.S. currencies (“Underlying FX”), such Market Maker also must file with the Exchange, in a manner prescribed by the Exchange, and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading in Underlying FX and derivatives overlying Underlying FX which the Market Maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion, as well as a list of all commodity and commodity-related accounts referenced above. No Market Maker in Commodity-Based Trust Shares shall trade in a commodity, commodity-based asset, Underlying FX, or any related derivative thereon in an account that the Market Maker (1) directly or indirectly controls trading activities or has direct interest in the profits or losses thereof, (2) is required by this rule to disclose to the Exchange, and (3) has not reported to the Exchange. In addition to the existing obligations under Exchange rules regarding the production of books and records, a Market Maker in Commodity-Based Trust Shares shall make available to the Exchange such books, records or other information pertaining to transactions by such entity or registered or non-registered employee affiliated with such entity for its or their own accounts for trading the underlying commodity or commodity-based asset, applicable Underlying FX, or applicable derivatives of each of the foregoing, as may be requested by the Exchange. Proposed Rule 8.201(m) (Generic) is based on current Rule 8.201(g) without any substantive changes, as well as on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(m) (Generic) with non-substantive changes to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E(Generic) and to replace references to ETP Holders with references to member organizations.
Proposed Rule 8.201(n) (Generic) would provide for the establishment of firewalls. Specifically, proposed Rule 8.201(n)(1) (Generic) would provide that, if the value of a Commodity-Based Trust Share listed pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic) is based in whole or in part on an index that is maintained by a broker-dealer, the broker-dealer shall
Proposed Rule 8.201(o) would set forth rules relating to the limitation of Exchange liability. Neither the Exchange nor any agent of the Exchange shall have any liability for damages, claims, losses or expenses caused by any errors, omissions, or delays in calculating or disseminating any underlying commodity value, the current value of the underlying commodity required to be deposited to the Trust in connection with issuance of Commodity-Based Trust Shares pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic); resulting from any negligent act or omission by the Exchange, or any agent of the Exchange, or any act, condition or cause beyond the reasonable control of the Exchange, its agent, including, but not limited to, an act of God; fire; flood; extraordinary weather conditions; war; insurrection; riot; strike; accident; action of government; communications or power failure; equipment or software malfunction; or any error, omission or delay in the reports of transactions in an underlying commodity. Proposed Rule 8.201(o) (Generic) is based on current Rule 8.201(f), as well as on NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E(o) (Generic) with a non-substantive change to refer to Rule 8.201 (Generic) instead of Rule 8.201-E (Generic).
Finally, the Exchange proposes Commentary to Rule 8.201 (Generic) as follows. Proposed Commentary .01 would provide that the Exchange requires that member organizations provide all purchasers of newly issued Commodity-Based Trust Shares a prospectus for the series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares. Proposed Commentary .01 is based on current Rule 8.201, Commentary .02 without any changes, as well as Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Generic) with a non-substantive change to refer to member organizations instead of ETP Holders. Proposed Commentary .02 would provide that transactions in Commodity-Based Trust Shares will occur during the trading hours specified in NYSE Arca Rule 7.34. Proposed Commentary .02 is based on current Rule 8.201, Commentary .03 without any changes, as well as Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-E (Generic) with a non-substantive change to reference Rule 7.34 instead of Rule 7.34-E.
The Exchange proposes conforming changes to Rule 5.2(j)(6), which provides that Commodity-Linked Securities provide for payment at maturity based on the performance of one or more physical commodities or commodity futures, options or other commodity derivatives or Commodity-Based Trust Shares (as defined in Rule 8.201) or a basket or index of any of the foregoing. The Exchange proposes a conforming change to Rule 5.2(j)(6) to specify that the reference to Commodity-Based Trust Shares is as defined in Rule 8.201 (Non-Generic) or Rule 8.201 (Generic) to ensure that this rule accommodates Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to either rule.
The Exchange also proposes conforming changes to Section 302.00 of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, which sets forth requirements related to annual meetings. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 302.00 to include Commodity-Based Trust Shares listed pursuant to Rule 8.201 (Generic) in the list of securities for which the requirements concerning annual meetings do not apply and to update the title of current Rule 8.201 to be Rule 8.201 (Non-Generic).
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest by establishing generic standards for listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares. Proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) would allow Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the requirements of the Rule to be listed and traded on the Exchange without prior Commission approval order or notice of effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest because it would facilitate efficient procedures for listing Commodity-Based Trust Shares that meet the requirements of proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic), thereby reducing the time, resources, and costs associated with bringing new series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares to market and promoting competition among issuers of such products, to the benefit of the market participants. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would further the intended objective of Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act by permitting Commodity-Based Trust Shares that satisfy the proposed listing standards in proposed Rule 8.201 (Generic) to be listed and traded without separate Commission approval.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest
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 proposed rule change would facilitate the listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares through an efficient process that would enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The Exchange believes that the proposed generic listing standards in Rule 8.201 (Generic) would reduce the timeframe for bringing additional series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares to market, thereby reducing the burdens on issuers and other market participants and promoting competition among issuers of such products.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites the public comments about our intention to request the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to renew a previously approved information collection, add two new forms and move one form to a different collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by January 29, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Shantel Young by email at:
The Aircraft Registry has determined there is a need to create two new forms for this collection as follows: AC Form 8050-88UA, Affidavit of Ownership for Unmanned Aircraft (UA) and AC Form 8050-138, Declaration of International Operation.
The AC Form 8050-88UA was created to make it easier for registration applicants to supply the FAA Aircraft Registry with the minimal information needed to register a UA. Most UA owners don't have the required evidence of ownership to register. The affidavit will be used in lieu of a recordable bill of sale for any new registrations. The registrant may still submit any other proof of ownership with the affidavit or declare that evidence of ownership is not available. The new form will collect the following information about the UA: registration number, name of manufacturer/builder, model, serial number, class, engine type, number of engines, number of seats, max takeoff weight and how/where the UA was purchased.
The AC Form 8050-138 was created to allow registrants to request priority handling of their registration documents due to an impending international flight. The Aircraft Registry is required to process all incoming documents in the order of their receipt. An aircraft last previously registered in the United States may be operated within the United States under temporary authority (
The Aircraft Security Agreement, AC Form 8050-98, has been removed from this collection and moved to OMB 2120-0043, Recording of Aircraft Conveyances and Security Documents. This was not published in the 60-day notice.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; correction.
This notice contains a corrected summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before January 20, 2026.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2025-2287 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Alexander Kem, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, at 202-267-9677.
This is a corrected summary of this petition that was published on December 17, 2025.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2019-2020 Audi A6, MY 2019-2020 Audi A7, and MY 2020 Audi A6 Allroad motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110,
Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-7236.
Notice of receipt of Volkswagen's petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on October 23, 2020, in the
In support of its petition, Volkswagen offers the following reasoning:
Volkswagen contends that the subject noncompliance does not affect the subject vehicle's drivability, safety, or tire wear because the incorrect information provided on the tire placard label pertains to a spare tire that is not equipped on the vehicle. Volkswagen reports that as of May 15, 2020, the subject noncompliance has been corrected in production. Volkswagen says that the affected vehicles held at the factory, as well as unsold vehicles in dealer inventory, will be corrected before being sold. Volkswagen adds that it is unaware of any field or customer complaints related to the subject noncompliance, nor is it aware of any accidents or injuries occurring as a result of the subject noncompliance.
Volkswagen concludes by contending that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
Volkswagen's complete petition and all supporting documents are available on
In determining the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which a recall would otherwise protect.
Volkswagen explains that the noncompliance is that the vehicle placard on the subject vehicles states a cold inflation pressure for the spare tires, but no spare tire was equipped and the placard should state “none.” The intent of FMVSS No. 110 is to ensure that vehicles are equipped with tires appropriate to handle maximum vehicle loads and to prevent overloading.
FMVSS No. 110 requires that the original tires installed on a vehicle and the tires listed on the vehicle placard be appropriate for the maximum loading conditions of the vehicle. However, the vehicles at issue are neither intended to have a spare tire or be equipped with a spare tire even though a cold inflation pressure is erroneously listed for the spare tire on the vehicle placard with no other information for the spare tire size. Since there is no spare tire size listed on the placard, the subject vehicles would not be at risk of being overloaded with only a cold inflation pressure information listed.
Given the above factors, NHTSA agrees with Volkswagen that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that there is no risk of possible underinflating or overloading spare tires that are not present in the subject vehicles.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that Volkswagen no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Volkswagen notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
ElectraMeccanica Vehicles Corp., (EMV) determined that certain model year (MY) 2018 ElectraMeccanica SOLO motorcycles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120,
Ahmad Barnes, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202) 366-7236.
EMV has determined that certain MY 2018 and MY 2019 ElectraMeccanica SOLO motorcycles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 120,
Notice of receipt of EMV's petition was published with a 30-day public comment period on September 20, 2019, in the
Approximately 20 MY 2018 ElectraMeccanica SOLO motorcycles, manufactured between March 1, 2018, and June 28, 2019, were reported by the manufacturer.
EMV explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles are equipped with rims that are missing the manufacturer's name, trademark, or symbol marking as required by paragraph S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 120.
Paragraph S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 120 includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a single-piece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph, in lettering not less than 3 millimeters high, impressed to a depth or, at the option of the manufacturer, embossed to a height of not less than 0.125 millimeters. The information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this paragraph shall appear on the weather side. In the case of rims of multi-piece construction, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the rim base and the
The following views and arguments presented in this section, “V. Summary of EMV's Petition,” are the views and arguments provided by EMV and do not reflect the views of the Agency. In its petition, EMV describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
1. EMV states that the absence of the manufacturer name, trademark, or symbol does not have any effect on the operation, performance, or safety of the affected vehicles. In support of this argument, EMV points out that the manufacturer name, trademark, or symbol is not required to be marked on rims for use on passenger cars in accordance with FMVSS No. 110. EMV acknowledges that the marking is helpful for traceability in the event of the future discovery of a wheel defect. However, EMV states that the absence of the marking on the affected rims does not inhibit traceability because EMV has only a single supply source for the pertinent rim style. EMV notes that the affected rims do contain other markings, such as the date of manufacture, heat treatment lot, and all other markings required as per FMVSS No. 120, paragraph S5.2, providing for sufficient traceability of any given rim. EMV also relays that it is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer complaints associated with the absence of the rim manufacturer name, trademark, or symbol marking.
2. EMV states the granting of its petition for inconsequential noncompliance would be consistent with previous NHTSA decisions regarding FMVSS No. 120 and FMVSS No. 110 (for vehicles other than passenger cars) requirements for rim markings. In support of its petition EMV cites the granting of inconsequential noncompliance petitions for both the incorrect marking of the rim size in 2017
3. EMV also states that all affected MY 2018 and MY 2019 vehicles under its control in, or destined for, the United States have been or are in the process of being brought into compliance with the FMVSS No. 120 manufacturer marking requirements. EMV adds that it has also ensured that all required markings will be present on rims used for future production.
EMV concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and contends that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which a recall would otherwise protect.
Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are affected also do not justify granting an inconsequentiality petition.
EMV states in its petition and noncompliance report that the noncompliance is that a subset of MY 18 SOLOs equipped with silver rims with 12 spokes are missing the required marking of the manufacturer's name, trademark, or symbol and therefore do not comply with the requirements of paragraph S5.2(d) of FMVSS No. 120. EMV explains that a miscommunication between EMV and the rim manufacturer resulted in the absence of the manufacturer marking required for motorcycles in accordance with FMVSS No. 120 S5.2(d). EMV confirms that four of the affected MY18 SOLOs shipped to the U.S. between November 2018 and July 2019 equipped with the affected rims have been sold to consumers, and that all other affected MY18 and MY19 vehicles in the U.S. have been or are in the process of being brought into compliance with the marking requirement. EMV states that no remedy or reimbursement program is planned for the affected vehicles.
EMV explains it has only one source for supply of the pertinent rim style and that the absence of the manufacturer name, trademark, or symbol marking will therefore not inhibit traceability of the affected rims. It further states that other markings present, such as the date of manufacture and all other required rim markings from paragraph S5.2, (including some not required, such as “heat treatment lot”), provide for sufficient traceability of any given rim.
Given the nature of the vehicle, the markings present on the rim, and the rim's unique design, it appears most likely that if a consumer encountered a problem with the rim, including finding a proper replacement, they could contact the vehicle manufacturer for further assistance or, if seeking a replacement, replace the rim based on the correct tire rim size present on the side of the rim. The aforementioned facts support a conclusion that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, as all other information markings as required by FMVSS No. 120 are correctly marked.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that EMV has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 120 noncompliance at issue is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, EMV's petition is hereby granted and EMV is consequently exempt from the obligation of providing notification of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that EMV no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant motorcycles under their control after EMV notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear), has determined that certain Goodyear Convenience Spare tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 109,
Jayton Lindley, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (325) 655-0547,
Notice of receipt of Goodyear's petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on December 14, 2021, in the
In support of its petition, Goodyear submitted the following reasoning:
1. Goodyear says that “the subject tires were manufactured as designed and meet or exceed” the relevant FMVSSs.
2. Goodyear also states the subject tires are “original equipment on several Toyota and Subaru vehicle models and were designed and manufactured to meet or exceed the specified vehicle loading conditions as specified by the vehicle manufacturers.”
3. According to Goodyear, “[t]he 110 numerical Load Index marked on the tire as part of the Service Description (110M) is correct as marked.”
4. Goodyear claims the subject tires “that were mismarked Max Load 1,080 kg in place of Max Load 1,060 kg met the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109 for endurance and high speed when tested at the 1,080 kg load.”
5. Goodyear says the subject tires “are marked correctly for Max Load in pounds. on both sides of the tire. Further, Goodyear says the subject tires are primarily sold in the domestic original equipment market, where the load in pounds would be the predominant consumer unit of measurement.”
6. Goodyear says the subject tires are “marked in letters 20-mm high `TEMPORARY USE ONLY' as they are convenience spare tires.”
7. Goodyear contends that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for similar noncompliances “related to tire loading labeling information on tires and previous NHTSA surveys have shown most consumers do not base tire purchases on tire labeling information found on the tire sidewall.” Further, Goodyear claims, since the subject tires are temporary use only spare tires, any considerations about what information consumers rely on for tire purchases is even less of a concern.
Goodyear concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
• The affected population of tires were sent to vehicle manufacturers for use as T-type spares for specific vehicles. These tires, though incorrectly marked, were designed to meet or exceed the vehicle loading conditions of the vehicles on which they were sold. For this reason, NHTSA believes that the tires are unlikely to be overloaded.
• None of the affected tires were sent to distributors for sale in the replacement market where the incorrect load value could lead to overloading if tire users relied upon the incorrect maximum load marked on the tire.
• NHTSA has no basis to believe that the subject tires do not meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109. Additionally, Goodyear stated that the affected population meets the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 109 when tested at the maximum load value of 1080kg.
• Any potential risk to the public is further reduced because T-type temporary use spare tires are not frequently used, and when used are only intended for short duration use until a flat tire can be repaired or replaced.
• If the spare tires need to be replaced, the correct load index value “110” is marked on both sidewalls of the subject tires.
• The maximum load expressed in pounds (lbs) is correct on both sidewalls. The maximum load expressed in kilograms (kg) is correct on one sidewall.
• Because the subject tires are exclusively sold as original equipment items on new vehicles, the traceability of these tires is through the registration of vehicles vs. registration of the tires themselves. Additionally, the TIN is unaffected meaning that consumers will be able to identify the tires in the event of a safety recall.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject tires that Goodyear no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve tire distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after Goodyear notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition.
Toyota Motor North America (Toyota) has determined that certain model year (MY) 2023 Subaru Solterra and Toyota bZ4X motor vehicles, do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110,
Ahmad Barnes, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-7236.
Toyota filed a noncompliance report dated July 29, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Notice of receipt of Toyota's petition was published with a 30-day public comment period, on May 19, 2023, in the
Toyota explains that the tire information placard on the subject vehicles provides a vehicle weight capacity that is lower than the actual value. Therefore, Toyota says that vehicle owners referring to the incorrect vehicle capacity weight stated on the tire information placard are not at risk of overloading the subject vehicle beyond the vehicle capacity weight. The tire information placard states that the vehicle capacity weight for the subject vehicle is 925 pounds when it should state that the vehicle weight capacity is 1,045 pounds. Toyota says that if a vehicle owner loads a subject vehicle according to the weight stated on the tire information placard, the subject vehicle would still have an additional 120 pounds of weight capacity.
Toyota contends that NHTSA has previously stated that the “intent of FMVSS No. 110 is to ensure that vehicles are equipped with tires appropriate to handle maximum vehicle loads and prevent overloading”
Because the tire information placard contains a vehicle weight capacity that is lower than the actual weight capacity, Toyota says there is no risk of overloading if the vehicle owner loads the subject vehicle according to the incorrect value. Toyota adds that all other information on the tire information placard is accurate, and Toyota has corrected the subject noncompliance in current production of the subject vehicles.
Furthermore, Toyota says that the owner's manual states the correct vehicle capacity weight, and the tire information placard contains the text “See Owner's Manual for additional information.”
Toyota says that NHTSA previously granted a petition submitted by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, (MBUSA) that involved a similar noncompliance.
Toyota contends that NHTSA should similarly find that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the tire information placard on the subject vehicles provides a vehicle weight capacity that is lower than intended. Due to this, Toyota believes that the subject noncompliance does not pose a risk of vehicle overloading because the vehicle and its tires can accommodate more than the incorrect vehicle capacity weight that is stated on the tire information placard.
Toyota concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which a recall would otherwise protect.
FMVSS No. 110 specifies requirements for tire selection to prevent tire overload. The intent of the standard is to ensure that vehicles are equipped with tires appropriate to handle the vehicle manufacturer's designed maximum vehicle weight.
The maximum weight of a vehicle is determined by adding to the vehicle the manufacturer specified maximum weight of occupants and cargo. FMVSS No. 110, paragraph S4.3(a) requires that vehicles be labeled with a “Vehicle Capacity Weight (VCW)” value which is the specified maximum occupant and cargo weight that can be loaded into a vehicle. This value is equal to 68 kg times the vehicle's designated seating capacity plus the rated cargo/payload of the vehicle. FMVSS No. 110, S4.2.1.1 and S4.3.4(b), requires that the vehicle maximum load on the tire shall not be greater than the applicable maximum load rating as marked on the sidewall of the tire or greater than the load rating of the tire at the manufacturer specified cold inflation pressure listed on the tire and loading information placard.
For the subject vehicles, Toyota noted that the vehicle weight capacity values on the placards are incorrect. The vehicle placard on the subject vehicles indicates that the vehicle weight capacity is 925 pounds when it should state that the vehicle weight capacity is 1,045 pounds. These errors would not cause a consumer to load the subject vehicles beyond their original design specifications.
Toyota cited prior NHTSA determinations of inconsequentiality petitions in support of the contention that the noncompliance involved here also had no safety impact. NHTSA notes that it evaluates each petition on its individual facts and does not consider prior determinations as binding precedent.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicles distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Toyota notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
Notice of closed meeting of Art Advisory Panel.
Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held virtually via
The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The meeting will be held January 13, 2026.
The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held at virtually via
Valeria B. Farr, 1835 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC 29201. Telephone (803) 312-7828 (not a toll-free number).
Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 1009, that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held virtually via
The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.
A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in sections 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), of the Government in the Sunshine Act, and that the meeting will not be open to the public.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before March 2, 2026.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
No substantive changes have been made to this form. The respondent burden has increased due to the estimated number of receivables averaged over the past year.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is adopting a final rule (the “Final Rule”) amending certain of the Commission's business conduct and documentation requirements applicable to swap dealers and major swap participants. The Final Rule provides exceptions to compliance with such requirements when executing swaps that are intended by the parties to be cleared contemporaneously with execution, or subject to prime broker arrangements that meet certain qualifying conditions, and makes certain other changes discussed herein. The adopted amendments supersede certain no-action positions issued by the Commission's Market Participants Division (“MPD”), which the Commission expects MPD to terminate in due course.
The Final Rule is effective January 29, 2026.
Frank N. Fisanich, Deputy Director, 202-418-5949,
The Commission is issuing this Final Rule to amend certain business conduct standards for swap dealers (“SDs”) and major swap participants (“MSPs” and, together with SDs, “Swap Entities”)
Together, the Covered Staff Letters provided no-action positions regarding compliance with certain external business conduct standards (including certain required pre-trade disclosures) and documentation requirements applicable to Swap Entities in the context of: (1) swaps executed pursuant to prime broker arrangements between SDs acting as prime brokers and their customers; and (2) swaps executed by Swap Entities with counterparties where the parties to the swap intend the swap to be cleared contemporaneously with execution of such swap. The Commission expects that, in due course, MPD will withdraw all of the no-action positions contained in the Covered Staff Letters necessary to reflect the amendments to Commission Regulations made by this Final Rule.
Section 4s(h) of the CEA
The External Business Conduct Standards include certain pre-trade disclosures required to be made by Swap Entities to their counterparties that are not Swap Entities, security-based swap dealers, or security-based major swap participants, including a requirement under § 23.431(a)(3)(i) to disclose the price of the swap and the so-called “pre-trade mid-market mark” (the “PTMMM”; and such disclosure requirement, the “PTMMM Requirement”).
The External Business Conduct Standards also include a requirement under § 23.431(b) that an SD must provide counterparties that are not Swap Entities, security-based swap dealers, or security-based major swap participants with notice that the counterparty may request and consult on the design of a scenario analysis to allow the counterparty to assess its potential exposure in connection with a swap (the “Scenario Analysis Requirement”).
Section 4s(i) of the CEA requires the Commission to adopt rules governing swap documentation for Swap Entities.
In 2013, MPD issued CFTC Staff Letter 13-70
In addition, in 2022, MPD recognized that the Commission had exempted a number of non-U.S. central clearing counterparties from registration as a DCO and a number of non-U.S. trading facilities from registration as a SEF. Specifically, section 5b(h) of the CEA authorizes the Commission to exempt, conditionally or unconditionally, a DCO from registration, if the Commission finds that the DCO is “subject to comparable, comprehensive supervision and regulation by . . . the appropriate government authorities in the home country of the organization.”
Similarly, section 5h(g) of the CEA authorizes the Commission to exempt, conditionally or unconditionally, a SEF from registration, if the Commission
The EU Exemptive Order exempts each of the MTFs and OTFs listed in Appendix A thereto, as such Appendix A may be amended by the Commission from time to time (the “Exempt EU Trading Venues”), from registration with the Commission as a SEF. In response to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (“UK”) from the EU, commonly referred to as “Brexit,” CFTC staff from the Division of Market Oversight (“DMO”) issued a no-action position addressing certain UK MTFs and OTFs that had previously benefitted from the EU Exemptive Order (“UK NAL Exchanges”). Under this no-action position, UK NAL Exchanges may operate on much the same basis as an Exempt EU Trading Venue, subject to the terms of the letter, without DMO recommending that the Commission take an enforcement action against them for failure to register with the CFTC as a SEF.
The SG Exemptive Order exempts each of the AEs and RMOs listed in Appendix A thereto, as such Appendix A may be amended by the Commission from time to time (the “Exempt SG Trading Venues”), from registration with the Commission as a SEF.
The Japan Exemptive Order exempts each ETP listed in Appendix A thereto, as such Appendix A may be amended by the Commission from time to time (the “Exempt Japan Trading Venues”), from registration with the Commission as a SEF.
Because Swap Entities that are otherwise subject to the Commission's External Business Conduct Standards and documentation requirements are free to execute swaps on Exempt SEFs and clear swaps on Exempt DCOs pursuant to, and subject to the conditions of, the foregoing Commission actions, MPD recognized that execution by Swap Entities of ITBC Swaps on an Exempt SEF and/or clearing of such ITBC Swaps on an Exempt DCO should be treated the same as swaps executed on DCMs or SEFs and/or cleared on DCOs. Consequently, MPD issued CFTC Staff Letter 23-01, which superseded CFTC Staff Letter 13-70 in its entirety.
The Commission has determined that the standardization that occurs when a type of swap is made available to trade on a DCM, SEF
The Commission has also determined that because swaps, once cleared, are between the DCO and the market participant (not between the Swap Entity and its counterparty) and there is no ongoing trading relationship between the Swap Entity and its counterparty, compliance by a Swap Entity with the on-boarding requirements of the External Business Conduct Standards or the STRD Requirement represents a significant hinderance to the efficient trading of cleared swaps.
In 2013, MPD recognized that execution of swaps pursuant to long-standing conditions present in swap prime broker arrangements prevalent in the swap market made compliance with certain requirements under the External Business Conduct Standards by SDs operating as prime brokers (“PBs”) impossible due to the structure and information flows of these arrangements.
PBs engaging in these swaps provide credit intermediation for their PB customers while permitting such customers to solicit prices from a wide variety of swap market participants. The PB customer agrees on a price and other material economic terms of a swap with a potential swap counterparty, but the swap is actually executed at that price and on those terms between the PB and
However, because the PB arrangement permits the PB customer to seek prices from various counterparties, the PB cannot know the price or the exact terms of the swap before the PB is obligated to execute both the trigger swap and the mirror swap. This lack of information may prevent a PB that is an SD from complying with certain pre-trade regulatory obligations under the External Business Conduct Standards, most notably the pre-trade disclosure of the price, material economic terms, and a PTMMM of the swaps as required by § 23.431(a)(3).
Recognizing these structural and informational hurdles to compliance with the External Business Conduct Standards, MPD issued a no-action position in CFTC Staff Letter 13-11 with respect to the enumerated External Business Conduct Standards as they relate to certain covered transactions
The term “covered transaction” means a swap, as defined in section 1(a)(47) of the CEA and § 1.3, other than swaps subject to the clearing requirement of section 2(h)(1)(A) of the CEA and part 50 of the Commission's regulations, and physically-settled foreign exchange forwards and swap agreements that have been exempted from the definition of swap under the Treasury Determination.
In addition, MPD recognized that many trigger swap counterparties transacting in the market for foreign exchange swaps and forwards that were exempted from the swap definition pursuant to the Treasury Determination (“Exempt FX Transactions”)
Finally, in 2019, MPD recognized that certain PB transactions executed anonymously on SEFs raised additional structural and informational hurdles to compliance with the disclosure requirements of §§ 23.431(a) and (b)
The Commission has determined that PB arrangements common in the swaps and Exempt FX Transaction markets prior to promulgation of the External Business Conduct Standards present significant structural and informational hurdles to compliance with the disclosure requirements of §§ 23.431(a) and (b).
In 2013, MPD provided a no-action position in CFTC Staff Letter 13-12 (which was a revision of CFTC Staff Letter 12-42)
MPD provided a substantially similar no-action position in CFTC Staff Letter 12-58, stating that it would not recommend enforcement action against a Swap Entity for failure to disclose a PTMMM for certain widely-traded interest rate swaps or index credit default swaps,
Finally, MPD provided a no-action position in CFTC Staff Letter 25-09, stating that it would not recommend that the Commission commence an enforcement action against a Swap Entity for failure to satisfy the PTMMM Requirement for its non-Swap Entity counterparties. MPD issued CFTC Staff Letter 25-09 in response to a request from certain trade associations representing a wide breadth of swap market participants who argued that: (1) the PTMMM Requirement does not provide any significant informational value to a Swap Entity's counterparties; (2) the PTMMM Requirement imposes significant operational burdens on Swap Entities and, at worst, impedes the prompt execution of swaps transactions; and (3) the elimination of the PTMMM Requirement would further harmonize the Commission's regulations with those of the United States (“U.S.”) Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) applicable to security-based swap dealers and major security-based swap participants, which do not require disclosure of a PTMMM in relation to security-based swaps. CFTC Staff Letter 25-09 stated that it would remain in effect until the adoption by the Commission of a regulation addressing the PTMMM Requirement. This Final Rule addresses the PTMMM Requirement.
On September 30, 2025, the Commission approved and subsequently published in the
The Commission requested comments on all aspects of the Proposed Rule and on many specific questions listed in the Proposal. The comment period for the Proposal closed on November 14, 2025.
As discussed above, Commission Regulation § 23.431(a)(3)(i) currently requires pre-trade disclosures by Swap Entities to their counterparties that are not Swap Entities, security-based swap dealers, or security-based major swap participants, including the PTMMM.
In the Proposal, the Commission proposed to eliminate the Swap Entity PTMMM Requirement set forth in § 23.431(a)(3)(i)
Second, MPD's issuance of the no-action positions in the Covered Staff Letters show that the PTMMM Requirement has been unworkable in a wide variety of contexts in which uncleared swaps are executed between Swap Entities and their non-Swap Entity counterparties. This includes swaps executed pursuant to PB arrangements where a PB that is an SD does not know the price or other material economic terms of a swap until after it is obligated to enter into the swap. It also includes, as discussed above, ITBC Swaps where the Swap Entities do not know the identity of their counterparty prior to execution, and widely-traded, highly-liquid swaps where the disclosure of a PTMMM is redundant because bid/offer prices are readily available to potential counterparties from trading and price information platforms.
In light of these circumstances, the Commission noted its preliminary belief in the Proposal that the PTMMM Requirement provides no utility to counterparties and may delay execution to the disadvantage of counterparties, and that the elimination of the PTMMM Requirement supports the Commission's goal of increasing the efficiency of the swaps market.
In addition to the foregoing, the Commission noted in the Proposal that the PTMMM Requirement, unlike the uncleared swap daily mark disclosure requirement promulgated in § 23.431(d)(2),
Only the ISDA/SIFMA Letter specifically addressed the proposed elimination of the PTMMM Requirement. It supported elimination unequivocally, agreeing with the Commission's reasoning for elimination in the Proposal, and noting that the PTMMM Requirement presumes an imbalance of information that does not exist in practice. After considering this comment, and having received no comments in support of the positive utility of receiving a PTMMM, the Commission has determined that elimination of the PTMMM Requirement will support the Commission's goal of increasing the efficiency of the swaps market by: (1) reducing unnecessary burdens and cost, (2) allowing for more timely trade execution, and (3) harmonizing the Commission's rules governing swap dealing with those of the SEC. Thus, the Commission is eliminating the PTMMM Requirement in its entirety as proposed by deleting paragraphs (i) and (ii) of § 23.431(a)(3) and moving the price disclosure requirement currently in such paragraph (i) and the compensation disclosure requirement currently in such paragraph (ii) into paragraphs (2) and (3) of § 23.431(a), respectively, as reflected in the final rule text
The Commission notes that its repeal of the PTMMM Requirement herein renders the MPD no-action positions in CFTC Staff Letters 12-58, 13-12, and 25-09 moot; it therefore expects that MPD will withdraw such positions in due course.
As discussed above, § 23.431(b) currently requires Swap Entities to provide certain disclosures related to scenario analysis prior to entering into a swap with a counterparty (other than a swap dealer, major swap participant, security-based swap dealer, or major security-based swap participant) that is not made available for trading on a DCM or SEF. Such disclosures include that a Swap Entity must (1) notify the counterparty that it can request and consult on the design of a scenario analysis to allow the counterparty to assess its potential exposure in connection with the swap; (2) upon request of the counterparty, provide a scenario analysis, which is designed in consultation with the counterparty and done over a range of assumptions, including severe downside stress scenarios that would result in a significant loss; (3) disclose all material assumptions and explain the calculation methodologies used to perform any requested scenario analysis (a swap dealer, however, is not required to disclose confidential, proprietary information about any model it may use to prepare the scenario analysis); and (4) in designing any requested scenario analysis, consider any relevant analyses that the swap dealer undertakes for its own risk management purposes, including analyses performed as part of its “New Product Policy” specified in § 23.600(c)(3).
In the Proposal, the Commission proposed to eliminate the Scenario Analysis Requirement set forth in § 23.431(b)
In adopting the Scenario Analysis Requirement in 2012, the Commission believed the requirement would assist to “materially enhance the ability of counterparties to assess the merits of entering into any particular swap transaction and reduce information asymmetries between swap dealers . . . and their counterparties.”
In the Proposal, the Commission also stated that elimination of the Scenario Analysis Requirement would serve to harmonize the Commission's rules governing swap dealing with those of the SEC noting that the SEC does not require security-based swap dealers to provide a scenario analysis, by request or otherwise, when entering into security-based swaps. Further, the Commission noted that scenario analysis was not required by the amendments to the CEA made by the Dodd-Frank Act and thus was wholly the product of Commission rulemaking.
Only the ISDA/SIFMA Letter specifically addressed the proposed elimination of the Scenario Analysis Requirement.
Section 4s(h)(3)(B) of the CEA required the Commission to adopt disclosure requirements for Swap Entities, including a requirement that a Swap Entity disclose a daily mark for uncleared swaps entered into with non-Swap Entities, but did not define the term “daily mark” or describe how it was to be calculated.
However, although the swap data reporting rules in part 45 of the Commission's regulations define “valuation data” by cross-referencing § 23.431,
In contrast, the Commission's uncleared margin rules
Thus, based on the foregoing, on any business day, a Swap Entity may be required to calculate the valuation of a swap for three different purposes using three similar but not identical criteria for purposes of: (1) providing the daily mark of the swap to its counterparty under § 23.431(d)(2); (2) reporting valuation data for the swap to a swap data repository under § 45.4(c)(2); and (3) calculating the variation margin amount for the swap under § 23.155.
To harmonize these similar but not identical calculations so that a Swap Entity is only required to make a single calculation of the valuation of the swap, the Commission proposed to reorganize § 23.431(d) such that paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) would address the requirements for, and cover the exceptions from, respectively, the daily mark requirement for cleared swaps (as discussed in Section II.C below), and paragraph (d)(3) would address the
Only the ISDA/SIFMA Letter specifically addressed the proposed change to the daily mark disclosure requirements. ISDA/SIFMA generally supported the Commission amending its daily mark requirements; however, rather than revising it as proposed, ISDA/SIFMA suggested that a better, more streamlined approach would be to (1) amend the definition of “daily mark” to provide Swap Entities with more flexibility in determining the mark, while still maintaining requirements for Swap Entities to disclose the methodologies and assumptions used to prepare the daily mark; and (2) eliminate the daily mark requirement for all non-cleared swaps that are subject to daily variation margining, arguing that this approach would better enable firms to align their daily mark disclosures under Commission Regulations with the methodologies they use for other purposes, whether for reporting, daily mark disclosures under SEC rules, internal valuation purposes, or otherwise. ISDA/SIFMA further argued that, given the institutional nature of the swap market, disclosure of the daily mark methodologies and assumptions, as provided in proposed § 23.431(d)(4), should provide counterparties with sufficient information to understand the daily marks they receive.
After considering these comments, the Commission has determined to amend its daily mark requirement under § 23.431(d) with some modifications from the Proposal. Specifically, at the suggestion of commenters, the Commission has determined to provide Swap Entities with greater flexibility in determining how to calculate daily marks for uncleared swaps, concluding that such flexibility would be a simpler way of achieving the Commission's goal in the Proposal of harmonizing the daily mark requirement with the other daily swap valuation requirements in the Commission's uncleared swap margin and swap reporting rules. In adopting the amendments to the daily mark requirement, the Commission notes that “daily mark” is not defined in the CEA and the Commission is persuaded by the comments of ISDA/SIFMA that disclosure of the methodology and assumptions required under final § 23.431(d)(4) is sufficient for counterparties to Swap Entities to determine for themselves the value of the daily mark received. In addition, the Commission has determined that, with respect to swaps subject to daily variation margin delivery requirements, whether subject to the Commission's variation requirements set forth in § 23.150 through § 23.161 or otherwise, notice of variation margin amounts necessarily entails valuation of each swap and thus such delivery requirements fulfill the Swap Entity's requirement to provide a daily mark under section 4s(h)(3)(B) of the CEA. Variation margin amounts are the change in the net present value of a swap since the last time the variation margin amount was exchanged between the parties. The daily mark is essentially the net present value of the swap, thus notice of variation margin amounts is materially equivalent to notice of the daily mark.
To effect these changes, the Final Rule excludes swaps subject to daily variation margining from the requirements of § 23.431(d)(3) and (4) and removes the requirement that the daily mark be the mid-market mark of the swap in § 23.431(d)(3) and related text, as reflected in the final rule text
In the Proposal, the Commission proposed adding several new definitions to § 23.401
The Commission proposed to add a new eight-prong definition of “ITBC Swap” to the definitions in § 23.401 applicable to subpart H of part 23 of the Commission's regulations.
In the Proposal, the Commission explained that defining “ITBC Swap” in § 23.401 was intended to clearly describe the criteria and conditions that a swap must meet to be eligible for the various proposed exceptions from the disclosure, information collection, and documentation requirements of the External Business Conduct Standards and the STRD Requirement (hereinafter, the “ITBC Compliance Exceptions”), each of which are explained in the relevant sections below.
First, under the Proposal, one of the parties to the swap must be a “swap entity” as defined in new § 23.401(j) to mean an SD or MSP.
Second, the swap would be required to be of a type accepted for clearing by a DCO registered with the Commission or an Exempt DCO.
Third, the parties to the swap would be required to execute the swap with the present intention that the swap will be cleared contemporaneously with execution. The Commission noted in the Proposal that the ITBC Compliance Exceptions would not be available for a swap that is entered bilaterally between two parties who then decide later that they would like to submit the swap for clearing. A swap that is not intended to be cleared contemporaneously with execution means that there will be a trading relationship between the Swap Entity and its counterparty for some material period of time, which would necessitate compliance by the Swap Entity with the Commission's swap reporting, disclosure, and uncleared swap margin rules. While parties are free to enter into swaps that they intend to clear but are not cleared contemporaneously with execution,
Fourth, if the swap is intended to be cleared on a DCO, the Swap Entity and its counterparty would be required to either be clearing members of the DCO or have entered into an agreement with a clearing member of the DCO (
Fifth, if the swap is intended to be cleared on an Exempt DCO, the Swap Entity and its counterparty would be required to be eligible to clear the swap on the Exempt DCO in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Exempt DCO's Order of Exemption from Registration issued by the Commission. Each Exempt DCO is exempt from registration pursuant to a unique order issued by the Commission, which may contain conditions and limitations to the Exempt DCO's ability to clear certain products for or on behalf of U.S. Persons pursuant to that order.
Sixth, the Commission proposed that the Swap Entity would be prohibited from requiring its counterparty or the counterparty's clearing member (
Seventh, the Swap Entity would be required to ensure that the swap is submitted for clearing as quickly after execution as would be technologically practicable if fully automated systems were used (the “Clearing Submission Condition”).
Eighth, the Commission proposed to require that if the swap is executed on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF and is rejected from clearing, the swap must be void
The Commission stated that compliance with this condition as proposed may be accomplished by executing the swap on a SEF or DCM
Only the ISDA/SIFMA Letter and Citadel Letter specifically addressed the proposed definition of “ITBC Swap.”
ISDA/SIFMA firmly supported providing relief for ITBC Swaps and generally supported the Commission's proposed definition of an ITBC Swap but noted three specific concerns.
First, ISDA/SIFMA noted that the Breakage Condition could be read to imply that a Swap Entity may not raise the topic of a breakage or similar agreement with a counterparty. It argues that a Swap Entity must be permitted to initiate discussion about how to address ITBC Swaps with its counterparty as a matter of good risk management, and such discussions—whether at the request of the Swap Entity or its counterparty—do not indicate that either party is entering into the swap without the requisite intention that the swap will not be a cleared swap.
Second, ISDA/SIFMA stated that the Commission should explicitly clarify that, under the Clearing Submission Condition, Swap Entities are not responsible for guaranteeing that their counterparties will take the necessary steps for submission (outside of reasonably designed policies and procedures), as Swap Entities are only able to control their own actions and processes.
Third, ISDA/SIFMA stated that they have practical concerns regarding the implementation of the Void
With respect to the Void
After considering these comments, the Commission has determined to adopt a definition of “ITBC Swap” with certain modifications from the Proposal.
First, the Commission is revising the Clearing Submission Condition by replacing the word “ensures” in the proposed definition with the words “takes reasonable measures to ensure,” as shown in the final rule text,
Second, the Commission is modifying the Void
Similarly, the Commission is modifying paragraph (7) of the definition of “ITBC Swap” as reflected in the final rule text,
The additional flexibility the Commission is providing around the Void
In addition, the Commission is clarifying that that it does not intend the Breakage Condition to limit the ability of Swap Entities to discuss breakage agreements with their counterparties, either at their own behest or at that of their counterparty. Rather, the Breakage Condition solely prohibits Swap Entities from requiring a counterparty to enter into a breakage agreement as a condition to trading.
The Commission proposed to add a new definition of “A-ITBC Swap” to the definitions in § 23.401
The Commission received no comments relating specifically to this definition and is adopting this term as proposed, as shown in the final rule text,
The Commission proposed to add a new definition of “Covered Transaction” to the definitions in § 23.401
The Commission received no comments relating specifically to this definition and is adopting this term as proposed, as shown in the final rule text,
The Commission proposed to add a new definition of “Prime Broker Arrangement” to the definitions in § 23.401
A Prime Broker Arrangement, as proposed, included at least one PB/SD and two or more other parties evidenced by a written agreement or agreements.
The proposed “substantially equal but opposite” requirement in the Proposal was in recognition by the Commission that the terms and the price of a Mirror Transaction may be adjusted from those of a Trigger Transaction to allow for a spread or fee to be paid to the PB/SD, (or to an intermediary that has arranged the transaction), to compensate the PB/SD or the intermediary for providing the credit intermediation service evidenced by the Prime Broker Arrangement or the intermediary's services.
The intention of the proposed definition of “Prime Broker Arrangement” was to capture the essence of the concept of credit intermediation through swap PB arrangements as it relates to compliance with the External Business Conduct Standards.
Only the ISDA/SIFMA Letter specifically addressed the proposed definition of “Prime Broker Arrangement.”
First, ISDA/SIFMA requested certain changes to the definition to account for a situation where a PB customer determines that the execution desk of its SD/PB provides better pricing than other executing dealers. Such customers may, in their own discretion, choose to price/execute with that desk for give-up to its SD/PB. ISDA/SIFMA argue that market practice is for PBs to maintain an appropriate level of separation between their sales and trading business (
Second, ISDA/SIFMA requested changes to the definition of Prime Broker Arrangement to clearly recognize in the rule text that a Mirror Transaction may include a spread or fees to compensate a Prime Broker for providing the credit intermediation services. In the Proposal, as discussed above, the Commission had proposed that, from the perspective of the PB/SD, the Mirror Transaction must be “substantially” equal but opposite to the terms and price of the Trigger Transaction (but not identical), recognizing that the terms and the price of a Mirror Transaction may be adjusted from those of a Trigger Transaction to allow for a spread or fee to be paid to the PB/SD, (or to an intermediary that has arranged the transaction), to compensate the PB/SD or an intermediary for providing the credit intermediation service evidenced by the Prime Broker Arrangement or the intermediary's services. ISDA/SIFMA request that the “substantially equal” language be replaced with an explicit recognition that a Mirror Transaction may contain a spread or fee that makes it somewhat different from the Trigger Transaction. The Commission has concluded that such explicit recognition would better address any ambiguity that may have existed in the Proposal on this point and has thus added clarifying language to the definition of “Prime Broker Arrangement,” as shown in the final rule text
The Commission proposed to add a new definition of “Qualified Prime Broker Arrangement”
First, to qualify as a Qualified Prime Broker Arrangement under the Proposed Rule, the Prime Broker Arrangement between a PB/SD and its PB Counterparty would be required to contain an agreement in writing on the type, parameters, and limits of each potential Covered Transaction that may be entered into by the PB Counterparty with the PB/SD pursuant to the Prime Broker Arrangement (each, a “Permitted PB Transaction”).
(1) Clearly delineate the types of transactions that the PB/SD will be obligated to enter into with the PB Counterparty pursuant to the Prime Broker Arrangement;
(2) To list all of the pre-conditions to the PB/SD's obligation to enter into each type of Permitted PB Transaction;
(3) To list all acceptable terms for each type of Permitted PB Transaction (such as tenor, payment terms, payment calculation terms, termination events, rate fallbacks, etc.); and
(4) To set limits (credit, market, trade volume, etc.) for each type of Permitted PB Transaction.
As discussed in the Proposal, the purpose of this proposed condition was to ensure that, before execution of any Covered Transaction, the parties will know exactly what the PB/SD is required to execute with the PB Counterparty, thereby making compliance with the other conditions of the Qualified Prime Broker Arrangement definition possible.
Second, the PB/SD, now knowing the types and terms of all possible Covered Transactions that may be executed with the PB Counterparty pursuant to their Prime Broker Arrangement, would be required to provide the PB Counterparty with all disclosures that would be necessary for the Prime Broker to comply with § 23.431(a)
(1) The material risks of a particular type of Permitted PB Transaction, which may include market, credit, liquidity, foreign currency, legal, operational, and any other applicable risks;
(2) The material characteristics of a particular type of Permitted PB Transaction, which would include the material economic terms of the Permitted PB Transaction, the terms relating to the operation of the Permitted PB Transaction, and the rights and obligations of the parties during the term of the Permitted PB Transaction; and
(3) The material incentives and conflicts of interest that the PB/SD may have in connection with a particular type of Permitted PB Transaction, which would include any compensation or other incentive from any source other than the PB Counterparty that the PB/SD may receive in connection with a particular type of Permitted PB Transaction.
As proposed, the disclosure obligation of the PB/SD under this second condition would be limited to the PB/SD's knowledge and reasonable belief at the time of disclosure.
Third, the PB/SD would be required under the Proposed Rule to receive an acknowledgement from a PB Counterparty regarding various disclosures.
Finally, the PB/SD would be required to make and keep a record of the Prime Broker Arrangement and the required acknowledgement from its PB Counterparty until the expiration or termination of all Permitted PB Transactions executed pursuant to the Prime Broker Arrangement, and for five years thereafter, in accordance with the SD recordkeeping rule, § 23.203.
Only the ISDA/SIFMA Letter specifically addressed the proposed definition of “Qualified Prime Broker Arrangement.” ISDA/SIFMA recommended two changes to the definition as discussed below.
First, ISDA/SIFMA recommended that the definition be changed to clarify that the pre-trade disclosures required by the definition would not include the price of a swap (as proposed by the Commission) but also would not include the material economic terms of a swap, arguing that, like the price, the material economic terms of a particular swap are negotiated by the PB customer with its executing counterparty without the knowledge of the SD/PB. The Commission agrees that an SD/PB would not know the exact economic terms of a swap prior to execution, even if it has agreed with a PB customer on all of the possible permutations of the terms that could be agreed and provided all required disclosures, to the best of the SD/PBs knowledge and reasonable belief.
Second, ISDA/SIFMA recommended that the Commission delete the requirement that an SD/PB obtain an acknowledgement from its PB customers acknowledging receipt of the Regulatory Disclosures and also delete the requirement that an SD/PB retain a record of such acknowledgement and the Qualified Prime Broker Arrangement with each PB customer. ISDA/SIFMA argued that an SD/PB is already required by the Commission's SD recordkeeping rules to keep records of all of agreements entered into as part of its business of dealing in swaps and thus the recordkeeping proposal was redundant.
In general, § 23.402 (General provisions) requires or allows Swap Entities to (a) have written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the External Business Conduct Standards; (b) obtain “know-your-counterparty” (“KYC”) information about their swap counterparties; (c) reasonably rely on representations obtained from their swap counterparties; (d) agree with counterparties on how information required to be obtained or disclosed to swap counterparties will be communicated; and (e) comply with recordkeeping requirements.
The Commission proposed to amend § 23.402 by adding a new paragraph (h) thereto that would state “Paragraph (b) and (c) of this section shall not apply to an ITBC Swap.”
The Commission received no specific comments with respect to the proposed amendment to § 23.402. Thus, the Commission is adopting this amendment as proposed as shown in the final rule text,
In general, § 23.430 (Verification of counterparty eligibility) requires Swap Entities to: (a) verify the ECP status of each swap counterparty; (b) verify whether a swap counterparty is a Special Entity (as defined in § 23.401); and (c) notify swap counterparties of any right to elect to be a Special Entity available under the definition of Special Entity in § 23.401(c)(6).
The Commission proposed to amend § 23.430(e) by adding an additional provision stating that the verification and notice requirements will not apply to A-ITBC Swaps or to ITBC Swaps that are initiated on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF.
The Commission received no specific comments with respect to the proposed amendment to § 23.430. Thus, the Commission is adopting this amendment as proposed as shown in the rule text,
In general, § 23.431 requires Swap Entities to: (a) disclose to non-Swap Entity counterparties the material risks, characteristics, incentives, and conflicts of interest of any swap prior to entering into the swap; (b) provide the pre-trade price and the PTMMM of a swap to a non-Swap Entity counterparty prior to entering into the swap; (c) provide a scenario analysis of a swap if requested by a non-Swap Entity counterparty prior to entering into the swap; (d) provide non-Swap Entity counterparties that enter into cleared swaps with the Swap Entity with notice of the counterparty's right to receive, upon request, the daily mark for such cleared swaps from the appropriate DCO; and (e) provide the daily mark of an executed uncleared swap to a non-Swap Entity counterparty to such swap as of each business day from the execution of the swap to its expiration or termination.
The Commission proposed to amend § 23.431 by: (1) eliminating the PTMMM requirement as discussed in Section II.A. above; (2) eliminating the Scenario Analysis Requirement as discussed in Section II.B. above; (3) clarifying that a Swap Entity is not required to disclose to its counterparty information relating to the material characteristics of a particular swap to the extent that such characteristics are reflected in transaction documents that the counterparty has been provided prior to entering into the swap;
The Proposal stated that these proposed amendments reflected the Commission's preliminary view that: (1) ITBC Swaps (including A-ITBC Swaps) are only swaps executed by a counterparty with the present intention to clear the swap and thus the counterparty has no need to receive notice of a right to receive a daily mark from the Swap Entity because the counterparty will face a clearing house; (2) Swap Entities do not know the identity of their counterparties to A-ITBC Swaps prior to execution; (3) swaps may be executed by Swap Entities on or pursuant to the rules of Exempt SEFs and may clear swaps, if eligible, on Exempt DCOs; (4) swaps accepted for clearing on a DCO or Exempt DCO (especially those also listed for trading on DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF) are sufficiently standardized and information about the material risks and characteristics of such swaps are available from the DCO or Exempt DCO (and/or a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF, if traded there); and (5) the disclosure of information relating to material characteristics of a particular swap that are reflected in the transaction documentation for that swap would be duplicative.
Other than comments regarding the elimination of the PTMMM Requirement, the Scenario Analysis Requirement, the daily mark requirement, and the exceptions for ITBC Swaps and Qualified Prime Broker Arrangements discussed in Section II A, B, C, and D above, the Commission did not receive any substantive comments on the proposed amendments to Commission Regulation § 23.431. Thus, other than the changes discussed in Section II A, B, C, and D above, the Commission is adopting the Proposed amendments to § 23.431 as proposed as reflected in the final rule text
In general, § 23.432 currently requires Swap Entities to provide notice to their non-Swap Entity counterparties that the counterparty has the right to elect to clear a swap executed with the Swap Entity (assuming the swap is eligible for clearing on a DCO) and has the right to choose the DCO on which the swap will be cleared, if eligible.
In the Proposal, the Commission proposed to amend § 23.432(a) and (b) by making clear that the notice must be given prior to entering into a swap. The Commission further proposed to amend § 23.432 by adding a new paragraph (c) that would disapply the notice requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) to ITBC Swaps executed on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF and to all A-ITBC Swaps.
The Proposed Rule noted that this proposed amendment reflected the Commission's preliminary view that: (1) ITBC Swaps are only those where the counterparty has the present intention to clear the swap prior to execution and thus has no need to receive notice of a right to clear the swap or choose the clearinghouse; and (2) Swap Entities do not know the identity of their counterparties to A-ITBC Swaps prior to execution.
The Commission received no comments with respect to the proposed amendment. Thus, the Commission is adopting the proposed amendments to § 23.432(a) and (b) to clarify that the notice must be given prior to entering into a swap; and is adding a new paragraph (c) that disapplies the notice requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) to ITBC Swaps executed on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF and to all A-ITBC Swaps as reflected in the final rule text
In general, § 23.434 currently requires SDs that recommend a swap or a swap trading strategy to a non-Swap Entity counterparty to have a reasonable basis to believe that such swap or swap trading strategy is suitable for the counterparty after engaging in reasonable diligence to ascertain the counterparty's investment strategy, trading objective, and ability to absorb potential losses.
However, § 23.434(b) currently also provides a safe harbor, which, if complied with, deems the SD to have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommended swap or swap trading strategy is suitable for the counterparty.
The Commission proposed to amend § 23.434 to add a new paragraph (d) that would provide an exception from the requirements of § 23.434 for A-ITBC Swaps and for ITBC Swaps executed by an SD with a non-Swap Entity on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF.
The Commission received no comments with respect to the proposed amendments to § 23.434. Therefore, the Commission is adopting the proposed amendments to § 23.434 by adding a new paragraph (d) that provides an exception from the requirements of § 23.434 for A-ITBC Swaps and for ITBC Swaps executed on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF as reflected in the final rule text
In general, §§ 23.440 and 23.450 currently concern requirements that SDs must comply with when acting as advisors to, and Swap Entities must comply with when entering into swaps with, Special Entities.
Pursuant to §§ 23.440 and 23.450,
However, each of §§ 23.440 and 23.450 provides a safe harbor, which, if complied with, deems the SD to not be acting as an advisor to a Special Entity and/or have a reasonable basis to believe that the Special Entity has a QIR.
The Commission proposed to amend § 23.440 by adding a new paragraph (e), which would provide an exception from the requirements of § 23.440 in two circumstances.
Section 4s(h)(4)(B) of the CEA provides that an SD that acts as an advisor to a Special Entity shall have a duty to act in the best interests of the Special Entity.
In applying this interpretation of the exception in section 4s(h)(7) of the CEA, the Commission incorporated a similar exception to certain other External Business Conduct Standards for swaps initiated on a DCM or SEF where a Swap Entity does not know the identity of its counterparty prior to execution,
Thus, to further facilitate the trading of cleared swaps on DCMs, SEFs, and Exempt SEFs, in the context of ITBC Swaps initiated by a Special Entity on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF, in the Proposal the Commission preliminarily interpreted the condition in section 4s(h)(7) that the SD does not know the identity of the counterparty to be met not only where the SD is unaware of the name of the counterparty (
In the Proposal, the Commission noted that the exception in section 4s(h)(7) of the CEA applies only to swaps “initiated by a Special Entity” on a DCM or SEF.
In the Proposal, the Commission also noted certain limited situations where actual knowledge of a counterparty's status as a Special Entity could be imputed to an SD under certain circumstances. The Commission received one comment from ISDA/SIFMA arguing that imputing knowledge of a counterparty's Special Entity status was neither reasonable nor practical given that trading on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF, by definition, is intended to provide access to liquidity from multiple liquidity providers through competitive processes to arrive at the best pricing available without regard to the “identity” of the counterparty. ISDA/SIFMA further argued that counterparties initiating a trade for an ITBC Swap are often represented through an abbreviated identifier (rather than a full, legal name) and that transactions can take place within seconds or less, making identification of a counterparty's Special Entity status impracticable if not impossible. Given these circumstances and the fact that trading venues do not offer special flags for Special Entities, ISDA/SIFMA's comment letter supported the Commission providing an exception from § 23.440 for all ITBC Swaps executed on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF without regard to a counterparty's status as a Special Entity to further the Commission's goal of facilitating the trading of cleared swaps.
While mindful of commenters' views that the Commission should seek to facilitate the competitive trading of cleared swaps on DCMs, SEFs, and Exempt SEFs to the maximum extent possible, the Commission is also mindful of the requirement in section 4s(h)(7) of the CEA that an exception to the duty to act in the best interests of a Special Entity only be provided where an SD does not know the identity of its counterparty. Thus, in keeping with the Commission's interpretation of “identity” discussed above, the Commission has determined that a broad exception from the requirements of § 23.440 should be provided so long as an SD has no actual knowledge of whether a counterparty is a Special Entity. The Commission has also determined that such actual knowledge will not be imputed and, in the Commission's view, an SD will only have such actual knowledge if it has entered into a trading relationship with such counterparty and has, for example, entered into documentation in compliance with the STRD Requirement.
Where an SD has entered into trading relationship documentation with a Special Entity, the Commission believes that the tremendous uptake of adherence to the ISDA protocol discussed above means that it is almost impossible that such Special Entity has not made the representations necessary for an SD to rely on the safe-harbor in § 23.440(b). Because in almost all cases the requirements for reliance on the safe-harbor in § 23.440(b) will have been met, an SD would be free to trade with any Special Entity participating on any DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF without concern that the SD will be found to be acting as an advisor to such Special Entity and thus no exception from the requirements of § 23.440 is needed.
Other than the comments from ISDA/SIFMA discussed above, the Commission received no comments with respect to the proposed amendments to § 23.440 and is adopting
The Commission also proposed to amend § 23.450 to add a new paragraph (h) to § 23.450, which would provide an exception from the requirements of § 23.450 for A-ITBC Swaps (
As discussed in the Proposal, the Commission believes that the proposed amendments to § 23.450 better serve the intent of the CEA than the rules now in effect.
In the Proposal, the Commission also proposed to amend the definition of the term “statutory disqualification” in § 23.450(a)(2).
In the Proposal, the Commission stated that the foregoing proposed amendment to § 23.450(a)(2)
The Commission received no comments on its proposed amendments to § 23.450 and is adopting them as proposed as reflected in the final rule text
In general, § 23.451 currently, subject to certain conditions and exceptions, prohibits SDs from entering into swaps with a governmental Special Entity (as defined in § 23.451(a)(3)) within two years after any political contribution to an official of such governmental Special Entity was made by the SD or a covered associate (as defined in § 23.451(a)(2)) of the SD.
The Commission proposed to amend § 23.451 by revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii) to provide that the prohibition will not apply to: (1) swaps that are initiated on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF; and (2) A-ITBC Swaps.
In proposing to include § 23.451 in the ITBC Swap Compliance Exceptions for ITBC Swaps executed on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF where the SD knows the identity of the counterparty, the Commission determined that the risk of political contributions inappropriately influencing governmental Special Entities' swaps trading decisions are substantially mitigated by the nature of trading on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF.
In addition, the Commission understands from market participants that MPD's observations in CFTC Staff Letter 23-01 regarding “no-trade” lists and other internal requirements designed to prevent or mitigate violations of § 23.451 are not implemented as simply as MPD may have surmised in the context of trading on DCMs, SEFs, or Exempt SEFs.
The amendment to § 23.451 to exclude A-ITBC Swaps is intended to ensure that all swaps executed anonymously, including those not initiated, on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF, will not be subject to § 23.451.
The Commission also proposed to delete the word “Federal” from § 23.451(a)(1)(iii),
The Commission received no comments with respect to the proposed amendments to § 23.451. Therefore, the Commission is adopting the amendments as proposed as reflected in the final rule text
In general, § 23.504 currently requires Swap Entities to enter into swap trading relationship documentation covering certain enumerated topics with each swap counterparty prior to entering into a swap with such counterparty
The Commission proposed to amend § 23.504(a)(1) by adding a new paragraph (iii). The revised section would include the following provisions—as to applicability, the requirements of the section shall not
As stated in the Proposal, these proposed changes recognize that the clearing of swaps between a Swap Entity and a counterparty involves two stages: (1) the execution of a swap between a Swap Entity and its counterparty; and (2) the novation of that swap to a clearing organization that results in two swaps: (i) a swap between the clearing organization and the Swap Entity; and (ii) a swap between the clearing organization and its counterparty.
The Commission received no comments with respect to the proposed amendments to § 23.504. As such, the Commission is adopting the amendments to § 23.504(a)(1) as proposed by adding a new subsection (iii) as reflected in the final rule text
As discussed above, section 4s(h) of the CEA
Under this same authority and as discussed above, this Final Rule makes certain amendments to the External Business Conduct Standards and STRD Requirement to, among other things, provide exceptions to compliance with such requirements when executing swaps that are: (1) intended by the parties to be cleared contemporaneously with execution; or (2) subject to prime broker arrangements that meet certain qualifying conditions. In addition, the Commission is eliminating the PTMMM Requirement and the Scenario Analysis Requirement in their entirety, amending the daily mark requirement under § 23.431(d) to provide Swap Entities greater flexibility in determining how to calculate daily marks for uncleared swaps, and making certain other changes discussed above.
As explained in Section I above, the Commission is issuing this Final Rule to amend certain business conduct standards for Swap Entities contained in subpart H of part 23 of the Commission's regulations,
Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the Commission to “consider the costs and benefits” of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.
The Commission notes that this cost-benefit consideration is based on its understanding that the derivatives market regulated by the Commission functions internationally with: (1) transactions that involve U.S. entities occurring across different international jurisdictions; (2) some entities organized outside of the United States that are registered with the Commission; and (3) some entities that typically operate both within and outside the United States and that follow substantially similar business practices wherever located. Where the Commission does not specifically refer to matters of location, the discussion of costs and benefits below refers to the effects of the proposed regulations on all relevant derivatives activity, whether based on their actual occurrence in the United States or on their connection with, or effect on U.S. commerce.
Where reasonably feasible, the Commission has endeavored to estimate quantifiable costs and benefits. Where quantification is not feasible, the Commission identifies and describes costs and benefits qualitatively. The Commission acknowledges that it is limited in estimating the actual cost of the Final Rule. The initial and recurring costs for any particular Swap Entity, or a counterparty to a Swap Entity, will
As in the Proposal, the Commission identifies and considers the benefits and costs of the changes made by this Final Rule relative to the baseline of those generated by the current statutory and regulatory framework applicable to the issues addressed by this Final Rule,
The Commission requested, both generally and with respect to specific proposed amendments, and did not receive any comments from commenters on the baseline. No commenter quantified nor attempted to quantify the costs and benefits of any part of the Proposal.
Compliance with the conditions set forth in the definition of ITBC Swap in § 23.401
The Commission also believes that compliance with the conditions set forth in the definition of ITBC Swap in final § 23.401 will benefit SDs by permitting them to qualify for exceptions to compliance with regulatory requirements that would otherwise require the SD to obtain information and representations from their non-Swap Entity counterparties, including the KYC, ECP, and Special Entity status information and representations under §§ 23.402 and 23.430
However, as noted in the Proposal, as a result of the no-action positions provided by MPD in CFTC Staff Letter 23-01 pertaining to ITBC Swaps, CFTC Staff Letter 13-12 pertaining to certain foreign exchange transactions (
Similarly, with respect to the elimination of the Scenario Analysis Requirement, the Commission notes that because of the no-action position provided by MPD in CFTC Staff Letter 23-01 pertaining to ITBC Swaps, scenario analysis is probably not being provided by some SDs to some cleared swaps counterparties. Therefore, the Commission believes that elimination of the Scenario Analysis Requirement may not be significant to the costs of, or benefits to, such SDs or their counterparties.
Finally, compliance with the ITBC Swap conditions in the Final Rule will benefit some SDs and their counterparties by providing an exception to the expensive and time-consuming process of negotiating and executing swap trading relationship documentation under the STRD Requirement in cases where the documentation is unnecessary. As a whole, the exceptions from the documentation, onboarding, disclosure, and information collection requirements may, potentially benefit ITBC Swap counterparties by allowing more SDs to act as potential counterparties to a particular ITBC Swap counterparty, providing more liquidity to the cleared swaps market as a whole.
The Commission believes that compliance with the conditions set forth in the definition of a Qualified Prime
Regarding the other miscellaneous amendments, the amendment to the daily mark disclosure requirement in § 23.431 to provide additional flexibility to SDs may benefit SDs by reducing their operational burdens. The amended definition of “statutory disqualification” in § 23.450 of the Final Rule will benefit those persons not automatically barred from being a QIR and may benefit certain Special Entities if they are not required to find a new QIR in the event their existing QIR is subject to a regulatory action that would have previously constituted a statutory disqualification. Finally, certain Swap Entities may benefit from the adopted amendment to § 23.451 that removes “Federal” from the definition of “contributions” under the rule, thereby not prohibiting the Swap Entity from entering into swaps with Federal governmental Special Entities if the Swap Entity makes a contribution to the transition or inaugural expenses of a successful candidate for Federal public office.
As compared to the baseline of full compliance with the current External Business Conduct Standards and the STRD Requirement prior to adoption of the Final Rule, compliance with the conditions set forth in the definition of ITBC Swap in § 23.401 may entail the following costs:
1. Costs incurred by an SD and its ITBC Swap counterparty in determining whether counterparties are eligible to clear an ITBC Swap on a particular DCO or Exempt DCO because determining eligibility likely will require a written inquiry and receipt of a written response and attendant recordkeeping processes or entry of response in trading systems;
2. Costs incurred by an SD and its ITBC Swap counterparty in ensuring that swaps are submitted to clearing on a DCO or Exempt DCO as quickly after execution as would be technologically practicable if fully automated systems were used because doing so likely will require on-boarding to DCO and/or Exempt DCO swap submission systems, or to their respective client clearing service providers, with attendant applications and other paperwork as well as recordkeeping processes;
3. Costs incurred by SDs and their ITBC Swap counterparties in adjusting execution documentation to ensure agreement that swaps not executed on a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF that fail to clear will either (i) be deemed by the SD and its counterparty to be void
4. Costs incurred by SDs and their ITBC Swap counterparties in adjusting execution documentation to ensure agreement that a swap executed on or pursuant to the rules of an Exempt SEF where the rules of the Exempt SEF do not provide for a swap rejected from clearing to be deemed void
The Commission notes that many, if not all, of the foregoing costs may have already been incurred by SDs to meet the conditions to the MPD no-action position in CFTC Staff Letter 23-01, though the Commission acknowledges that at least some additional costs will likely be incurred by SDs and their ITBC Swap counterparties due to minor variations between the Final Rule and the conditions set forth in CFTC Staff Letter 23-01.
As compared to the baseline of full compliance with the External Business Conduct Standards, compliance with the conditions set forth in the definition of Qualified Prime Broker Arrangement in § 23.401 of the Final Rule may entail costs incurred by PB/SDs and their new PB Counterparties to negotiate and enter into Prime Broker Arrangements, and costs incurred by PB/SDs and their existing PB Counterparties to negotiate and amend existing Prime Broker Arrangements that meet the conditions of the definition of Qualified Prime Broker Arrangement, including, costs incurred to ensure that the parties have agreed on the type, parameters, and limits of each potential Covered Transaction (as defined in § 23.401)
In addition to the alternatives discussed in the Proposal, the Commission considered several alternatives to portions of this Final Rule, which are discussed in detail throughout this release.
Section 15(a) of the CEA
Section 15(a)(2)(A) of the CEA requires the Commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation in light of considerations of protection of market participants and the public.
In general, the External Business Conduct Standards were adopted by the Commission as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to increase protections for counterparties to Swap Entities by requiring additional disclosures about the material risks and characteristics of swaps and the material incentives and conflicts of interest that a Swap Entity may have to recommend or enter into swaps with such counterparties. One goal of the External Business Conduct Standards was to attempt to balance the historical asymmetry of information about swaps and the swap markets that had existed prior to the Dodd-Frank Act, leaving counterparties much less informed about the material risks and characteristics of swaps and the pricing of swaps, and the compensation being
In the context of Prime Broker Arrangements, the price and other material economic terms disclosures are disapplied, but such disapplication is necessary to allow PB Counterparties to seek prices for transactions from a variety of potential counterparties while maintaining only one or two trading relationships with PBs, serving the Commission's interest in robust price discovery processes and allowing counterparties to benefit from operational and collateral netting efficiencies. Without the disclosure exception for Qualified Prime Broker Arrangements, PB Counterparties seeking prices from a variety of potential counterparties would be required to forego the credit intermediation services provided by PB/SDs and would be required to have multiple trading relationships with SDs and perhaps non-SDs, with an attendant decrease in operational and collateral efficiencies.
In the context of ITBC Swaps, additional disclosure requirements and relationship-based requirements are disapplied in situations when Swap Entities enter into ITBC Swaps with non-Swap Entity counterparties. However, the Commission believes that the potential costs associated with the disapplication of these regulatory requirements (subject to the conditions provided for in this Final Rule) are justified. First, doing so strongly furthers the Commission's regulatory interest in promoting the trading of swaps on trading facilities and the clearing of swaps generally, two of the pillars of the reforms Congress intended to be implemented for the swap markets by enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commission's purpose in disapplying the disclosure and trading relationship requirements in the context of ITBC Swaps as set forth in this Final Rule
The elimination of the Scenario Analysis Requirement could also reduce the transparency of swaps transactions to swap counterparties. However, those analyses are only required when requested by a counterparty to the Swap Entity, and the Commission understands that they are requested rarely, if at all, due to their limited value.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission believes that this Final Rule will not have a material detrimental effect on the protection of swap market participants or the public.
Section 15(a)(2)(B) of the CEA requires the Commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation in light of “efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of futures markets.”
Section 15(a)(2)(C) of the CEA requires the Commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation in light of price discovery considerations.
Section 15(a)(2)(D) of the CEA requires the Commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation in light of sound risk management practices.
However, to the extent that the Final Rule promotes trading on DCMs, SEFs, and Exempt SEFs and clearing through a DCO or Exempt DCO, the Commission believes that the Final Rule may further sound risk management practices. The trades executed on DCMs, SEFs, and Exempt SEFs are subject to the rules of these entities' platforms and receive the associated protections. Also, the trades
Section 15(a)(2)(E) of the CEA requires the Commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed regulation in light of other public interest considerations.
Section 15(b) of the CEA requires the Commission to take into consideration the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws and endeavor to take the least anticompetitive means of achieving the objectives of the CEA, in issuing any order or adopting any Commission rule or regulation.
The Commission believes that the public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws is generally to protect competition. The Commission requested and did not receive any comments on whether the Proposed Rule implicated any other specific public interest to be protected by the antitrust laws.
The Commission has considered this Final Rule to determine whether it is anticompetitive and has identified no anticompetitive effects. The Commission requested and did not receive any comments on whether the Proposed Rule was anticompetitive and, if it was, what the anticompetitive effects are.
Because the Commission has determined that this Final Rule is not anticompetitive and has no significant discretionary anticompetitive effects and received no comments on its determination in the Proposed Rule, the Commission has not identified any less anticompetitive means of achieving the relevant purposes of the CEA.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires Federal agencies to consider whether the rules they propose will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, if so, to provide a regulatory flexibility analysis reflecting the impact.
The amendments adopted herein affect certain Swap Entities and their counterparties, which must be ECPs.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”)
The Commission will protect proprietary information it may receive according to the Freedom of Information Act and 17 CFR part 145, “Commission Records and Information.” In addition, section 8(a)(1) of the CEA strictly prohibits the Commission, unless specifically authorized by the CEA, from making public “data and information that would separately disclose the business transactions or market positions of any person and trade secrets or names of customers.”
This final rulemaking affects regulations that contain collections of information within the meaning of the PRA, as discussed below.
This final rulemaking modifies the Commission's burden estimates for the information collection requirements associated with OMB Control Number
As discussed above, the revisions to § 23.431
The Commission estimates that eliminating the PTMMM Requirement will decrease Swap Entities' burden hours incurred for each swap transaction by 10% on average. The Commission understands that, in certain rare cases (
Further, the Commission estimates that eliminating the Scenario Analysis Requirement will decrease Swap Entities' burden hours incurred for each swap transaction by 5% on average across all Swap Entities. Although preparing a scenario analysis for a particular swap may take a substantial amount of time, the Commission understands that such analyses are rarely, if ever, requested as many counterparties have not found them to be useful in considering entering into a swap (or, in the alternative, Swap Entities are unwilling to do business with a counterparty that requires a scenario analysis due to the cost of providing such analysis).
The Final Rule also: (i) expands the exceptions in § 23.431(c)
The Commission believes that the other changes to § 23.431
The Final Rule is amending §§ 23.402, 430, 432, 434, 440, 450, and 451
In consideration of the above and the current number of Swap Entities, the Commission estimates that the total overall burdens for OMB Control Number 3038-0079 will be approximately as follows:
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Similar to the regulations discussed above, the Final Rule modifies § 23.504
Although the adoption of these changes may result in lesser burdens for market participants subject to § 23.504, in an effort to be conservative in estimating the amount of the change, the Commission determined to leave its estimated burdens of these requirements unchanged at this time as the potential
In the Proposed Rule, the Commission requested comments on the information collection requirements discussed above, including, without limitation, on the Commission's discussion of the estimated burden of the collection of information requirements in the Proposal. The Commission did not receive any such comments.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select those regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; and distributive impacts). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, or the President's priorities.
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended, and therefore it was not subject to Executive Order 12866 review.
This Final Rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action, because it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Swaps, Trading records.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 23 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 6, 6a, 6b, 6b-1, 6c, 6p, 6r, 6s, 6t, 9, 9a, 12, 12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21.
Section 23.160 also issued under 7 U.S.C. 2(i); Sec. 721(b), Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1641 (2010).
The sections of this subpart shall apply to swap dealers and, unless otherwise indicated, major swap participants. These rules are not intended to limit or restrict the applicability of other provisions of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder, or other applicable laws, rules and regulations. The provisions of this subpart shall apply in connection with transactions in swaps as well as in connection with swaps that are offered but not entered into.
Solely for purposes of this subpart, the terms listed in this section have the meanings set forth below.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) At least one of the parties to the swap is a swap entity;
(2) The swap is of a type accepted for clearing by a derivatives clearing organization registered with the Commission (“DCO”) or a clearing organization that is currently exempted from registration by the Commission pursuant to section 5b(h) of the Act (“Exempt DCO”);
(3) The swap is intended by the parties to be cleared contemporaneously with execution;
(4) If the swap is intended to be cleared on a DCO, the swap entity and its counterparty are either clearing
(5) If the swap is intended to be cleared on an Exempt DCO, the swap entity and its counterparty must be eligible to clear the swap on the Exempt DCO pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Order of Exemption from Registration issued by the Commission regarding such Exempt DCO;
(6) The swap entity does not require its counterparty or its clearing member (if any) to enter into a breakage agreement or similar agreement as a condition to executing the swap;
(7) If the swap is not executed on or pursuant to the rules of a designated contract market (“DCM”), swap execution facility (“SEF”), or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act (“Exempt SEF”), the swap entity takes reasonable measures to ensure that both parties submit the swap for clearing to a DCO or Exempt DCO as quickly after execution as would be technologically practicable if fully automated systems were used, and either:
(i) The parties have agreed prior to or at execution that if such swap is rejected from clearing, the swap is deemed to be void
(ii) The parties, prior to execution, have entered into a breakage agreement or similar arrangement that addresses the disposition of such rejected swap and includes arrangements that will permit a Swap Entity to comply with the requirements of subparts H and I of this part with respect to the rejected swap;
(8) If the swap is executed on or pursuant to the rules of a DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF, the rules of the DCM, SEF, or Exempt SEF provide that if the swap is rejected from clearing, such swap is deemed to be void
(i) The parties have agreed prior to or at execution that if such swap is rejected from clearing, the swap is deemed to be void
(ii) The parties, prior to execution, have entered into a breakage agreement or similar arrangement that addresses the disposition of such rejected swap and includes arrangements that will permit a Swap Entity to comply with the requirements of subparts H and I of this part with respect to the rejected swap.
(e)
(f)
(1) A Covered Transaction (the “Trigger Transaction”) for which the Prime Broker has not determined the material economic terms and price with a counterparty (the “Trigger CP”); and
(2) One or more additional Covered Transactions with one or more other counterparties that are not the Trigger CP, resulting in the Prime Broker being party to equal but offsetting transactions as a credit intermediary; provided that one or more of the Covered Transactions may include a spread or fee to be paid to the Prime Broker and/or an intermediary that has arranged the transactions (or a portion thereof) as compensation for the Prime Broker's credit intermediation services and/or the services of the intermediary.
(g)
(1) The Prime Broker (as defined under the definition of Prime Broker Arrangement) and a counterparty that is not a swap entity that has entered into a Prime Broker Arrangement with the Prime Broker (the “PB Counterparty”) have agreed in writing on the type, parameters, and limits of each potential Covered Transaction that may be entered into by the PB Counterparty with the Prime Broker pursuant to such Prime Broker Arrangement (each, a “Permitted PB Transaction”); and
(2) The PB Counterparty has received from the Prime Broker all disclosures regarding the Permitted PB Transactions that, to the best of the Prime Broker's knowledge and reasonable belief, would be necessary for the Prime Broker to comply with § 23.431(a), other than the pre-trade disclosure of the material economic terms and the price of the Permitted PB Transaction;
(h)
(1) A Federal agency;
(2) A State, State agency, city, county, municipality, other political subdivision of a State, or any instrumentality, department, or a corporation of or established by a State or political subdivision of a State;
(3) Any employee benefit plan subject to Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002);
(4) Any governmental plan, as defined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002);
(5) Any endowment, including an endowment that is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)); or
(6) Any employee benefit plan defined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002), not otherwise defined as a Special Entity, that elects to be a Special Entity by notifying a swap entity of its election prior to entering into a swap with the particular swap entity.
(i)
(j)
(a)
(i) Ensure compliance with the requirements of this subpart; and
(ii) Prevent a swap entity from evading or participating in or facilitating an evasion of any provision of the Act or any regulation promulgated thereunder.
(2) Swap entities shall implement and monitor compliance with such policies and procedures as part of their supervision and risk management requirements specified in subpart J of this part.
(b)
(1) Facts required to comply with applicable laws, regulations and rules;
(2) Facts required to implement the swap dealer's credit and operational risk management policies in connection with transactions entered into with such counterparty; and
(3) Information regarding the authority of any person acting for such counterparty.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(a)
(1) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any Special Entity or prospective customer who is a Special Entity;
(2) To engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business that operates as a fraud or deceit on any Special Entity or prospective customer who is a Special Entity; or
(3) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business that is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.
(b)
(1) Did not act intentionally or recklessly in connection with such alleged violation; and
(2) Complied in good faith with written policies and procedures reasonably designed to meet the particular requirement that is the basis for the alleged violation.
(c)
(i) Disclose to any other person any material confidential information provided by or on behalf of a counterparty to the swap entity; or
(ii) Use for its own purposes in any way that would tend to be materially adverse to the interests of a counterparty, any material confidential information provided by or on behalf of a counterparty to the swap entity.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section, a swap entity may disclose or use material confidential information provided by or on behalf of a counterparty to the swap entity if such disclosure or use is authorized in writing by the counterparty, or is necessary:
(i) For the effective execution of any swap for or with the counterparty;
(ii) To hedge or mitigate any exposure created by such swap; or
(iii) To comply with a request of the Commission, Department of Justice, any self-regulatory organization designated by the Commission, or an applicable prudential regulator, or is otherwise required by law.
(3) Each swap entity shall implement written policies and procedures reasonably designed to protect material confidential information provided by or on behalf of a counterparty from disclosure and use in violation of this section by any person acting for or on behalf of the swap entity.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Initiated on a designated contract market;
(2) Initiated with a counterparty whose identity is not known to the swap entity prior to execution on a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act;
(3) An A-ITBC Swap; or
(4) An ITBC Swap initiated on a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act.
(a)
(1) The material risks of the particular swap, which may include market, credit, liquidity, foreign currency, legal, operational, and any other applicable risks;
(2) The material characteristics of the particular swap, which shall include the price of the swap, the material economic terms of the swap, the terms relating to the operation of the swap, and the rights and obligations of the parties during the term of the swap to the extent that such characteristics are not reflected in transaction documentation with which the counterparty has been provided prior to entering into the swap; and
(3) The material incentives and conflicts of interest that the swap entity may have in connection with a particular swap, which shall include any compensation or other incentive from any source other than the counterparty that the swap entity may receive in connection with the swap.
(b) [Reserved]
(c)
(1) Initiated on a designated contract market;
(2) Initiated with a counterparty whose identity is not known to the swap entity prior to execution on a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act;
(3) An A-ITBC Swap;
(4) An ITBC Swap initiated on a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act; or
(5) A Permitted PB Transaction entered into pursuant to a Qualified Prime Broker Arrangement.
(d)
(1) For cleared swaps, notify each counterparty (other than a swap entity, security-based swap dealer, or major security-based swap participant) of the counterparty's right to receive, upon request, the daily mark for each cleared swap from the appropriate derivatives clearing organization.
(2) Paragraph (d)(1) of this section shall not apply with respect to a transaction that is:
(i) An ITBC Swap that is initiated on a designated contract market, a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act or;
(ii) An A-ITBC Swap.
(3) For uncleared swaps not subject to daily variation margining, provide the counterparty (other than a swap entity, security-based swap dealer, or major security-based swap participant) with a daily mark for each uncleared swap. The daily mark shall be provided to the counterparty during the term of the swap as of the close of business or such other time as the parties agree in writing.
(4) For uncleared swaps not subject to daily variation margining, disclose to the counterparty:
(i) The methodology and assumptions used to prepare the daily mark and any material changes during the term of the swap; provided however, that the swap entity is not required to disclose to the counterparty confidential, proprietary information about any model it may use to prepare the daily mark; and
(ii) Additional information concerning the daily mark to ensure a fair and balanced communication, including, as appropriate, that:
(A) The daily mark is an estimate and may not necessarily be a price at which either the counterparty or the swap entity would agree to replace or terminate the swap;
(B) Depending upon the agreement of the parties, calls for margin may be based on considerations other than the estimated daily mark provided to the counterparty; and
(C) The daily mark is an estimate and may not necessarily be the value of the swap that is marked on the books of the swap entity.
(a)
(b)
(1) May elect to require clearing of the swap; and
(2) Shall have the sole right to select the derivatives clearing organization at which the swap will be cleared.
(c)
(1) An ITBC Swap that is initiated on a designated contract market, a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act; or
(2) An A-ITBC Swap.
With respect to any communication between a swap entity and any counterparty, the swap entity shall communicate in a fair and balanced manner based on principles of fair dealing and good faith.
(a)
(1) Undertake reasonable diligence to understand the potential risks and rewards associated with the recommended swap or trading strategy involving a swap; and
(2) Have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommended swap or trading strategy involving a swap is suitable for the counterparty. To establish a reasonable basis for a recommendation, a swap dealer must have or obtain information about the counterparty, including the counterparty's investment profile, trading objectives, and ability to absorb potential losses associated with the recommended swap or trading strategy involving a swap.
(b)
(1) The swap dealer reasonably determines that the counterparty, or an
(2) The counterparty or its agent represents in writing that it is exercising independent judgment in evaluating the recommendations of the swap dealer with regard to the relevant swap or trading strategy involving a swap;
(3) The swap dealer discloses in writing that it is acting in its capacity as a counterparty and is not undertaking to assess the suitability of the swap or trading strategy involving a swap for the counterparty; and
(4) In the case of a counterparty that is a Special Entity, the swap dealer complies with § 23.440 where the recommendation would cause the swap dealer to act as an advisor to a Special Entity within the meaning of § 23.440(a).
(c)
(1) In the case of a counterparty that is not a Special Entity, the counterparty has complied in good faith with written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the persons responsible for evaluating the recommendation and making trading decisions on behalf of the counterparty are capable of doing so; or
(2) In the case of a counterparty that is a Special Entity, satisfy the terms of the safe harbor in § 23.450(d).
(d)
(i) An A-ITBC Swap; or
(ii) An ITBC Swap initiated on a designated contract market, a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act.
(a)
(b)
(1) With respect to a Special Entity that is an employee benefit plan as defined in § 23.401(h)(3):
(i) The Special Entity represents in writing that it has a fiduciary as defined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002) that is responsible for representing the Special Entity in connection with the swap transaction;
(ii) The fiduciary represents in writing that it will not rely on recommendations provided by the swap dealer; and
(iii) The Special Entity represents in writing:
(A) That it will comply in good faith with written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that any recommendation the Special Entity receives from the swap dealer materially affecting a swap transaction is evaluated by a fiduciary before the transaction occurs; or
(B) That any recommendation the Special Entity receives from the swap dealer materially affecting a swap transaction will be evaluated by a fiduciary before that transaction occurs; or
(2) With respect to any Special Entity:
(i) The swap dealer does not express an opinion as to whether the Special Entity should enter into a recommended swap or trading strategy involving a swap that is tailored to the particular needs or characteristics of the Special Entity;
(ii) The Special Entity represents in writing that:
(A) The Special Entity will not rely on recommendations provided by the swap dealer; and
(B) The Special Entity will rely on advice from a qualified independent representative within the meaning of § 23.450; and
(iii) The swap dealer discloses to the Special Entity that it is not undertaking to act in the best interests of the Special Entity as otherwise required by this section.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) The financial status of the Special Entity, as well as the Special Entity's future funding needs;
(ii) The tax status of the Special Entity;
(iii) The hedging, investment, financing, or other objectives of the Special Entity;
(iv) The experience of the Special Entity with respect to entering into swaps, generally, and swaps of the type and complexity being recommended;
(v) Whether the Special Entity has the financial capability to withstand changes in market conditions during the term of the swap; and
(vi) Such other information as is relevant to the particular facts and circumstances of the Special Entity, market conditions, and the type of swap or trading strategy involving a swap being recommended.
(d)
(e)
(1) Initiated with a counterparty whose identity is not known to the swap dealer prior to execution on a designated contract market, a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act;
(2) An A-ITBC Swap; or
(3) An ITBC Swap initiated by a Special Entity on a designated contract market, a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act, in each case with a swap dealer who does not know the Special Entity status of its counterparty prior to execution.
(a)
(1) The term “principal relationship” means where a swap entity is a principal of the representative of a Special Entity or the representative of a Special Entity is a principal of the swap entity. The term “principal” means any
(2) The term “statutory disqualification” means, with respect to a person that is not a registrant with the Commission, grounds for refusal to register or to revoke, condition, or restrict the registration of any registrant or applicant for registration as set forth in sections 8a(2) and 8a(3) of the Act, or, with respect to a person that is a registrant with the Commission, the Commission has refused registration or revoked, conditioned, or restricted the registration of such registrant or applicant for registration pursuant to sections 8a(2) or 8a(3) of the Act.
(b)
(i) Has sufficient knowledge to evaluate the transaction and risks;
(ii) Is not subject to a statutory disqualification;
(iii) Is independent of the swap entity;
(iv) Undertakes a duty to act in the best interests of the Special Entity it represents;
(v) Makes appropriate and timely disclosures to the Special Entity;
(vi) Evaluates, consistent with any guidelines provided by the Special Entity, fair pricing and the appropriateness of the swap; and
(vii) In the case of a Special Entity, as defined in § 23.401(h)(2) or (4), is subject to restrictions on certain political contributions imposed by the Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a self-regulatory organization subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission; provided however, that this paragraph (b)(1)(vii) shall not apply if the representative is an employee of the Special Entity.
(2) Any swap entity that offers to enter or enters into a swap with a Special Entity as defined in § 23.401(h)(3) shall have a reasonable basis to believe that the Special Entity has a representative that is a fiduciary as defined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002).
(c)
(1) The representative is not and, within one year of representing the Special Entity in connection with the swap, was not an associated person of the swap entity within the meaning of section 1a(4) of the Act;
(2) There is no principal relationship between the representative of the Special Entity and the swap entity;
(3) The representative:
(i) Provides timely and effective disclosures to the Special Entity of all material conflicts of interest that could reasonably affect the judgment or decision making of the representative with respect to its obligations to the Special Entity; and
(ii) Complies with policies and procedures reasonably designed to manage and mitigate such material conflicts of interest;
(4) The representative is not directly or indirectly, through one or more persons, controlled by, in control of, or under common control with the swap entity; and
(5) The swap entity did not refer, recommend, or introduce the representative to the Special Entity within one year of the representative's representation of the Special Entity in connection with the swap.
(d)
(i) The Special Entity represents in writing to the swap entity that it has complied in good faith with written policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it has selected a representative that satisfies the applicable requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, and that such policies and procedures provide for ongoing monitoring of the performance of such representative consistent with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section; and
(ii) The representative represents in writing to the Special Entity and swap entity that the representative:
(A) Has policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that it satisfies the applicable requirements of paragraph (b) of this section;
(B) Meets the independence test in paragraph (c) of this section; and
(C) Is legally obligated to comply with the applicable requirements of paragraph (b) of this section by agreement, condition of employment, law, rule, regulation, or other enforceable duty.
(2) A swap entity shall be deemed to have a reasonable basis to believe that a Special Entity defined in § 23.401(h)(3) has a representative that satisfies the applicable requirements in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, provided that the Special Entity provides in writing to the swap entity the representative's name and contact information, and represents in writing that the representative is a fiduciary as defined in section 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002).
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) The capacity in which it is acting in connection with the swap; and
(2) If the swap entity engages in business with the Special Entity in more than one capacity, the swap entity shall disclose the material differences between such capacities.
(h)
(1) Initiated with a counterparty whose identity is not known to the swap entity prior to execution on a designated contract market, a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act;
(2) An A-ITBC Swap; or
(3) An ITBC Swap initiated on a designated contract market, a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act.
(a)
(1) The term “contribution” means any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made:
(i) For the purpose of influencing any election for federal, state, or local office;
(ii) For payment of debt incurred in connection with any such election; or
(iii) For transition or inaugural expenses incurred by the successful candidate for state or local office.
(2) The term “covered associate” means:
(i) Any general partner, managing member, or executive officer, or other person with a similar status or function;
(ii) Any employee who solicits a governmental Special Entity for the swap dealer and any person who supervises, directly or indirectly, such employee; and
(iii) Any political action committee controlled by the swap dealer or by any person described in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this section.
(3) The term “governmental Special Entity” means any Special Entity defined in § 23.401(h)(2) or (4).
(4) The term “official” of a governmental Special Entity means any person (including any election committee for such person) who was, at the time of the contribution, an incumbent, candidate, or successful candidate for elective office of a governmental Special Entity, if the office:
(i) Is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the selection of a swap dealer by a governmental Special Entity; or
(ii) Has authority to appoint any person who is directly or indirectly responsible for, or can influence the outcome of, the selection of a swap dealer by a governmental Special Entity.
(5) The term “payment” means any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value.
(6) The term “regulated person” means:
(i) A person that is subject to restrictions on certain political contributions imposed by the Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a self-regulatory agency subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission;
(ii) A general partner, managing member, or executive officer of such person, or other individual with a similar status or function; or
(iii) An employee of such person who solicits a governmental Special Entity for the swap dealer and any person who supervises, directly or indirectly, such employee.
(7) The term “solicit” means a direct or indirect communication by any person with a governmental Special Entity for the purpose of obtaining or retaining an engagement related to a swap.
(b)
(2) This prohibition does not apply:
(i) If the only contributions made by the swap dealer to an official of such governmental Special Entity were made by a covered associate:
(A) To officials for whom the covered associate was entitled to vote at the time of the contributions, provided that the contributions in the aggregate do not exceed $350 to any one official per election; or
(B) To officials for whom the covered associate was not entitled to vote at the time of the contributions, provided that the contributions in the aggregate do not exceed $150 to any one official per election;
(ii) To a swap dealer as a result of a contribution made by a natural person more than six months prior to becoming a covered associate of the swap dealer, provided that this exclusion shall not apply if the natural person, after becoming a covered associate, solicits the governmental Special Entity on behalf of the swap dealer to offer to enter into or to enter into a swap or trading strategy involving a swap; or
(iii) To a swap that is:
(A) Initiated on a designated contract market, a swap execution facility, or a trading facility currently exempted from registration as a swap execution facility by the Commission pursuant to section 5h(g) of the Act; or
(B) An A-ITBC Swap.
(3) No swap dealer or any covered associate of the swap dealer shall:
(i) Provide or agree to provide, directly or indirectly, payment to any person to solicit a governmental Special Entity to offer to enter into, or to enter into, a swap with that swap dealer unless such person is a regulated person; or
(ii) Coordinate, or solicit any person or political action committee to make, any:
(A) Contribution to an official of a governmental Special Entity with which the swap dealer is offering to enter into, or has entered into, a swap; or
(B) Payment to a political party of a state or locality with which the swap dealer is offering to enter into or has entered into a swap or a trading strategy involving a swap.
(c)
(d)
(1) Whether the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes of the Act;
(2) Whether the swap dealer:
(i) Before the contribution resulting in the prohibition was made, implemented policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations of this section;
(ii) Prior to or at the time the contribution which resulted in such prohibition was made, had no actual knowledge of the contribution; and
(iii) After learning of the contribution:
(A) Has taken all available steps to cause the contributor involved in making the contribution which resulted in such prohibition to obtain a return of the contribution; and
(B) Has taken such other remedial or preventive measures as may be appropriate under the circumstances;
(3) Whether, at the time of the contribution, the contributor was a covered associate or otherwise an employee of the swap dealer, or was seeking such employment;
(4) The timing and amount of the contribution which resulted in the prohibition;
(5) The nature of the election (
(6) The contributor's apparent intent or motive in making the contribution that resulted in the prohibition, as evidenced by the facts and circumstances surrounding the contribution.
(e)
(i) The swap dealer discovered the contribution within 120 calendar days of the date of such contribution;
(ii) The contribution did not exceed the amounts permitted by paragraphs (b)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section; and
(iii) The covered associate obtained a return of the contribution within 60 calendar days of the date of discovery of the contribution by the swap dealer.
(2) A swap dealer may not rely on paragraph (e)(1) of this section more than twice in any 12-month period.
(3) A swap dealer may not rely on paragraph (e)(1) of this section more than once for any covered associate, regardless of the time between contributions.
(a)
(i) Swaps executed prior to the date on which a swap dealer or major swap participant is required to be in compliance with this section;
(ii) Swaps that have been cleared on a derivatives clearing organization or cleared on a clearing organization that is currently exempted from registration by the Commission pursuant to section 5b(h) of the Act; and
(iii) An ITBC Swap as defined in § 23.401(d).
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Acting Chairman Pham voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.