Agricultural Marketing Service
Farm Service Agency
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Engineers Corps
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Copyright Royalty Board
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Maritime Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Direct final rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is amending the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations, decreasing the value assigned to imported cotton for the purposes of calculating supplemental assessments collected for use by the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. This amendment is required each year to ensure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products will be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. In addition, AMS is updating the Import Assessment Table to account for changes since the last assessment adjustment in 2024.
This direct final rule is effective March 1, 2026, without further action or notice, unless a significant adverse comment is received by January 30, 2026. If a significant adverse comment is received, AMS will publish a timely withdrawal of the amendment in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this direct final rule. Comments may be submitted by mail or hand delivery to Cotton Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 3275 Appling Road, Memphis, Tennessee 38133 or via the internet at:
Sue Coleman, Acting Branch Chief, Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 3275 Appling Road, Memphis, Tennessee 38133; telephone (901) 384-3000; facsimile (901) 384-3033; or email at
Amendments to the Cotton Research and Promotion Act (7 U.S.C. 2101-2118) (Act) were enacted by Congress under subtitle G of title XIX of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-624, 104 Stat. 3909; November 28, 1990). These amendments contained two provisions that authorized changes in the funding procedures for the Cotton Research and Promotion Program. These provisions provided for: (1) the assessment of imported cotton and cotton products; and (2) termination of refunds to cotton producers. (Prior to the 1990 amendments to the Act, producers could request assessment refunds.)
As amended, the Cotton Research and Promotion Order (7 CFR part 1205) (Order) was approved by producers and importers voting in a referendum held July 17-26, 1991, and the amended Order was published in the
This direct final rule amends the value assigned to imported cotton in the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations (7 CFR 1205.510(b)(2)) that is used to determine the Cotton Research and Promotion assessment on imported cotton and cotton products. The total value of assessment levied on cotton imports is the sum of two parts. The first part of the assessment is based on the weight of cotton imported—levied at a rate of $1 per bale of cotton, which is equivalent to 500 pounds, or $1 per 226.8 kilograms of cotton. The second part of the import assessment (referred to as the supplemental assessment) is based on the value of imported cotton lint or the cotton contained in imported cotton products—levied at a rate of five-tenths of one percent of the value of domestically produced cotton.
Section 1205.510(b)(2) of the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations provides for assigning the calendar year weighted average price received by U.S. farmers for Upland cotton to represent the value of imported cotton. This is so that the assessment on domestically produced cotton and the assessment on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products is the same. The source for the average price statistic is
The current value of imported cotton as published in 2024 in the
An example of the complete assessment formula and how the figures are obtained is as follows:
One bale is equal to 500 pounds.
One kilogram (kg) equals 2.2046 pounds.
One pound equals 0.453597 kilograms.
A 500-pound bale equals 226.8 kg. (500 × 0.453597).
$1 per bale assessment equals $0.002000 per pound or 0.2000 cents
The 2024 calendar year weighted average price received by producers for Upland cotton is $0.724 per pound or $1.596 per kg. (0.724 × 2.2046).
Five tenths of one percent of the average price equals $0.007979 per kg. (1.596 × 0.005).
The total assessment per kilogram of raw cotton is obtained by adding the $1 per bale equivalent assessment of $0.004409 per kg and the supplemental assessment $0.007979 per kg, which equals $0.012388 per kg.
The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.013247 per kilogram of imported cotton. The revised assessment in this direct final rule is $0.012388, a decrease of $0.000858 per kilogram. This reflects the decrease in the average weighted price of Upland cotton received by U.S. farmers during the period January through December 2024.
The Import Assessment Table in 7 CFR 1205.510(b)(3) indicates the total assessment rate ($ per kilogram) due for each Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) number that is subject to assessment. In this direct final rule, AMS is amending the Import Assessment Table to revise the total assessment rates in light of the change to the supplemental assessment rate. This table must be revised each year to reflect the change to the supplemental assessment rate, and any changes to the HTS numbers and respective conversion factors.
AMS believes that these amendments are necessary to ensure that assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products are the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton. Accordingly, changes reflected in this rule should be adopted and implemented as soon as possible since it is required by regulation.
As described in this
Also, this direct-final rulemaking furthers the objectives of Executive Order 13563, which requires that the regulatory process “promote predictability and reduce uncertainty” and “identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.”
AMS has used the direct rule rulemaking process since 2013 and has not received any adverse comments; however, if AMS receives significant adverse comments during the comment period, it will publish, in a timely manner, a document in the
This direct final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” which requires Federal agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866.
This direct final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This direct final rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court challenging a final agency action. If no adverse comments are received, this direct final rule is the agency's final action on this matter. Under section 12 of the Act, any person subject to an order may file with the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) a petition stating that the order, any provision of the plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the District Court of the United States in any district in which the person is an inhabitant, or has his principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling, provided a complaint is filed within 20 days from the date of the entry of the Secretary's ruling.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has examined the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such action so that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines, in 13 CFR 121.201, a small cotton farming business as those having annual receipts of no more than $3.25 million (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 111920) and small “Other Farm Product Raw Material Merchant Wholesalers” (cotton merchants/importers) (NAICS Code 424590) as having no more than 175 employees.
According to the NASS 2022 Agriculture Census, the number of cotton farms is 14,283. NASS also reports that the total U.S. production value for Upland production averages $4,831,807,333 for 2022-2024. Dividing the crop value by the number of cotton farms, the average crop value is approximately $338,291. Since $338,291 is well below $3.25 million and assuming a normal distribution, the majority of cotton farmers are small according to the SBA standards.
The Cotton Board estimates approximately 37,000 importers are subject to the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. According to the United States Census Bureau's “2021 Survey of SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment Industry,” most importers are considered small entities as defined by the SBA (13 CFR 121.201). This rule would only affect importers of cotton and cotton-containing products and would decrease the assessments paid by the importers under the Cotton Research and Promotion Order. The current assessment on imported cotton is $0.013247 per kilogram of imported cotton. The amended assessment is $0.012388, which was calculated based on the 12-month weighted average of price received by U.S. cotton farmers in 2024. 7 CFR 1205.510, “Levy of assessments”, provides “The rate of the supplemental assessment on imported cotton will be the same as that levied on cotton produced within the United States.” In addition, § 1205.510 provides that the 12-month weighted average of prices received by U.S. farmers will be
Imported organic cotton and products may be exempt from assessment if eligible under 7 CFR 1205.519.
There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
In compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations (5 CFR part 1320) which implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) the information collection requirements contained in the regulation to be amended have been previously approved by OMB and were assigned control number 0581-0093, National Research, Promotion, and Consumer Information Programs. This rule does not result in a change to the information collection and recordkeeping requirements previously approved.
A 30-day comment period is provided to comment on the changes to the Cotton Board Rules and Regulations herein. This period is deemed appropriate because an amendment is required to adjust the assessments collected on imported cotton and the cotton content of imported products to be the same as those paid on domestically produced cotton.
Advertising, Agricultural research, Cotton, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, AMS amends 7 CFR part 1205 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2101-2118; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(b) * * *
(2) The 12-month average of monthly weighted average prices received by U.S. farmers will be calculated annually. Such weighted average will be used as the value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying the supplemental assessment on imported cotton and will be expressed in kilograms. The value of imported cotton for the purpose of levying this supplemental assessment is 1.2388 cents per kilogram.
(3) * * *
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is amending its Rules of Organization and Program Management to provide delegated authority to the Director of the Division of Investment Management (“Director”) to authorize the issuance of orders to grant, deny, and revoke confidential treatment for information in any registration application, report, or amendment thereto filed with the Commission pursuant to any provision of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”).
This rule is effective December 31, 2025.
Alexis Palascak, Senior Counsel; Ted Uliassi, Branch Chief; Robert Holowka, Acting Assistant Director, Investment Adviser Regulation Office; Erin Loomis Moore, Senior Counsel; Kay M. Vobis, Senior Special Counsel; Marc Mehrespand, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel, Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6787 and
The Commission is adopting amendments to 17 CFR 200.30-5 of its Rules of Organization and Program Management (“rule 30-5”).
The Commission is amending rule 30-5 to provide delegated authority to the Director to authorize the issuance of orders, upon application, under section 210(a) of the Advisers Act to grant, deny, and revoke confidential treatment for information in any registration application or report or amendment thereto filed with the Commission pursuant to any provision of the Advisers Act.
Section 4A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) provides the Commission the authority to delegate, by published order or rule, any of its functions to a division director, subject to certain limitations.
Section 210(a) of the Advisers Act provides that information contained in any registration application or report or amendment thereto filed with the Commission pursuant to any provision of the Advisers Act shall be made available to the public, unless and except insofar as the Commission by rules and regulations upon its own motion, or by order upon application, finds that public disclosure is neither necessary nor appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.
Rule 30-5(g)(8) will enable the Director to authorize the issuance of orders under section 210(a) of the Advisers Act to grant, deny, and revoke confidential treatment of information in Form ADV, among other filings under the Advisers Act.
The Commission, however, recognizes that there may be instances where public disclosure of certain information in Form ADV or other filings made pursuant to the Advisers Act is neither necessary nor appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. In such circumstances, investment advisers may seek confidential treatment of certain information. The Commission has received such applications in the past but has not taken action on them.
Under current requirements, only the Commission itself has authority to grant, deny or revoke confidential treatment requests. Applications for confidential treatment of information contained in any registration application or report or amendment thereto filed with the Commission under section 210(a) of the Advisers Act must be filed pursuant to rule 190 under the Commission's Rules of Practice.
The Commission finds it is appropriate to delegate authority to the Director to authorize the issuance of orders granting and denying applications for confidential treatment filed pursuant to section 210(a) of the Advisers Act and revoking previously issued orders granting confidential treatment. Delegating this authority will conserve the Commission's resources and facilitate efficient consideration of applications for confidential treatment for such filings.
Section 211(c) of the Advisers Act requires that orders of the Commission under the Advisers Act shall be issued only after appropriate notice and opportunity for hearing.
As with other delegations of authority, the Commission retains a discretionary right to review any action the Director may take under rule 30-5(g)(8) upon its own initiative or upon petition of a party to or intervenor in such action, which includes applicants for confidential treatment under section 210(a) of the Advisers Act.
The Commission finds, in accordance with section 553(b)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), that the amendment to rule 30-5 relates solely to agency organization, procedures, or practices.
The Commission is adopting amendments to rule 30-5 of the Commission's Rules of Organization and Program Management under the authority set forth in sections 4A and 4B of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78d-1 and 78d-2].
Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies).
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 552b, and 557; 11 U.S.C. 901 and 1109(a); 15 U.S.C. 77c, 77e, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77
(g) * * *
(8)(i) To authorize the issuance of orders granting and denying applications for confidential treatment filed pursuant to section 210(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-10(a)).
(ii) To authorize the issuance of orders revoking previously issued orders granting confidential treatment.
By the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services.
Temporary rule.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) jointly with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a fourth extension of telemedicine flexibilities for the prescribing of controlled medications through December 31, 2026.
This rule is effective January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2026.
Heather Achbach, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, VA 22152, Telephone: (571) 776-3882.
Under the
In response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (COVID-19 PHE), as declared by the Secretary of HHS (the “Secretary”) on January 31, 2020, pursuant to the authority under section 319 of the
• A March 25, 2020 “Dear Registrant” letter signed by William T. McDermott, DEA's then-Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division (the McDermott Letter);
• A March 31, 2020 “Dear Registrant” letter signed by Thomas W. Prevoznik, DEA's then-Deputy Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division (the Prevoznik Letter).
On March 1, 2023, DEA, jointly with HHS, promulgated two notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) in the
On May 10, 2023, DEA, jointly with HHS (with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) acting on behalf of HHS), issued the first temporary extension (the “First Temporary Rule”), which extended the full set of the telemedicine flexibilities that had been in place under the COVID-19 PHE, through November 11, 2023.
On August 7, 2023, DEA announced that it would host Telemedicine Listening Sessions on September 12 and 13, 2023, for the purpose of obtaining additional input on the practice of telemedicine and potential safeguards that could effectively prevent and detect diversion of controlled substances prescribed via telemedicine. On October 10, 2023, DEA, jointly with HHS, issued a second temporary extension (the “Second Temporary Rule”) again extending the full set of telemedicine flexibilities through December 31, 2024.
On November 19, 2024, DEA, jointly with SAMHSA/HHS, issued a third temporary extension (the “Third Temporary Rule”) extending the full set of telemedicine flexibilities through December 31, 2025.
On January 17, 2025, DEA published the “Special Registrations for Telemedicine and Limited State Telemedicine Registrations” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed a framework for a Special Registration for Telemedicine, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 802(54)(E), authorizing physicians and mid-level practitioners with the Special Registration to prescribe controlled substances via audio-video telemedicine (and in limited instances, audio-only telemedicine) without having ever conducted an in-person medical evaluation of the patient, provided they adhere to the proposed prescription, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The NPRM further proposed the registration of certain direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine platforms that function as intermediaries and are integral to the practitioner-patient relationship.
With the December 31, 2025 expiration date of the Third Temporary Rule quickly approaching, DEA, jointly with HHS, is now issuing a fourth temporary extension (“Fourth Temporary Rule”) to prevent what has been commonly referred to as the “telemedicine cliff:” the reinstatement of the pre-pandemic restrictions imposed by the CSA, which could potentially and abruptly limit patients' access to care until promulgation of a final set of regulations. Collaterally, the extension will provide time for DEA to promulgate a final set of regulations, to ensure a smooth transition for patients and providers that have come to rely on the availability of telemedicine to prescribe controlled substances to patients for whom they have never had an in-person medical evaluation, and allow sufficient time for providers to come into compliance with any new DEA registration, recordkeeping, or security requirements eventually adopted in a final set of regulations.
The
This Fourth Temporary Rule, like the first three Temporary Rules, covers the portions of the March 2023 NPRMs related to extensions of the telemedicine flexibilities in place during the COVID-19 PHE, and it extends, through December 31, 2026, the telemedicine flexibilities that have been in place since March 2020 for prescribing controlled substances via the practice of telemedicine. Due to the impending expiration of the flexibilities provided in the Third Temporary Rule, DEA, jointly with HHS, has elected to again extend those flexibilities to maintain access to care during a limited window of time. As explained further below, because this is an extension of limited duration of the telemedicine flexibilities that existed during the COVID-19 PHE, DEA and HHS have determined that this Fourth Temporary Rule is consistent “with effective controls against diversion and otherwise consistent with the public health and safety” as required under 21 U.S.C. 802(54)(G). HHS has advised DEA that no additional rulemaking by HHS is necessary as it pertains to the promulgation of these provisions pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 802(54)(G).
The purpose of this rulemaking is to further extend, for a limited period of time, the telemedicine flexibilities that existed during the COVID-19 PHE in order to prevent disruption of care and other problems that would arise should the Third Extension expire before DEA can finalize, and stakeholders can implement changes to comply with, regulations that balance access to care with the necessary safeguards against diversion.
DEA has received numerous communications from patients, providers, and other stakeholders warning that expiration of the current telemedicine flexibilities, without further regulation, could potentially and abruptly limit patients' access to care until promulgation of a final set of regulations. The abrupt end to the ability to prescribe controlled substances to patients who have not had an in-person medical evaluation is often referred to as the “telemedicine cliff.” The potential harms are widespread. To put it into context, one stakeholder summarized unpublished data reviewed by
We need only examine the recent sunsetting of COVID-era, congressionally-granted Medicare telemedicine flexibilities to observe the negative impact a telemedicine cliff has on patients' access to care when no permanent laws or regulations are in place. The effects of the abrupt cessation of Medicare's telemedicine flexibilities on September 30, 2025 were quickly seen in the days following their
This extension will postpone the telemedicine cliff and provide the following benefits:
•
•
•
•
This Fourth Temporary Rule amends portions of 21 CFR 1307.41 and 42 CFR 12.1 through December 31, 2026.
Paragraph (a) is amended to state that the authorization granted in paragraph (b) expires at the end of December 31, 2026, instead of December 31, 2025.
Paragraph (b) is amended to state that the authorization granted in paragraph (b) expires at the end of December 31, 2026, instead of December 31, 2025.
On January 17, 2025, DEA and HHS published two final rules titled “Expansion of Buprenorphine Treatment via Telemedicine Encounter” (90 FR 6504, adding 21 CFR 1306.51) and “Continuity of Care via Telemedicine for Veterans Affairs Patients” (90 FR 6523, adding 21 CFR 1306.52), collectively the “Two Final Rules.” On February 19, 2025, DEA and HHS delayed the effective date of these rules until March 21, 2025 (90 FR 9841). On March 24, 2025, DEA and HHS, responding to comments, further delayed the effective date of the Two Final Rules until December 31, 2025 (90 FR 13410). The Two Final Rules will go into effect on December 31, 2025 (90 FR 13410).
Together, the Two Final Rules and this temporary rule describe three separate and distinct sets of authorities for telemedicine prescribing, and each imposes a unique set of requirements with respect to prescribing done pursuant to it. A prescribing practitioner may issue a prescription via telemedicine under the temporary rule even if he/she could also issue that prescription under one or both of the Two Final Rules, provided all the requirements in 21 CFR 1307.41(c)/42 CFR 12.1(c) of this temporary rule are met. Only if a prescription is issued pursuant to one of the Two Final Rules do the requirements of the applicable rule need to be met. Thus, even registrants covered by one or both of the Two Final Rules may continue to utilize the telemedicine flexibilities under the fourth temporary rule, which imposes fewer requirements than the Two Final Rules.
DEA and HHS are issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and an opportunity to comment, within less than 30 days prior to its effective date of January 1, 2026, pursuant to the “good cause” exceptions in the
As discussed earlier, DEA, jointly with HHS, is publishing this fourth temporary extension of certain exceptions to existing DEA regulations, granted in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 PHE, in order to prevent the impending
For the reasons established above, DEA, jointly with HHS, finds that notice and public comment on this rule are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and that there is good cause to make it effective less than 30 days after its publication.
DEA has determined that this rulemaking is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
DEA, jointly with HHS, is publishing this Fourth Temporary Rule to further extend certain exceptions DEA granted to its existing regulations in March 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 PHE to avoid a lapse of care for patients. The additional extension of the COVID-19 flexibilities until December 31, 2026 is necessary to thoroughly consider the presentations made at the Telemedicine Listening Sessions, the Tribal Consultations, the E.O. 12866 meetings, as well as the comments made to the Special Registration for Telemedicine NPRM.
Without this Fourth Temporary Rule, the COVID-19 PHE telemedicine flexibilities are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2025. This rule extends the expiration of those flexibilities through December 31, 2026. Because this rule does not create or remove any regulatory requirements, DEA and HHS estimate that there is no cost associated with this Fourth Temporary Rule. However, DEA and HHS believe this extension creates a benefit in the form of cost savings to patients.
The Fourth Temporary Rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.
This Fourth Temporary Rule does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This Fourth Temporary Rule does not have substantial direct effects on the Tribes, on the relationship between the national government and the Tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. However, DEA has determined that there is a reasonable basis that the Special Registration for Telemedicine NPRM may have Tribal implications, consistent with the definition in E.O. 13175. As such, DEA intends to hold further virtual consultations with Tribal governments and organizations and address any concerns raised into the final set of Special Registration for Telemedicine regulations.
The Administrator, in accordance with the
Without this Fourth Temporary Rule, the COVID-19 PHE telemedicine flexibilities would expire on December 31, 2025. While this Fourth Temporary Rule does not create or remove any regulatory requirements, this Fourth Temporary Rule extends the expiration of those flexibilities through December 31, 2026. DEA and HHS believe this extension creates a benefit in the form of cost savings to prescribers and patients and reduced transfer payments to the Federal Government.
In accordance with the RFA, DEA will be evaluating the impact on small entities at the time the final rule or rules are issued as part of these rulemakings.
The estimated annual impact of this rule is minimal. Thus, DEA has determined in accordance with the
The temporary rule does not reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation.
Executive Order 14294 specifies that all NPRMs and final rules published in the
This temporary rule is not a major rule as defined by Subtitle E of the
This temporary rule will not impose a new collection or modify an existing collection of information under the
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Prescription drugs.
Administrative practice and procedure, Drug traffic control, Prescription drugs.
For the reasons set out above, the Drug Enforcement Administration amends 21 CFR part 1307 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 821, 822(d), 871(b), unless otherwise noted.
(a) This section is in effect until the end of the day December 31, 2026. The authorization granted in paragraph (b) of this section expires at the end of December 31, 2026.
(b) During the period May 12, 2023, through December 31, 2026, a DEA-registered practitioner is authorized to prescribe schedule II-V controlled substances via telemedicine, as defined in 21 CFR 1300.04(i), to a patient without having conducted an in-person medical evaluation of the patient if all of the conditions listed in paragraph (c) of this section are met.
(c) A practitioner is only authorized to issue prescriptions for controlled substances pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The prescription is issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice;
(2) The prescription is issued pursuant to a communication between a practitioner and a patient using an interactive telecommunications system referred to in 42 CFR 410.78(a)(3);
(3) The practitioner is:
(i) Authorized under their registration under 21 CFR 1301.13(e)(1)(iv) to prescribe the basic class of controlled substance specified on the prescription; or
(ii) Exempt from obtaining a registration to dispense controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 822(d); and
(4) The prescription is consistent with all other requirements of 21 CFR part 1306.
For the reasons set out above, the Department of Health and Human Services amends 42 CFR part 12 as follows:
21 U.S.C. 802(54)(G).
(a) This section is in effect until the end of the day December 31, 2026. The authorization granted in paragraph (b) of this section expires at the end of December 31, 2026.
(b) During the period May 12, 2023, through December 31, 2026, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)-registered practitioner is authorized to prescribe Schedule II-V controlled substances via telemedicine, as defined in 21 CFR 1300.04(i), to a patient without having conducted an in-person medical evaluation of the patient if all of the conditions listed in paragraph (c) of this section are met.
(c) A practitioner is only authorized to issue prescriptions for controlled substances pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The prescription is issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice;
(2) The prescription is issued pursuant to a communication between a practitioner and a patient using an interactive telecommunications system referred to in 42 CFR 410.78(a)(3);
(3) The practitioner is:
(i) Authorized under their registration under 21 CFR 1301.13(e)(1)(iv) to prescribe the basic class of controlled substance specified on the prescription; or
(ii) Exempt from obtaining a registration to dispense controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. 822(d); and
(4) The prescription is consistent with all other requirements of 21 CFR part 1306.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on December 15, 2025, by Administrator Terrance C. Cole. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 500-foot radius around a fireworks display from the Carnival Cruise Terminal pier. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards before and after a fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Los Angeles—Long Beach.
This rule is effective from midnight through 12:45 a.m. on January 1, 2026.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Kevin Kinsella, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles—Long Beach, Chief, Waterways Management Division; telephone (310) 521-3861, email
The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from the Carnival Cruise Terminal—Long Beach pier in Long Beach, CA. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within 500 feet of the fireworks display. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard received the final details for this event on December 8, 2025, but we must establish this safety zone by January 1, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone from midnight until 12:45 a.m. on January 1, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 500-foot radius of a fireworks launch location on the Carnival Cruise Terminal—Long Beach pier. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a)—establish or increase the size of a safety zone—of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS 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 (310) 521-3801. 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)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary rule to provide for safety zones for certain waters near Norfolk Harbor Entrance Reach, near the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel expansion project. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters which are subject to existing safety zones that will expire later this month. This rule prohibits persons and vessels from entering or occupying the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Virginia or a designated representative or under conditions specified in this rule.
This rule is effective without actual notice from December 31, 2025 through midnight on December 20, 2030. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from December 25, 2025, until December 31, 2025.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact LCDR Justin Z. Strassfield, Sector Virginia Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; by phone, at (206) 815-7367, or by email, at
On September 16, 2021, after providing notice and an opportunity to comment, the Coast Guard promulgated a temporary rule entitled “Safety Zones; Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel Expansion Project, Hampton/Norfolk, VA.” See 86 FR 51612. Although the Coast Guard did not receive any comments within that comment period, the 2021 rule was preceded by a formal Navigational Safety Risk Assessment and by a series of outreach meetings held jointly by the Coast Guard and the Hampton Roads Connector Partners (HRCP), the Design-Build contactor for the Hampton Roads Bridge-Tunnel (HRBT) Expansion Project. See
The 2021 rule, which is codified at 33 CFR 165.519, will expire on December 25, 2025. As substantial work needs to be done to complete the HRBT expansion project, we proposed a new temporary rule with a different citation to provide for safety zones in the current safety zone locations for up to 5 more years, until December 20 of 2030. See 90 FR 56713 (Dec. 8, 2025).
The Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
During the comment period that ended on Dec. 22, 2025, we received no comments.
There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the text which was proposed in the NPRM. The rule creates safety zones which are identical to those now codified at 33 CFR 165.519 and described at 86 FR 51612 except that the new rule, has a different citation, a different expiration date, additional means of contacting the designated representatives, and a provision stating that, in the event the rule, or individual safety zones, are no longer necessary, the COTP would provide notice that the rule, or any individual safety zones established by the rule, were no longer subject to enforcement. The full regulatory text of this final rule appears at the end of this document.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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
The Coast Guard is aware that there are some small entities who operate commercial fishing vessels that have fished and set traps in areas within some of the safety zones. There is therefore a possibility that, for a very small number of entities, there may be an economic impact caused by their exclusion from the safety zone areas where they typically fish. However, the Coast Guard concludes that the number of small entities significantly affected would not be substantial given the areas that vessels would be excluded from has already been closed to them for over 4 years.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This 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 Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(ii)
(2)
(ii)
(3)
(ii)
(4)
(ii)
(5)
(ii)
(6)
(ii)
(c)
(2) Mariners requesting to transit any of these safety zones must first contact the HRCP designated representative, the on-site foreman, via phone at 7577036060 or VHF-FM channels 13 and 16. If permission is granted, mariners must proceed at their own risk and strictly observe any and all instructions provided by the COTP, HRCP, or designated representative to the mariner regarding the conditions of entry to and exit from any location within the fixed safety zones.
(d)
(e)
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts as final, without changes, a proposed rule to reinstate the exclusions on abortions and abortion counseling from the medical benefits package, which were removed in 2022. Before 2022, these exclusions had been firmly in place since the medical benefits package was first established in 1999. VA is also adopting as final, without changes, the reinstatement of exclusions on abortion and abortion counseling for the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) that were also removed in 2022. VA takes this action to ensure that VA provides only needed and medically necessary and appropriate care to our nation's heroes and CHAMPVA beneficiaries.
John Figueroa, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs performing the duties of Under Secretary for Health, (202) 461-0373.
Today, VA finalizes its proposed rule published in the
As explained in the proposed rule, it was VA's long-standing interpretation that abortions were not “needed” under section 1710 of title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and thus were excluded from the medical benefits package for veterans. 90 FR 36416. This determination was accepted by every Secretary and Presidential administration for over 20 years. Id. This determination did not prohibit providing life-saving care to pregnant veterans. Id. Similarly, it was VA's long-standing interpretation that abortions were not medically necessary and appropriate for CHAMPVA beneficiaries except when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the child were carried to term. 90 FR 36416-36417.
Congress has never mandated or legislated that VA provide abortions. Instead, Congress gave the Secretary discretion to determine what care may be furnished to veterans (under 38 U.S.C. 1710) and CHAMPVA beneficiaries (under 38 U.S.C. 1781). If Congress intended for VA to provide abortions in a manner other than VA's long-standing regulatory position, it could have amended VA's authorities. However, it never has, even though Congress has done so for other Federal agencies.
Since publication of our proposed rule, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a formal opinion concluding that VA does not have statutory authority to provide abortion or abortion counseling under 38 U.S.C. 1710. See
The DOJ Opinion further clarifies that procedures necessary to save the life of the pregnant veteran (such as treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages) are not considered “abortions” within the meaning of section 106 and therefore remain permissible. VA has historically interpreted its authority in this manner, and the DOJ Opinion affirms that such life-saving care is consistent with federal law.
As a Federal agency, VA is bound by the DOJ Opinion and relies on it as the primary legal basis for this final rule. Accordingly, this rule reinstates the longstanding exclusion of abortion and abortion counseling from VA's medical benefits package and CHAMPVA coverage, consistent with the statutory limitations imposed by section 106.
In addition to section 106, VA previously relied on its discretionary authority under 38 U.S.C. 1710 and 1781 to justify the provision of abortion services. In light of the DOJ Opinion, VA now recognizes that this discretionary authority is constrained by section 106 and cannot be exercised to override the statutory prohibition. Nevertheless, VA addresses VA's discretionary authority as a supporting and additional rationale for this rulemaking. Even if such discretion were available, the Secretary has determined that VA will not provide abortion or abortion counseling under that authority.
If VA's authority under sections 1710 and 1781 remained the primary basis for this rule, the absence of clear congressional direction regarding abortion is particularly relevant in light of the major questions doctrine. That doctrine, as articulated in
After publishing the proposed rule on August 4, 2025, VA provided a 30-day comment period, which ended on September 3, 2025. VA received 20,984 document submissions, which included approximately 24,333 total comments. The vast majority of comments were duplicated form responses. This final rule addresses all relevant and significant comments received, regardless of how many individuals submitted the same (or even identical) comment. Some commenters solely expressed support or opposition or made comments that were beyond the scope of the proposed rule. These comments are not addressed in this final rule, except to the extent that they also requested clarifications or suggested substantive revisions.
Section I. below addresses comments that generally challenged the proposed rule related to the medical benefits package or CHAMPVA. This section also includes comments that may not have specifically mentioned either program but that expressed general opposition to all changes in the proposed rule.
Section II. below addresses comments that specifically challenged VA's rationale in the proposed rule. This section addresses VA's more specific rationale related to the number of abortions provided by VA, comparison to other Federal laws related to abortion, and VA's legal authorities.
Section III. below addresses comments that raised other legal issues, to include assertions that the proposed rule did not meet certain administrative law standards.
Sections IV. through VIII. below address all other comments.
VA proposed to remove the exceptions to the general exclusion of abortions in § 17.38(c)(1)(i) and (ii) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), that, pursuant to an IFR published on September 9, 2022 (see 87 FR 55296) and a final rule published on March 4, 2024 (see 89 FR 15473), established that abortions could be provided when: (i) the life or the health of the pregnant veteran would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term; or (ii) the pregnancy was the result of an act of rape or incest. Part of the rationale in the proposed rule for removing these exceptions to the general exclusion of abortions was that they are not needed and, as to the first exception, from 1999 through 2022, VA had never understood the exclusion of abortions to prohibit VA from providing care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances. 90 FR 36416. Since the creation of the medical benefits package and for nearly 23 years, VA had consistently interpreted that abortions were not needed medical services under 38 U.S.C. 1710 and furnished care in life-threatening circumstances to pregnant veterans as a needed medical service. Moreover, the DOJ Opinion concludes that VA lacks statutory authority to exercise discretion to provide abortion services under 38 U.S.C. 1710, thereby foreclosing reliance on discretionary judgment to justify the exceptions previously established in 38 CFR17.38(c)(1)(i) and (ii).
VA also proposed to revise the exceptions to the general exclusion of abortions in CHAMPVA in 38 CFR 17.272(a)(58) to similarly revert back to regulatory language in existence prior to September 9, 2022, so that there would be a single exception for abortion for CHAMPVA beneficiaries in cases when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, versus broader exceptions in cases of life or health endangerment or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. VA's rationale for these proposed changes in CHAMPVA was that abortions were not “medically necessary and appropriate for the treatment of a condition” (pursuant to the definition of CHAMPVA-covered services and supplies in 38 CFR 17.270(b)) under the broader exceptions for the same reasons that abortions were not “needed” (pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1710(a)(1)-(3)) in the veteran's program. 90 FR 36417. VA notes that for the comment summaries and responses that follow and for the remainder of the discussion in the final rule, it will use the shorthand of “needed” care in the context of 38 U.S.C. 1710, and “medically necessary and appropriate” care in the context of 38 U.S.C. 1781 (as interpreted in 38 CFR 17.270(b)). Again, the DOJ Opinion
Multiple commenters asserted that abortion was a needed medical service, or that the broader exceptions to permit abortion were medically necessary and appropriate for the treatment of a condition for CHAMPVA beneficiaries. Many of these commenters made general statements that abortion was evidence-based and part of medically accepted standards of care for pregnant women and therefore was needed or medically necessary and appropriate. Some of these commenters referenced publications from medical or other organizations to support these statements or further provided examples of specific procedures that could be considered needed or medically necessary and appropriate in particular circumstances.
Other commenters generally challenged the proposed rule by asserting that abortion bans or abortion restrictions were harmful to pregnant women. Many of these commenters referenced publications from medical or other organizations that indicate increased maternal and infant mortality rates or other worsened physical and mental health outcomes of pregnant women in states with restrictive abortion laws. As stated in comments, these publications suggest that states with restrictive laws create uncertainty for healthcare providers, a chilling effect for fear of legal consequences for abortion providers and pregnant women, or additional administrative requirements to furnish or receive care, all of which can result in delays in or denial of abortion. Additionally, these commenters referenced publications showing that bans could have negative, non-medical impacts, such as long-term economic hardship and financial harm to women and their children and that it may encourage women to stay with abusive partners. These commenters also claimed that bans can disproportionately impact women veterans, who are particularly vulnerable due to unique issues they may face (such as a history of military sexual trauma and increased risks for certain health conditions), which is even more pronounced among various groups of veterans, such as women of color and women in rural areas.
VA does not make changes from the proposed rule based on these comments. The DOJ Opinion addresses all comments referencing VA's authority to provide abortions. See
Consistent with such determination, care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances will continue to be covered under the medical benefits package. Subject to the DOJ Opinion, VA similarly has discretion under 38 U.S.C. 1781 (as interpreted in 38 CFR 17.270(b)) to determine what is “medically necessary and appropriate for the treatment of a condition” in CHAMPVA and finds that the single exception for life endangerment when certified by a physician meets that standard.
VA will publish additional guidance regarding care that is not barred by this rule. VA will also ensure its health care providers are trained to provide life-saving care. Such guidance is consistent with both the DOJ Opinion and the Secretary's discretionary authority.
Some commenters asserted that abortions were needed or were medically necessary and appropriate not only when a pregnant individual might experience life-threatening or endangering circumstances, but also when such an individual's health may be threatened or endangered, or in any case when such an individual was pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Particularly, multiple commenters acknowledged VA's continued ability to furnish care in life-threatening circumstances without an explicit exception to the abortion exclusion in 38 CFR 17.38(c)(1), or with the limited exception for life endangerment in § 17.272(a)(58) as proposed, but additionally asserted that abortion can be needed to preserve health, not solely to prevent imminent death. Some of these commenters referenced publications from medical or other organizations to support these assertions or provided examples of serious but not immediately fatal medical conditions that a pregnant woman may have—such as severe preeclampsia, certain cardiac diseases, or cancers requiring urgent treatment—that could require an abortion to avoid additional harm to the pregnant woman as the pregnancy develops.
Other commenters stated more generally that restricting care to life-endangering or life-threatening circumstances would force delays, increase complications, and endanger the long-term health of a pregnant individual. Some of these commenters raised concerns that there is a lack of clarity regarding when there is life-endangering and life-threatening circumstances versus endangerment or threat to health, as there is not necessarily a bright line when a condition is health-threatening or endangering versus life-threatening or endangering. In those cases, these commenters noted that a patient's condition can deteriorate quickly, and clinicians rely on their medical training, judgment, and expertise to determine when to intervene, which is typically before a condition becomes life-threatening or endangering. Some commenters provided examples of conditions in which a patient's life may not be considered endangered or threatened in the short term, but their health is. Some commenters also referenced publications to show how a lack of clarity in states with similar restrictions impacts health care providers and pregnant women.
Some commenters asserted that health care providers will hesitate to rely on their expertise, training, and medical judgment to make any required certifications and provide care, even when permitted under this rule.
Lastly, a commenter noted that the medical benefits package included services recognized as needed health care (such as bereavement counseling, prosthetics, and a wide range of outpatient care and prescription drugs) that have an impact on the quality of life of patients but in many cases the life of the patient would not be at risk without them. This commenter noted that
VA does not make changes based on these comments. The DOJ Opinion renders any discussion of medical necessity moot. If VA did have discretion, VA still would not address every specific potential medical condition a pregnant woman may have or complication that could be experienced during pregnancy or otherwise further delineate the conditions under which care may be provided or allowed pursuant to this rulemaking. These are clinical matters that will need to be determined by health care providers with their patients, and VA will issue further related guidance. As such guidance is more appropriate for elaborating VA policy, VA does not make changes to its regulations based on these comments.
VA notes that there are other medical interventions that can be used to preserve the life of the mother in a life-threatening or endangering circumstance, which would be available under the medical benefits package. There is a subspecialty of obstetrics and gynecology, maternal-fetal medicine, that focuses on managing risk to the life of the mother before, during, and after pregnancy. These services are and will continue to be provided to veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries.
VA also does not make changes based on concerns that other services included in the medical benefits package do not have a threshold to be life-threatening to be considered needed. VA acknowledges that 38 U.S.C. 1710 allows the Secretary to provide care in other-than-life-threatening situations and that from the time that the medical benefits package was originally promulgated in 1999 and through the 2022 IFR, abortions were excluded generally while these other services were included, without any inherent conflict. VA is merely returning to that longstanding regulatory framework. VA is not establishing a threshold of life-threatening for services to be considered “needed” to be included in the medical benefits package.
In the context of discussing whether care is needed under 38 U.S.C. 1710, the proposed rule explained that VA had never understood its policy prior to September 9, 2022, to prohibit providing care to pregnant veterans in life-threatening circumstances, including treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages, which were covered under VA's medical benefits package prior to the 2022 IFR. 90 FR 36416. The DOJ Opinion reached the same conclusion.
The proposed rule further stated “[f]or the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply `when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term'.” Id. VA clarifies today that this statement in the proposed rule referred to the language related to CHAMPVA and not to the medical benefits package. It was not intended to convey that a life endangerment exception for abortion would be expressly codified in the medical benefits package. The comment summaries and responses below address concerns and issues raised in these comments, distinct from some similar comments in section III.F. of this final rule as related to allegations of Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations.
Some commenters stated that the proposed rule was not clear as to whether there would be an express exclusion in the medical benefits package to permit abortion if the life of the mother would be endangered if the child were carried to term, and that there would be confusion among patients and health care providers by not including such an exception in the medical benefits package. Some commenters opined that such confusion could lead to delayed or denied care, with commenters referencing publications regarding abortion exceptions for life of the mother in states such as Texas. Some commenters further explained that VA providers may hesitate to provide care if the exception is not codified in the medical benefits package regulation because the regulatory text, not the preamble, controls. Many of these commenters further suggested that VA codify the life exception in the medical benefits package to avoid these issues.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. As explained in the proposed rule, VA is returning to pre-September 9, 2022 position. VA is reverting the regulatory text of 38 CFR 17.38 to the same language that was in place at that time. Although some commenters may have been confused by the language in the preamble, the amendatory text of the proposed rule clearly indicated that the explicit exception was included only in the regulatory section that related to CHAMPVA, consistent with the language of that regulatory text prior to September 9, 2022. That pre-September 9, 2022 language was applied to allow for life-saving procedures that resulted in termination of a pregnancy, and there is no reason to believe that it will be hard for VA providers to apply that language now just as they did for over 20 years before the September 9, 2022 change.
Some commenters raised concerns that the regulations for the medical benefits package would not include an express exception to permit abortion if the life of the mother would be endangered if the child were carried to term while the CHAMPVA regulations would include such an exception. Commenters were concerned that this could result in ambiguity and confusion, leading to delayed or denied care. One commenter asserted that VA failed to provide any explanation for the difference between the changes being made to the medical benefits package and CHAMPVA regulations, since the former does not codify a life endangerment exception.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. As explained in the proposed rule, VA is reverting the regulatory text of 38 CFR 17.38 and 17.272 back to the same language that was in place prior to September 9, 2022. Moreover, the CHAMPVA and medical benefits package authorities apply to wholly different groups of beneficiaries and are operationalized in entirely different contexts. The differences between these regulations did not cause confusion before September 9, 2022, and will not now.
The proposed rule explained that the exceptions to VA's longstanding general exclusion of abortions (as created by the 2022 and 2024 rulemakings) were a reaction to
Some commenters challenged what they perceived to be VA's premise that the low volume of abortions provided by VA actually reflects a low demand for veterans or CHAMPVA beneficiaries to receive these services from VA. These comments offered that such low volume could instead indicate barriers to accessing abortions (such as excessive travel from states with restrictive abortion laws, the chilling effect of restrictive State laws on VA provider decision making, or lack of knowledge that these services are available from VA) or could be due to a delayed ramp up inherent in the nature of VA offering new services. Other commenters challenged what they perceived to be VA's assertion that low demand supports the Secretary's determination that services are not needed or are not medically necessary and appropriate, correctly stating that low need is irrelevant as other medical services covered by VA do not have any threshold of utilization to be considered needed under 38 U.S.C. 1710 or medically necessary and appropriate under 38 U.S.C. 1781 (as interpreted in 38 CFR 17.270(b)). Lastly, some commenters more generally stated that the low volume of abortions furnished by VA supports that such services were only offered within the confines of the exceptions created and finalized in the 2022 and 2024 rulemakings, and as such, demonstrates that abortions were needed or were medically necessary and appropriate and otherwise do not constitute overreach.
VA does not make changes based on these comments. VA's proposed rule did not rely on the low volume of abortions as a justification for rescinding the 2022 and 2024 rulemakings, and neither does this final rule. VA agrees that low volume of provision of a medical service should not be a basis to exclude such service; indeed, some veterans sustain significant and unique injuries during their service, and VA would not deny them medical procedures to treat such injuries even if most other veterans do not sustain such injuries. Rather, in the proposed rule, VA cited the low demand for abortions to point out the flawed reasoning in the 2022 and 2024 rulemakings regarding the post-
Commenters raised concerns that the proposed rule referenced other Federal programs, including Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), TRICARE, and the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB), to demonstrate that Congress generally does not favor the use of Federal funds to furnish abortions without also recognizing that these same programs use Federal funding for some abortions. Multiple commenters asserted that these statements from the proposed rule either misinterpret or misapply the laws regarding the funding under these other programs, noting that each of the programs provides broader exceptions than the proposed rule to furnish abortions. Particularly, commenters asserted that Medicaid and CHIP are both subject to the Hyde Amendment, and that the Hyde Amendment has exceptions for abortions when the life of the pregnant patient is in danger and in cases of rape and incest. Relatedly, some commenters incorrectly asserted that VA is subject to the Hyde Amendment.
Commenters also asserted that the TRICARE program and the FEHB program both include abortion coverage bans with the same exceptions as the Hyde Amendment. Some commenters were also concerned that servicemembers who transition from active-duty service to civilian life would not be eligible for, and receive from VA, the same benefits they were previously eligible for under the Department of Defense (DoD).
While not addressed in the proposed rule, some commenters further asserted that individuals in Federal prisons have access to care veterans will be ineligible for under this rulemaking.
Some commenters construed the proposed rule to say that consideration of whether abortion is “needed” necessarily involves the question of whether taxpayers should pay for abortion. These commenters asserted that whether taxpayers should fund certain care for veterans is irrelevant to whether such care is considered needed, or otherwise stated that there is no support in either the statutory text of 38 U.S.C. 1710 or in VA's previous interpretations of section 1710 to suggest that taxpayer funding has been the basis for determining health care that is provided by VA.
VA does not make changes based on these comments. The statements in the proposed rule related to Congressional expressions of intent for funding of abortions, and taxpayer funding of abortions, to demonstrate that Congress has repeatedly articulated restrictions on abortion and VA's actions to restrict abortion are consistent with the fact that other Federal programs restrict abortions. This rationale similarly applies to the regulatory restriction under CHAMPVA. The statements were not intended to suggest that VA is bound by those non-VA restrictive authorities, or that VA should emulate them. Rather, VA must apply the specifically applicable authorities in title 38, U.S.C.
VA's provision of health care to veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries is governed by 38 U.S.C. 1710 and 1781, respectively. Pursuant to these authorities, the Secretary has discretion to determine what care is needed or medically necessary and appropriate. VA is not subject to the same statutory authorities as other Federal agencies programs, such as CHIP, Medicare, Bureau of Prisons, the FEHB Program, and TRICARE. For example, Federal funds available to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education are subject to the Hyde Amendment. Congress has included the Hyde Amendment in those agencies' annual appropriations legislation for more than forty years, but Congress has not subjected VA to the Hyde Amendment. VA is, however, subject to the conclusion in the DOJ Opinion that it may not provide abortions.
VA also recognizes that, like VA, some agencies are also not subject to the Hyde Amendment, and such agencies have different statutory authorities than VA. For example, DoD is subject to 10 U.S.C. 1093, which establishes that DoD may not use funds or facilities “to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”
To the extent commenters asserted that servicemembers who transition from active-duty service to civilian life would not be eligible for, and receive from VA, the same benefits they were previously eligible for DoD, VA acknowledges that veterans would not be eligible for, or receive, the same benefits relating to abortions and abortion counseling. As explained above, DoD and VA are subject to
VA also acknowledges that having an explicit exception for “life” in the Hyde Amendment and other statutory authorities but not in VA's regulations might lead to the (inaccurate) conclusion that VA intends to bar life-saving procedures that result in a termination of pregnancy. VA recognizes that there may be a semantic aspect to exempting life-saving procedures by not calling them “abortions.” However, the opposite is also true,
The proposed rule explained that VA's exclusion against abortions was legally established in 1999 and was observed until the 2022 revisions, and further that the 2022 IFR was legally questionable given that Congress has only specifically addressed VA's authority to provide abortions in section 106 of VHCA, which authorized VA to provide under chapter 17 of title 38, U.S.C., “[p]apanicolaou tests (pap smears),” “[b]reast examinations and mammography,” and “[g]eneral reproductive health care” but excluded “under this section infertility services, abortions, or pregnancy care (including prenatal and delivery care), except for such care relating to a pregnancy that is complicated or in which the risks of complication are increased by a service-connected condition.” 90 FR 36416. As explained in the proposed rule, Congress extensively revised chapter 17 in 1996, but also did not expressly repeal section 106. Id. The proposed rule discussed these competing legal provisions to demonstrate that VA's authority to provide abortions is, at least, dubious and, at most, nonexistent; and, that VA's determination to restore the abortion exclusion was in any case consistent with VA's decades-long interpretation of the applicable law. Id. VA did not intend to interpret or opine on the continuing authority of section 106 because VA decided to bar abortions under 38 U.S.C. 1710 and 1781. Notwithstanding the DOJ Opinion, which concludes that VA lacks discretion in this area, VA would still decline to provide abortions under that discretionary authority.
Multiple commenters challenged VA's statements in the proposed rule regarding the potential competing authorities of section 106 of the VHCA and 38 U.S.C. 1710. These commenters generally stated that, although the proposed rule did not take a position on the force or effect of section 106 of the VHCA, the proposed rule relied on section 106 to introduce that there was uncertainty as to the authority of VA to furnish abortions, despite the analysis VA put forward in the prior 2022 and 2024 rulemakings to support that section 106 and the limitations therein were legally inoperable. Some commenters further asserted that the proposed rule's failure to specifically address any potential change in analysis from these past rulemakings regarding the effect of section 106 was grounds to find the proposed rule arbitrary and capricious. Lastly, some commenters additionally asserted that VA's acknowledgement in the proposed rule that there could be uncertainty regarding the interpretation of applicable authority related to VA's provision of an abortion was similar grounds to find that the proposed rule was arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise grounds to find that the proposed rule did not meet requirements under the APA to provide a reasoned basis explaining the proposed regulatory revisions.
VA does not make changes from the proposed rule based on these comments. Since the publication of the proposed rule, the DOJ Opinion has clarified this issue. Moreover, to the extent that VA's authority under section 1710 serves as a secondary basis for this rule, the major questions doctrine provides an alternative framework for evaluating the limits of agency discretion in areas of significant political and moral consequence. As articulated in
The proposed rule explained that from 1999, when VA established the medical benefits package in 38 CFR 17.38, until September 8, 2022, abortions were excluded because they were not “needed” medical services under 38 U.S.C. 1710—that for decades, VA had consistently interpreted abortions as not “needed” medical services and therefore they were not covered by the medical benefits package. 90 FR 36415-36416. Multiple commenters asserted that the Secretary's discretion to determine what care is needed under 38 U.S.C. 1710 must be based on medical standards and judgment and a clinical need for care. Some supported these assertions by citing Congressional reports related to the passage of the law that became section 1710 (Pub. L. 104-262). These commenters primarily referenced language from H.R. Rep. No. 104-690 as indicating legislative intent that a singular clinical need for care standard would replace the multiple legal
Other commenters asserted that the criteria for furnishing care under the medical benefits package in 38 CFR 17.38(b), if such care is determined by appropriate health care professionals “to promote, preserve, or restore the health of the individual,” were Congressionally mandated standards that are separate from and replace the Congressionally mandated requirement that the Secretary must determine that care is needed under 38 U.S.C. 1710. Others fell short of alleging that the promote, preserve, or restore criteria were Congressionally mandated, but nonetheless asserted that these criteria articulated how VA as a matter of practice assesses whether care is needed and should be used to decide whether care is included in the medical benefits package.
All of the above-described comments generally concluded that abortions must be included in the medical benefits package because abortions could be found by VA to promote, preserve, or restore the health of an individual.
VA does not make changes from the proposed rule based on these comments. VA first clarifies that the promote, preserve, or restore criteria in 38 CFR 17.38 are regulatory only; these criteria are not present in 38 U.S.C. 1710. Regarding comments about the Congressional intent behind section 1710, VA agrees that section 1710 was intended to streamline care decisions based on clinical need for care in place of formerly stratified legal criteria for different types of care that existed before the enactment of section 1710. However, to the extent commenters assert that this focus on clinical need means the Secretary cannot reevaluate an interpretation of what is needed under section 1710, VA disagrees. The text of section 1710 does not mandate the perpetual approval of any care that VA at one time found to be needed. Further, the text of section 1710 does not prohibit the Secretary from establishing limitations and exclusions as to whether care is needed under section 1710.
Regarding the comments related to the promote, preserve, or restore criteria in 38 CFR 17.38(b), VA did express in the original promulgation of its medical benefits package that “[t]he Secretary has authority to provide healthcare as determined to be medically needed. In our view, medically needed constitutes care that is determined by appropriate healthcare professionals to be needed to promote, preserve, or restore the health of the individual and to be in accord with generally accepted standards of medical practice. The care included in the medical benefits package is intended to meet these criteria.” 64 FR 54207, at 54210. However, VA does not believe this statement from VA, or the criteria in 38 CFR 17.38(b), apply to Secretarial determinations of “needed” care under 38 U.S.C. 1710. Rather, the promote, preserve, or restore criteria were put in place by the Secretary to govern how VA providers make individualized clinical determinations of care; those individualized determinations can only provide care that the Secretary has already determined to be needed under section 1710. This is evidenced in the regulation at 38 CFR 17.38(b), which states that “care referred to in the medical benefits package will be provided to individuals only if it is determined by appropriate health care professionals that the care is needed to promote, preserve, or restore the health of the individual and is in accord with generally accepted standards of medical practice.” In fact, adopting the commenters' position would seem to undercut the Secretary's authority to restrict any care at all, and the medical benefits package contains both the above-quoted restriction in § 17.38(b) as well as other excluded types of care in § 17.38(c). These cannot be authorized even if a provider determines that they might promote, preserve, or restore health.
Therefore, to the extent that VA's discretionary authorities apply in light of the DOJ Opinion, VA makes no changes based on these comments.
Several commenters raised concerns that post-
VA makes no changes based on these comments. There is no Federal law that guarantees a right to abortion. In
As a Federal agency, VA must follow Federal laws, such as 38 U.S.C. 1710 and 1781, which provide it with the authority and discretion to determine the care that may be furnished to veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2., generally prohibits states from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal government, and therefore immunizes the Federal government from state laws that directly regulate it. As such, VA is not subject to state laws that purport to regulate, prohibit, or burden VA's furnishing of needed or medically necessary and appropriate care.
Furthermore, VA has consistently asserted such supremacy in its provision of health care to beneficiaries in all states. In 38 CFR 17.419, VA explicitly preempts any state laws, rules, regulations, or requirements that conflict with a VA health care professional's practice within the scope of their VA employment. Similarly, in § 17.417, implementing 38 U.S.C. 1730C, VA explicitly preempts any state laws, rules, regulations, or requirements that conflict with a VA health care professional's practice of telehealth within the scope of their VA employment. In both regards, VA is able to establish a uniform approach to the provision of VA health care by its health care professionals. VA has an interest in ensuring that it provides consistent and equitable care and services to its beneficiaries in all states regardless of where they may receive care or reside. See 38 CFR 17.417(c) and 17.419(c).
VA's rule is no more restrictive than the state laws that permit an abortion to save the mother's life. As explained in the proposed rule, no state law entirely bans abortions, as exceptions to preserve the life of the mother exist in all 50 states.
To the extent that VA's rulemaking is in direct conflict with state laws, rules, regulations, or requirements, such laws, rules, regulations, or requirements are without any force or effect pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and 38 CFR 17.419 and 17.417. As explained previously, VA, as a Federal health care system, has an interest in ensuring that it provides consistent and equitable care and services to all veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries in all states regardless of where they may receive care or reside. See 38 CFR 17.419(c). This rulemaking ensures that veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries continue to receive the same care in all states.
To the extent that commenters contend that veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries should receive the same care as other citizens or women in their state, VA notes that pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1710 and 1781, VA is required to furnish care to veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries, respectively. That care is not required to be the same as that available to any other citizen or woman in their state. For example, VA does not provide certain elective procedures that may be widely available in the private sector unless they are medically necessary or connected to a service-related condition. VA is subject to a unique set of laws enacted by Congress and carried out by the Secretary, who has the authority and discretion to determine what care VA will provide.
One commenter asserted that the proposed rule allows state laws to determine whether veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries can receive abortions, which is an inappropriate delegation for a Federal program. This commenter asserted that because Congress instructed VA to provide coverage to veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries based on clinical necessity, VA cannot delegate this responsibility to the most restrictive state law.
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1710 and 1781, Congress appropriately delegated to the Secretary the discretion to determine what care may be furnished to veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries, respectively. To the extent that the Secretary retains discretionary authority on the issue of abortion, the Secretary's exercise of that discretion would not be a delegation of his authority and responsibility pursuant to section 1710 and 1781 to states, even if it superficially coincides with certain state laws. However, VA acknowledges that VA's rule is generally consistent with those state laws, or sections of state laws, that permit abortion to save the mother's life. As explained in the proposed rule, no state entirely bans abortions, as exceptions to preserve the life of the mother exist in all 50 states.
Several commenters raised concerns about the proposed rule in light of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), 42 U.S.C. 1395dd, and VA's related authority, 38 U.S.C. 1784A. In particular, some commenters were concerned whether VA would meet requirements under EMTALA and 38 U.S.C. 1784A because they stated that the Federal government refuses to enforce EMTALA and has rescinded related guidance. Other commenters equated the proposed rule with eliminating VA's obligations under EMTALA and 38 U.S.C. 1784A, especially as commenters opined that EMTALA and 38 U.S.C. 1784A require the provision of stabilizing care, which may include an abortion, to a pregnant patient whose health is in serious jeopardy.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. VA is not subject to EMTALA, but has adopted some of its requirements through policy. Instead, VA has its own similar authority. Section 1784A of title 38 U.S.C. requires that in the case of a VA hospital with an emergency department, if any individual comes to the hospital or its campus and a request is made on behalf of the individual for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition exists. It further requires that if any such individual has an emergency medical condition, the VA hospital must provide medical examination and treatment required to stabilize the medical condition or transfer the individual to another medical facility in accordance with specified requirements. VA complies with these requirements of 38 U.S.C. 1784A and will continue to do so. This rule will not impact VA's responsibilities and obligations under section 1784A. Furthermore, as explained in the proposed rule, VA will continue to provide care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances under the medical benefits package. 90 FR 36416-17.
Commenters asserted that the proposed removal of the exceptions to furnish abortions amounted to gender or sex discrimination as such changes necessarily only affect veterans that can get pregnant, or women veterans. Other commenters alleged that the proposed removal of the abortion exceptions was discriminatory because VA would still provide all reproductive care for veterans who were men; particularly, some of these commenters noted that VA would still provide male veterans medication to treat erectile dysfunction, or would still perform vasectomies for male veterans, despite these services not being needed to save the lives of male veterans. Lastly, some comments more specifically opined that removal of the exceptions to furnish abortions would potentially violate specific laws related to preventing sex discrimination (
VA does not make changes from the proposed rule based on these comments. VA's interpretation in the proposed rule and as made final in this rule is that abortions are not needed care in general, and that VA is not prohibited from providing care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances (under the medical benefits package), even if such treatment may result in the termination of a pregnancy. Standards of medical care and treatment, including with respect to reproductive health care, necessarily involve different protocols based on the clinical needs and biology of the individual patient, including their sex. That this regulatory change necessarily impacts the care and services available to veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries who are women does not alone amount to discrimination on the basis of sex or gender.
To the extent section 1557 of the ACA applies to VA, it does not require VA to maintain the abortion exclusions established by VA in the 2022 and 2024 rulemakings. Section 1303(c)(2) of the ACA specifically states that “[n]othing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding . . . willingness or refusal to provide abortion [or] discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide,
Finally, title IX is inapplicable in this context because title IX was enacted to prevent discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance. See 20 U.S.C. 1681(a). To the extent title IX would apply to health programs, title IX also contains an abortion neutrality provision, where “nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require or prohibit any person, or public or private entity, to provide or pay for any benefit or service, including the use of facilities, related to an abortion.” 20 U.S.C. 1688. Accordingly, VA disagrees with commenters' assertions that VA's proposed changes violate section 1557 or title IX.
Commenters alleged that the proposed rule violates multiple Federal Constitutional rights. These commenters stated that removing the exceptions to furnish abortion in certain circumstances imposes specific moral and religious views on all veterans, violating religious freedom protections under the First Amendment; deprives individuals of life, liberty, or property, violating due process protections under the Fifth Amendment; or otherwise violates fundamental bodily autonomy rights. Other commenters alleged that the proposed rule violated the Ninth or the Fourteenth Amendments without further explanation, and one commenter alleged a violation of the Fourth Amendment because medical history should be private.
VA does not make changes from the proposed rule based on these comments. In
Multiple commenters alleged that the proposed rule failed to provide a reasonable explanation that considered prior evidence and consequences of policy reversal, and reliance interests in removing the exceptions to furnish abortions and abortion counseling, and that the rule if finalized as proposed would therefore be arbitrary and capricious under administrative law standards under the APA. Some of these commenters more specifically asserted that portions of the rationale in the proposed rule were confusing or presented flawed reasoning to also allege that the rule if finalized as proposed would be arbitrary and capricious. VA addresses these comments below as applying to both the medical benefits package as well as CHAMPVA, unless otherwise indicated.
Commenters asserted that the proposed rule fails to address the facts and circumstances presented in VA's 2022 IFR, and that rule's prior conclusion that abortions were needed or medically necessary and appropriate when the life or health of the pregnant veteran is at risk or in cases of rape and incest. Commenters stated that the proposed rule mischaracterized the 2022 IFR's rationale as only relating to an anticipated rise in demand for abortion as a result of the
VA does not make changes from the proposed rule based on these comments. The APA change-in-position doctrine states that “agencies are free to change their existing policies as long as they provide a reasoned explanation for the change,” “display awareness that [they are] changing position,” and consider “serious reliance interests.”
The standard described above does not require VA to respond to every factual consideration made in its prior rulemaking or show “that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one.” See
Some commenters raised concerns that the proposed rule disregarded reliance interests from VA's prior policy. In particular, some commenters noted that agencies are required to assess whether there are reliance interests in its existing policy, whether they are significant, and weigh any such interests against competing policy concerns.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. VA acknowledges that when an agency changes course, it must be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account. See
Commenters asserted that the proposed rule's failure to specifically address any change in analysis from the 2022 and 2024 rulemakings regarding the effect of section 106 was grounds to find the proposed rule arbitrary and capricious. Some commenters further asserted that VA's mere acknowledgement in the proposed rule that there could be uncertainty regarding the applicable authority related to VA's provision of abortions was itself grounds to find that the proposed rule was arbitrary and capricious.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. Even if the DOJ Opinion did not overrule any exercise of discretion to allow abortion, VA would rely on the determination that abortions are not needed under 38 U.S.C. 1710. Acknowledging uncertainty about the applicability of a separate authority not relied on to promulgate a regulation change does not render a rule arbitrary and capricious. Instead, it reflects consideration of both the legal and policy context behind developing the rule. Under the arbitrary and capricious standard, as traditionally interpreted, a reviewing court would consider whether the agency “relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for the decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.”
Some commenters asserted that although the preamble of the proposed rule stated that, “[f]or the avoidance of doubt, the proposed rule would make clear that the exclusion for abortion does not apply `when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term,' ” the proposed amendment to the medical benefits package does not include any such language, making it unclear whether a life endangerment exception exists for veterans in the medical benefits package. One commenter stated that because the preamble does not have the force of law, the exception for life of the mother for the medical benefits package appears to be illusory, and that this inconsistency itself renders the rule arbitrary and capricious. Another commenter noted that the preamble of the proposed rule as referenced above incorrectly describes the text of the rule with regards to the medical benefits package, and the preamble is insufficient assurance that such a life endangerment exception exists to adequately justify the proposed change. Lastly, multiple commenters opined that the proposed rule failed to explain why CHAMPVA would have a life endangerment exception in regulatory text while the medical benefits package would not, where one of these comments more specifically asserted that the rule if finalized as proposed will be arbitrary and capricious for failing to provide a reasoned explanation for where the life endangerment exception applies.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. The proposed rule repeatedly stated that VA was returning to its pre-September 9, 2022, restrictions on abortion within the medical benefits package and CHAMPVA. The regulatory revisions previously proposed and now finalized within this rule reinstates the prior restrictions on abortion within the medical benefits package as well as CHAMPVA, and the interpretation of that language, as it was applied by VA before September 9, 2022. The preamble of the proposed rule explained how the regulatory text was interpreted and will be interpreted once finalized through this rulemaking. As VA's statutory authorities for the medical benefits package and CHAMPVA are 38 U.S.C. 1710 and 1781, respectively, pursuant to such authorities, VA may determine
Furthermore, in the case of CHAMPVA, allowing abortions when a physician certifies the life of the mother would be endangered if the child were carried to term aligns with the requirement under 38 U.S.C. 1781(b) to provide CHAMPVA benefits in a similar manner as TRICARE. The rescission of the 2022 and 2024 rulemakings restores both the medical benefits package and CHAMPVA to its pre-September 9, 2022 policy, in which CHAMPVA had an explicit life endangerment exception while the medical benefits package did not. As such, the differential treatment is merely a return to the regulations that were in place prior to September 9, 2022, and satisfies the APA's requirements for reasoned decision making.
One commenter asserted that the proposed rule fails to adequately explain how VA is changing course, which the commenter stated requires clearer statements of VA's understanding of both the status quo and the changes that would be made by the proposed rule. This commenter offered that the proposed rule framed the exceptions to furnish abortion (the status quo at the time the proposed rule was published) as permitting elective abortion, by way of VA's reference to other Federal programs as evidence that Congress does not fund elective abortion, and opined that this was a misrepresentation of the status quo and therefore VA could not properly explain the effect of the changes in the proposed rule, making the rule arbitrary and capricious.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. Consistent with the requirements of the APA, the proposed rule clearly articulated both the prior rule and the reasons underlying its decision to rescind the rule. The preamble identified the relevant provisions of 38 CFR 17.38(c)(1) and 17.272(a)(58) and explained how the proposed rule would restore VA's regulations to its pre-September 9, 2022, regulatory text. The discussion of other Federal programs provided context and a point of comparison. VA's explanation accurately reflected the status quo and the rationale for its proposed change. Accordingly, the proposed rule satisfied VA's legal obligation to provide a reasonable explanation for its change in position and is not arbitrary and capricious.
One commenter asserted that VA's interpretation in the proposed rule of “similar, not identical” in relation to CHAMPVA coverage for abortion being different from TRICARE was arbitrary and capricious because deviations from TRICARE should be based on the needs of the CHAMPVA population and medically necessity, and VA provides no evidence that offering coverage more similar to TRICARE is harmful or unnecessary.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. As previously stated, and discussed in more detail below, CHAMPVA benefits should be similar to, but not necessarily identical to, those provided under TRICARE. VA is afforded discretion to determine the extent to which it aligns CHAMPVA with TRICARE benefits, subject to its policy determinations and program objectives. VA is not required to justify deviations from TRICARE solely by referring to medical necessity or demonstrable harm to CHAMPVA beneficiaries. VA may adopt distinctions that reflect its own administrative considerations or differences in program purpose or population. Adopting such distinctions does not make the rule arbitrary and capricious. For a more detailed discussion of “same or similar” in relation to TRICARE, see further below.
One commenter asserted that the proposed rule failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why only physicians can certify an exception to permit abortion versus other types of clinical providers in CHAMPVA and therefore introduces an administrative burden in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1781, VA has the authority to determine the scope of CHAMPVA benefits and to establish reasonable procedures for their administration. VA's requirement that only physicians certify an exception to permit abortion is a permissible exercise of this discretion. This physician certification requirement is a return to VA's pre-September 9, 2022 regulatory text. This is not arbitrary and capricious as VA reasonably determined that physician certification ensures appropriate clinical oversight, is consistent with program objectives, and does not place an undue burden on CHAMPVA beneficiaries as it reinstates its former regulation.
One commenter asserted that changes occurred to a comment submission feature on the General Services Administration's
VA makes no changes based on this comment. VA considers this outside the scope of the rulemaking since the General Services Administration (GSA), not VA, is responsible for
Commenters asserted that the RIA that accompanied the proposed rule underestimates the cost to society because it fails to adequately assess the additional costs related to lack of access or delayed receipt of abortions caused by strict abortion laws in states. These commenters cited increased monetary costs of abortion procedures performed later in pregnancy, as well as increased costs to travel to states with less strict laws, or lost wages in taking leave from work. Other commenters alleged that the RIA underestimated the proposed rule's cost to society by not estimating the additional costs in care that can occur the longer an individual may have to wait to obtain an abortion, citing to increased costs of emergency care or other required critical care as health outcomes of a pregnant individual worsen. Some comments also stated more generally that some assumptions in the RIA were flawed or not supported, such as statements in the RIA as to the number of states that have restrictive abortion laws (or the types or impact of state restrictions), or the percentage of abortion procedures estimated in the RIA to be medication abortions, or the percentage of veterans that would use VA's maternity care benefits if VA did not provide an abortion procedure.
VA is not making any changes to the rule or RIA based on these comments. VA developed the RIA in line with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 principles and applied methods consistent with OMB Circular A-4 and VA's RIA that accompanied the September 9, 2022 IFR. The RIA follows current Circular A-4 guidelines as it identifies the impacted population of female veterans, applies the appropriate baseline, and demonstrates the segregation of transfers, costs, and reliably measurable
The RIA relied on publicly available sources to characterize the state restrictions to develop the rulemaking's analytical baseline. While VA recognizes that state policies evolve and can be categorized in different ways, the RIA's baseline appropriately reflects the legal environment at the time the analysis was conducted, as required by Circular A-4. Alternative classifications of state restrictions examined during review do not alter the direction of findings and any quantitative differences lie within the qualitative bounds presented in the RIA. Additionally, the RIA used the best available published estimates at the time of drafting to allocate abortions between medication and procedural methods. VA acknowledges that these can vary over time and between jurisdictions. However, any variations in the method of abortion does not alter the policy conclusions of the analysis.
The RIA qualitatively discussed access constraints and acknowledged that individuals in some jurisdictions may face longer travel and wait times for procedures or determinations. VA chose not to monetize these impacts due to the current data limitations at the veteran level, both enterprise-wide and within CHAMPVA, which would make any estimates on this cohort insufficiently reliable for specific monetization. For this reason, VA treated these impacts qualitatively. Consistent with Circular A-4, the RIA focused the measurable impacts on reasonably certain resource changes and treated broader incidence effects qualitatively, as is the case for all VA RIAs that are unable to provide reliable estimates.
VA agrees with the commenters that any delays or reliance on later gestation care, including emergency care, can affect the type of care that may be provided to a veteran or beneficiary as well as increase the potential for financial impacts. The RIA discussed these concerns qualitatively and acknowledges the potential increases in utilization of this level of care. VA did not monetize these impacts in the RIA, both enterprise-wide and within CHAMPVA, because reliable specific probabilities and unit cost inputs are not currently available without imposing questionable assumptions that could greatly alter the estimates, either by under or over stating those impacts. The absence of the estimation of these impacts does not imply VA's belief that these impacts will not exist. Rather, it reflected consistent judgment to avoid speculative quantification in VA RIAs, as required by Circular A-4. Importantly, even if higher later gestation or emergency care costs were included in the RIA, they would not change the overall characterization or the necessity for the rulemaking.
Some commenters questioned VA assumptions regarding the proportion of beneficiaries who would use VA maternity benefits if VA did not provide abortions. The RIA distinguished between the services furnished by VA, services obtained outside VA, and the potential of foregone care. In this instance, where shifts largely reflect payer transfers rather than new resource use, Circular A-4 directs agencies to present those effects transparently but not to treat them as social costs. VA followed this approach in the RIA and finds no basis to revise these assumptions.
VA has carefully considered all comments on the RIA, and after a thorough review, has concluded that the existing RIA remains sufficiently informative and analytically sound based off the best available data.
One commenter, relying on the APA for support, stated that VA must disclose information related to any use of artificial intelligence (AI) as part of this rulemaking (including developing substantive policy, producing supporting analysis, or responding to public comments). This commenter stated that under the APA, when an agency uses a computer model, it must explain the assumptions and methodology used in preparing the model. This commenter further stated that to the extent use of AI is significant, an agency must provide an additional opportunity for public comment.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. There is no statutory or regulatory requirement under the APA that mandates such disclosure. While OMB guidance and Executive Order 14110 direct agencies to promote transparency and responsible artificial intelligence use, they do not impose a legal obligation to identify or describe the tools used during drafting or promulgating a rule.
VA further notes that this comment relies on a misunderstanding of the usage of “computer model” in
Some commenters opined that the Deborah Sampson Act of 2020 prohibits VA from providing abortion and abortion counseling while other commenters disagreed. At least one commenter opined that such legislation was Congressional endorsement of VA's ability to provide care, including care that would save the life of a pregnant mother when endangered, that was in the medical benefits package at that time (that is, January 5, 2021) pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1710 and without reference to section 106 of the VHCA.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. As explained previously, the Secretary has discretion to determine what care is needed for veterans pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1710. Prior to September 9, 2022, VA consistently interpreted abortions to not be needed, but did not consider this policy to prohibit VA from providing care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances (and thus, such care was covered under the medical benefits package). 90 FR 36416. The Deborah Sampson Act of 2020 created a central office to monitor and encourage the activities of the Veterans Health Administration with respect to the provision, evaluation, and improvement of health care services provided to women veterans by the Department. 38 U.S.C. 7310(b)(1). As part of that Act, Congress defined “health care” as the health care and services included in the medical benefits package provided by the Department as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act (that is, Jan. 5, 2021). 38 U.S.C. 7310 note.
VA considers that Congress, through the Deborah Sampson Act of 2020, ratified VA's policy and interpretation in place prior to September 9, 2022. This included VA's policy and interpretation that needed care in the medical benefits package included the
Several commenters opined that access to abortion, especially in cases of rape and incest, is a basic human right as reflected by the United Nations and global human rights organizations. One commenter stated that the proposed rule is a de facto abortion ban, and as such, violates the United States' obligation as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. International human rights organizations and global norms regarding abortion access do not impact VA's authority to provide health care under 38 U.S.C. 1710 or 1781. The United States' participation as a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not create or impose binding obligations on domestic Federal agencies. As such, the referenced international standards are not controlling in this rulemaking.
Some commenters raised concerns that VA's rule would be inconsistent with, and stricter than, TRICARE by excluding abortions in cases of rape and incest and abortion counseling and would result in a difference in treatment for two classes of Federal beneficiaries. Some commenters expressed their belief that Congress intended for families of veterans to receive comparable care to families of active servicemembers; and that excluding rape and incest in CHAMPVA undermines that. One commenter urged VA to consider “similar” to mean comparable in scope and fairness and that VA could maintain or expand coverage since 10 U.S.C. 1093 limits TRICARE, but not VA. Some commenters acknowledged that while CHAMPVA coverage need not be identical to that offered under TRICARE, the proposed rule did not address or acknowledge the significant differences that would be created between these two programs.
One commenter noted that TRICARE's limitation on abortion counseling is not a limitation on medical communication, but rather a limitation on billing, as abortion counseling in TRICARE is not reimbursed as a separate covered service unless medically necessary.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. VA acknowledges that pursuant to this rulemaking, CHAMPVA coverage for abortion will differ from TRICARE, particularly as TRICARE allows abortions in cases of rape and incest. As previously explained in this rulemaking, TRICARE is subject to a different authority from VA (that is, 10 U.S.C. 1093). The DOJ Opinion clearly forecloses the provision of abortion in CHAMPVA. Moreover, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1781(a), VA is not required to provide identical coverage to TRICARE. 90 FR 36417; 87 FR 55290; 89 FR 15459; 38 U.S.C. 1781(b); see 32 CFR 199.1(r), 199.17(a)(6)(ii)(D). Instead, VA provides similar coverage to TRICARE. See 38 CFR 17.270(b) (defining CHAMPVA-covered services and supplies) and 17.272 (setting forth benefits limitations and exclusions); 87 FR 55290; 89 FR 15459.
As explained in the proposed rule, prior to September 9, 2022, CHAMPVA coverage excluded abortions except when a physician certified that the abortion was performed because the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, and VA is restoring the pre-September 9, 2022, abortion restrictions within CHAMPVA, just as it proposed to restore the long-standing restrictions to the medical benefits package. 90 FR 36416-17.
This language is consistent with the language VA promulgated in 1998 for purposes of CHAMPVA. 63 FR 48102 (Sept. 9, 1998). On February 10, 1996, 10 U.S.C. 1093 was amended by Congress to prohibit any DoD facility from performing an abortion except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest. See section 738 of Public Law 104-106. Despite this amendment to 10 U.S.C. 1093, when VA updated its CHAMPVA regulations in 1998, VA did not amend them to allow for abortions in situations involving rape or incest. Instead, VA continued to prohibit abortions except when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term and abortion counseling in 38 CFR 17.272. Thus, VA's long-standing policy and practice was not identical to TRICARE in this regard, which continued to be VA's policy and practice until September 9, 2022. 63 FR 48102 (Sept. 9, 1998); 87 FR 55296. As explained in the proposed rule and throughout this final rule, the Secretary has determined that, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1781 and 38 CFR 17.270(b), VA will return to its pre-September 9, 2022 abortion and abortion counseling exclusions for purposes of CHAMPVA coverage.
How TRICARE's limitation on abortion counseling is implemented is not relevant to this rule.
One commenter raised concerns about VA determining abortions are not needed when VA provides other care that the commenter believes is not needed and further identified services and procedures provided under CHAMPVA that they consider not needed.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. First, they are mooted by the DOJ Opinion. Second, VA understands that the commenter may consider certain care provided in CHAMPVA as not needed, but VA has determined such care was medically necessary and appropriate pursuant to its authority in 38 U.S.C. 1781 and 38 CFR 17.270(b). Section 1781, 38 U.S.C. (as interpreted in 38 CFR 17.270(b)) provides the Secretary with the discretion to determine what care is medically necessary and appropriate for CHAMPVA beneficiaries. As explained in the proposed rule, the Secretary determined that it is not medically necessary and appropriate for abortions to be provided as part of CHAMPVA except when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term.
One commenter suggested VA revise the proposed language in § 17.272 regarding the certification by a physician that a mother's life would be endangered if the child were carried to term to refer to a qualified provider rather than a physician, as there may be instances where a patient is receiving treatment from a nurse practitioner or other qualified clinician, or a physician is not available; that limiting this to only physicians could lead to unnecessary delays in treatment that could jeopardize the life of the mother; and that this suggested change would be consistent with current VA guidance. Another commenter stated that other health care providers, such as physicians' assistants and nurse practitioners, should be included as providers that can make the certification required in the life endangerment exception because they provide care, including care covered under this rule.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. As explained in the proposed rule, VA is returning to its pre-September 9, 2022 position, and VA is reverting the regulatory text of § 17.272 in place at that time (that is, abortions are excluded from CHAMPVA, except when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term), which used the term physician and only requires certification from one physician. Consistent with that position, VA is not expanding to include health care providers other than physicians and is not requiring two physicians certify that a mother's life would be endangered if the child were carried to term.
Many commenters opined that abortion counseling is needed or medically necessary and appropriate care for veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries, respectively, and should be provided by VA, including in instances when VA cannot provide an abortion itself. Reasons provided by commenters included that women should have access to all information regarding their options and associated risks; abortion counseling is a necessary part of comprehensive, evidence-based treatment; restricting abortion counseling impacts the patient-provider relationship by limiting what can be discussed, especially regarding potential and appropriate treatment options, and violates a health care provider's medical ethics and obligations; and abortion counseling is a necessary component of informed consent and informed decision-making. By not providing abortion counseling, these commenters opined that the lives and health of veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries will be put at risk, pregnant women will not receive necessary emotional support, there will be increased confusion about what can be discussed with a patient, there will be inequities in care outside VA, and trust with VA and health care providers will be eroded. Some commenters opined that removing abortion counseling replaces medical judgment with political ideology and allows the government to interfere with an individual's health care decisions. Some commenters further referred to cited studies or data to support these comments.
VA makes no changes to the regulations based on these comments. As stated in the proposed rule, VA has the authority to determine what care is needed or medically necessary and appropriate for veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries, respectively. The Secretary has used his authority to determine that abortion counseling is not needed or medically necessary and appropriate for those reasons stated in the proposed rule. 90 FR 36416-17. However, VA acknowledges that informed consent is critical for veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries in obtaining needed and medically necessary and appropriate health care. This includes when such individuals are receiving care covered under this rule. As a result, VA will ensure that veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries receive information necessary to provide informed consent in such situations, as informed consent is a necessary component of receiving care, including care covered by this rulemaking.
One commenter was particularly concerned about the impact of restricting abortion counseling on therapeutic dialogue, which could lead to fragmented care, undermining mental health outcomes, and conflict with trauma-informed care. This commenter opined that the lack of definition for abortion counseling in the proposed rule creates uncertainty regarding what discussions are permitted during therapy. Specifically, this commenter was concerned about whether patients can discuss incidents that occurred prior to military service and instances where a patient received reproductive health services outside of VA. This commenter suggested that abortion counseling should exclude general discussions of reproductive health as part of comprehensive mental health treatment, trauma-focused therapy that may include discussion of pregnancy resulting from assault, and post-abortion mental health care.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. VA did not have a definition of abortion counseling prior to the September 2022 IFR and is not adopting one through this rulemaking. The ban on abortion counseling will not impact VA's provision of mental health care.
Some commenters raised concerns that abortion counseling may not be provided in circumstances in which the life of the mother would be endangered if the child were carried to term or in life-threatening circumstances. These commenters were concerned that clinicians may provide abortions without discussion with their patients.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. As explained above, VA will ensure that veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries receive information necessary to provide informed consent in such situations, as informed consent is a necessary component of receiving care, including care covered by this rulemaking.
Some commenters opined that VA should be able to offer referrals to veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries for abortions outside VA and discuss options for care outside VA. These commenters were concerned the restriction on abortion counseling would limit such referrals and discussions.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. As explained in this rule, VA can provide care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances under the medical benefits package, and allow abortions to CHAMPVA beneficiaries when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. In all other circumstances, VA will not discuss options for abortions outside VA and will not refer veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries to abortions outside VA. Instead, VA will explain to such individuals that if they are interested in receiving more information about such care, they should seek such information and care outside of VA.
One commenter found it notable that since September 9, 2022, there is no evidence of abuse or misconduct related to the provision of abortion counseling and referrals. Thus, this commenter stated that the abortion counseling ban serves no rationale purpose and is contrary to VA's patient-centered mission.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. While it may be true that there is no evidence of abuse or misconduct related to the provision of abortion counseling and referrals, that is not the standard VA uses to determine whether to provide certain care to veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries. As stated in the proposed rule, VA has the authority to determine what care is needed or medically necessary and appropriate for veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries, respectively. Under VA's authorities, the Secretary has determined that abortion counseling is not needed or medically necessary and appropriate for those reasons stated in the proposed rule.
Some commenters opined that the proposed rule conflicts with VA's mission, commitment, and duty to serve veterans and other beneficiaries. One commenter opined that the Secretary's priority of suicide prevention is undermined by the proposed rule as they referred to a study that restricting abortion access is linked to increased suicide risk for women of reproductive age. Commenters also opined that it is appropriate for VA to use taxpayer funding to provide abortions while others disagreed.
VA makes no changes to the regulations based on these comments. VA serves veterans and other beneficiaries, in part, by providing needed and medically necessary and appropriate care pursuant to its statutory authorities. As noted in the proposed rule with respect to other Federal health programs, “. . .Congress has consistently drawn a bright line between elective abortion and health care services that taxpayers would support.” 90 FR 36416. Pursuant to the DOJ Opinion and 38 U.S.C. 1710, the Secretary has determined that abortions are unlawful and not needed. However, VA is not prohibited from providing care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances under the medical benefits package. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1781 and 38 CFR 17.270(b), the Secretary has determined that an abortion is only medically necessary and appropriate when a physician certifies the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. Finalizing the proposed rule will restore VA's previous, longstanding scope of needed and medically necessary and appropriate care. This rulemaking thus aligns with VA's mission, duty, and responsibility to serve veterans and other beneficiaries. VA further notes that suicide prevention is VA's top clinical priority, and nothing in this rulemaking changes that.
Several commenters opposed removing the exception for abortion in cases of rape or incest, particularly as one-third of women veterans experience military sexual trauma and are at greater risk for sexual assault and domestic/intimate partner violence, with commenters providing related data and articles as support. Some of these commenters alleged that excluding an exception for rape or incest is cruel and will further harm these veterans who deal with related stigma, shame, and unnecessary barriers to care. Some of these commenters also raised concerns that military sexual trauma survivors will be forced to continue pregnancies resulting from sexual assault, which can exacerbate trauma and cause long-term health consequences. Some commenters provided data to support that women who are pregnant are significantly more likely to be killed by intimate partner violence, and an inability to obtain an abortion increases risk for domestic/intimate partner violence.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. VA understands and acknowledges these concerns raised by the commenters. As explained previously in the proposed rule and throughout this final rule, VA is returning to its pre-September 9, 2022 position, which did not include an exception for rape or incest. VA will, as always, support veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries facing difficult circumstances in regard to pregnancy by ensuring such individuals receive needed and medically necessary and appropriate care through VA. VA provides treatment to those who may experience domestic/intimate partner violence and military sexual trauma. Nothing in this rulemaking impacts the care VA provides to those who experience domestic/intimate partner violence or military sexual trauma.
For the comment summaries and responses below, VA notes that many commenters did not distinguish whether the issues they raised related to the provision of care to veterans under 38 CFR 17.38, or the provision of care to CHAMPVA beneficiaries under 38 CFR 17.272. Unless specifically indicated in the summaries and responses below, VA treated the issues raised in comments as related to both the medical benefits package and CHAMPVA.
Some commenters asserted that the rulemaking will or may result in veterans
and CHAMPVA beneficiaries no longer having access to abortion and abortion counseling, since such individuals may live in states with bans and restrictions on such care and, for various reasons (
VA understands these concerns, but makes no changes based on these comments. As explained in the proposed rule and in this final rule, VA believes it is appropriate to return to its pre-September 9, 2022 position. Pursuant to that position, veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries will be able to receive care covered by this rulemaking and any other care in the medical benefits package and under CHAMPVA from VA, but VA does not believe it is appropriate to continue the current policy that became effective on September 9, 2022. Moreover, to the extent commenters are concerned about limited access to this care, as explained previously in the proposed rule and in this final rule, this rulemaking is expected to have a relatively small impact given the low volume of abortions furnished by VA.
Some commenters asserted that the rulemaking will or may result in women leaving VA's health care system, which would fragment care and disrupt continuity of care; and prevent women from receiving care from familiar, trusted, and knowledgeable VA providers. Some of these commenters raised concerns that this rule will thus erode trust in VA.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. VA will continue to provide veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries with needed and medically necessary and appropriate care, respectively. As VA is returning to its pre-September 9,
One commenter appeared to allege that since this rulemaking limits care classified as reproductive health care, other reproductive health care, such as cervical cancer screening, fertility treatments, and mammograms, could be restricted.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. This rule does not address other reproductive health care and does not restrict or otherwise impact such care.
Some commenters suggested VA clarify or define what is meant by “life-threatening,” including describing what conditions or circumstances would fall under such language and creating a definition of “life-threatening.” Commenters identified various conditions, such severe preeclampsia, infections, certain cancers, lupus, depression, and heart disease, that could be emergency situations and exacerbated by pregnancy and suggested that VA include those conditions under a definition for life-threatening. Some commenters were concerned about having a list of life-threatening circumstances or a list of what would qualify under the life endangerment exception, as such list would be impossible to create, and suggested VA defer to health care providers' judgment. Some commenters were specifically concerned that the rule would remove or impede treatment for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies. Some commenters urged VA to clarify that the care covered under this rule would not be limited to certain situations but rather all life-threatening medical emergency situations.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. VA does not address every specific potential medical condition a pregnant individual may have that could be an emergency situation or exacerbated by pregnancy. As VA stated in the proposed rule and reiterated in this final rule, VA is not prohibited from providing care to veterans in life-threatening circumstances under the medical benefits package. 90 FR 36416. As stated in the proposed rule and reiterated in this final rule, VA will allow CHAMPVA beneficiaries to receive abortions when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. Id. VA specifically referenced ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage in the rulemaking because treatment for these conditions is always required. Consistent with how VA addressed this care prior to September 9, 2022, VA is not regulating the conditions under which such care, as covered by this rule can be provided. Such matters require a clinical determination and are more appropriately addressed in policy. VA will publish guidance regarding the provision of care covered by this rule.
Commenters raised concerns that access to medication needed for other services could be affected, as certain medications may have multiple uses in addition to abortions, such as managing miscarriages or treating chronic diseases. A few commenters were particularly concerned by any restrictions on the use of mifepristone and misoprostol in managing miscarriages and providing needed and medically necessary and appropriate care to pregnant women. One of these commenters encouraged VA to formally recognize that such treatment will continue to be available to patients. Some commenters opposed VA providing any type of abortion, including through medication.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. VA acknowledges the concerns expressed by commenters on the availability of specific medications based on this regulation. Neither this rulemaking nor the regulatory text stipulate any changes to the VA formulary. Currently available medications used for managing a variety of conditions including miscarriage and care as covered under this rule to pregnant women will remain available for use as clinically appropriate.
One commenter raised concerns that the requirement for certification that the life of the mother would be endangered if the child were carried to term runs contrary to procedures under the Hyde Amendment. Another commenter asserted that the certification requirement is more limiting than other similar exemptions, which can have a chilling effect on willingness to make such certification. Such commenter recommended VA grant deference to its health care providers.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. These commenters did not necessarily distinguish between the care provided under the medical benefits package or the care allowed under CHAMPVA, as covered by this rule. Regardless of whether these commenters meant to refer to either or both programs, as explained previously in this rule, the Hyde Amendment does not apply to VA.
With regards to the certification requirement, VA clarifies that the certification requirement is included in the life endangerment exception, which only applies to CHAMPVA as it is only explicitly stated in CHAMPVA regulations, as amended by this rule. VA does not intend the certification requirement under the life endangerment exception for CHAMPVA to be a burden on VA or authorized non-VA physicians, and VA notes that this certification requirement was in place prior to September 9, 2022 for CHAMPVA. VA will follow the same standards it had in place prior to September 9, 2022.
One commenter suggested VA clarify in 38 CFR 17.272(a)(58), as proposed, whether the determination of when the life of the mother would be endangered if the child were carried to term is limited to only certain physicians (instead of the physician of the individual's choice).
VA makes no changes based on this comment as VA does not find it appropriate to specify the type of physicians who may certify when the life of the mother would be endangered if the child were carried to term. However, VA acknowledges that it will be the treating physician or physicians that will certify this life endangerment exception.
One commenter suggested VA allow veterans to receive abortions when a physician certifies that the fetus is not viable. Another commenter raised concerns that the rule did not include an exception for fatal fetal abnormality or fetal conditions that are catastrophic but not immediately fatal.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. As previously explained, VA is returning to its pre-September 9, 2022 position. As such, VA will provide care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances under the medical benefits package, and will allow abortions under CHAMPVA when a physician certifies that the life of the
One commenter asserted that the proposed rule failed to articulate what is required for a physician to “certify” that an emergency pregnancy complication is sufficiently life threatening to permit an abortion, which this commenter contends will result in confusion and lead to delays in care.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. This certification requirement only applies to CHAMPVA and acknowledges that it will be the treating physician or physicians that will make this certification.
Several commenters raised concerns that the proposed rule undermines the patient-provider relationship by imposing non-medical restrictions on health care decisions. These commenters stated that this is a health care decision that should be made between a health care provider and their patient; not the government. Some commenters further alleged that the proposed rule is in direct violation of a health care provider's oath to do no harm and generally violates their responsibilities and medical ethics and obligations, particularly as they are required to ensure patients receive care that they need and provide informed consent for care. Commenters explained that the restrictions in the proposed rule can result in the health care provider's judgment being compromised and foster mistrust and confusion with their patient.
Some commenters raised these concerns specifically with regards to the ban on abortion counseling. Such commenters stated that it is a violation of medical ethics to ban abortion counseling as that prevents health care providers from providing complete medical information, which can harm patients, and undermines informed consent, particularly as a patient will not be able to fully understand necessary medical information in life-threatening or life-endangering circumstances and make an informed decision about their care.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. As stated in the proposed rule, VA has the authority to determine what care is needed or medically necessary and appropriate for veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries, respectively. Under this authority, the Secretary has determined that abortions and abortion counseling are not needed or medically necessary and appropriate for those reasons stated in the proposed rule. VA acknowledges that informed consent is critical for veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries in obtaining needed and medically necessary and appropriate health care. This includes when such individuals are receiving care covered by this rule. As a result, VA will help ensure that veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries receive information necessary to provide informed consent in such circumstances, as informed consent is a necessary component of receiving care, including care covered by this rulemaking.
Some commenters raised concerns that health care providers will prioritize considerations of criminal or civil penalties over patient health, which can result in delays in care and harm to patients, including in states where there are life exceptions and in instances involving ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. Commenters were concerned about the legal ramifications for providers. One commenter suggested that the rule clearly articulate that physicians have the authority to make determinations relating to care covered by this rule and questioned whether VA would represent physicians from Federal or state actions taken against them for making such determinations.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. To the extent a VA employee provides care consistent with this rule and within the scope of their VA employment as authorized by Federal law, they could not legally be subject to adverse state actions. Consistent with 38 CFR 17.419, state and local laws, rules, regulations, and requirements that unduly interfere with health care professionals' practice will have no force or effect when such professionals are practicing health care while working within the scope of their VA employment. As explained previously, if and when there is a conflict between Federal and state law, Federal law would prevail in accordance with the Supremacy Clause under Article VI, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, if states attempt to subject VA employees to legal action for appropriately carrying out their Federal duties, subject to the requirements and procedures set forth in 38 CFR 50.15(a), Department of Justice representation is available to Federal employees in civil, criminal, and professional licensure proceedings where they face personal exposure for actions performed within the scope of their Federal duties.
One commenter suggested that in any case in which VA provides abortions, such care must be provided within the first trimester of pregnancy. Another commenter opined that it is the government's job to ensure the life of the mother since a fetus cannot maintain its own existence until approximately the third trimester.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. As previously explained, VA is returning to its pre-September 9, 2022 position. As such, VA will provide care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances under the medical benefits package and, in the case of CHAMPVA beneficiaries, prohibit abortions except when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. VA will not place any time limit on when such care may or must be provided.
In addition, VA affirms that nothing in this rule alters or diminishes the conscience rights of VA or CHAMPVA-authorized health care providers. Employees may request to opt out of providing, participating in, or facilitating any aspect of clinical care based on sincerely held moral or religious beliefs, observances, or practices. These requests, often referred to as conscientious objections or conscience-based exceptions, will be honored in accordance with applicable Federal law and VA policy.
One commenter suggested VA make clear in the CHAMPVA regulation that it intends to prohibit elective abortion.
VA makes no changes based on this comment. As previously explained, VA is returning to its pre-September 9, 2022 position. This means that VA will revise its regulatory text for 38 CFR 17.272 to return to the same regulatory text in place at that time which clearly prohibits elective abortions.
One commenter suggested VA clarify what provisions are made for a “second opinion” of a VA physician's determination regarding whether the life of the mother would be endangered if the child were carried to term. That same commenter suggested VA identify what procedures will be in place to
VA makes no changes based on this comment. VA considers these matters outside the scope of this rulemaking because they deal with clinical decisions and tort claims. VA assumes this commenter was referring to a CHAMPVA beneficiary receiving care from a VA physician, as the commenter referenced the proposed changes to 38 CFR 17.272. If a CHAMPVA beneficiary were receiving care from a VA physician, it would only be through the CHAMPVA In-House Treatment Initiative at a VA facility. In such instance, if the CHAMPVA beneficiary wanted a second opinion of the VA physician's determination regarding the life endangerment exception, they could seek such opinion through VHA's clinical appeal process. CHAMPVA beneficiaries may file a tort claim against the United States based on a negligent or wrongful act or omission of a VA employee. More information can be found at
Two commenters suggested VA interpret the term “needed” through clinical judgment that is based on current medical standards, as care may be medically warranted in many specific situations. Another commenter suggested VA reconsider the definition of “needed” medical services to include mental health-related pregnancy risks.
VA makes no changes based on these comments. The term “needed” as used in 38 U.S.C. 1710 is not defined in law or regulation. To the extent consistent with the DOJ Opinion, the Secretary has discretion to determine what care is needed. As explained earlier in section II.D. of this final rule, while VA has interpreted, for purposes of care in the medical benefits package (see 38 CFR 17.38(b)), such language to refer to care determined by appropriate healthcare professionals to be needed to promote, preserve, or restore the health of the individual and to be in accord with generally accepted standards of medical practice (see 64 FR 54210), VA does not believe that the “promote, preserve, or restore” criteria serves to replace or strictly articulates how the Secretary determines that care is “needed” under 38 U.S.C. 1710. VA does not believe it is necessary to define or interpret “needed” as the commenters suggest, as “needed” is specifically left to the discretion of the Secretary in section 1710.
To the extent one of the commenters suggested VA consider mental health-related pregnancy risks to be included under the term “needed,” VA declines to do so as VA is not defining the term “needed” in this rulemaking. VA further notes that to the extent mental health-related pregnancy risks would result in a life-threatening circumstance, care to treat such life-threatening circumstance could be provided under medical benefits package.
Some commenters asserted that life-saving treatment is never considered an abortion, and thus, VA should not include language in VA regulations to codify an exception for life to the prohibition on abortions. One commenter recommended VA clarify that treating certain conditions (
VA makes no changes based on these comments. VA is not defining abortion, consistent with how VA did not define abortion before September 9, 2022, and with how VA currently does not define abortion in its regulations. VA will publish policy that provides guidance to its health care providers regarding the provision of care covered by this rulemaking. Furthermore, as explained in the proposed rule and throughout this final rule, VA will continue to provide care to pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances pursuant to the medical benefits package, even if such care may result in the termination of a pregnancy. For purposes of CHAMPVA, VA will prohibit abortions except when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
Based on the rationale set forth in the
VA examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Orders 12866 (Sept. 30, 1993) and 13563 (Jan. 18, 2011), which direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. VA also examined the impact of this rulemaking as required by Executive Order 14192 (Jan. 30, 2025), which directs agencies to ensure that the cost of planned regulations is responsibly managed and controlled through a rigorous regulatory budgeting process. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is a regulatory action under Executive Order 14192. The Regulatory Impact Analysis associated with this rulemaking can be found as a supporting document at
The Secretary hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This final rule will only impact veterans and CHAMPVA beneficiaries, who are not small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 do not apply.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Administrative practice and procedure, Health care, Health records, Mental health programs, Veterans.
Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on December 23, 2025, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs amends 38 CFR part 17 as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in specific sections.
(c) * * *
(1) Abortions and abortion counseling.
The revision and addition read as follows:
(a) * * *
(58) Abortions, except when a physician certifies that the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term.
(78) Abortion counseling.
Postal Service.
Final rule.
The Postal Service is amending the
Abdul Bah at (314) 452-2844 or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
On November 26, 2025, the Postal Service published a notice of proposed rulemaking (90 FR 54247-54248) to change the claims filing date for insured mail. The Postal Service did not receive any formal comments.
The Postal Service is re-establishing the “No Sooner Than” filing date of 15 days for filing insured mail claims to re-align the filing thresholds with other mail service and bulk claims.
The Postal Service adopts the described changes to
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
Accordingly, the Postal Service amends
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.
File claims as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA or Agency) is finalizing a Clean Water Act (CWA) rule to extend deadlines promulgated in the 2024 “Supplemental Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category” (2024 rule), update the 2024 rule's transfer provisions to allow facilities to switch between compliance alternatives, and create authority for alternative applicability dates and paperwork submission dates, based on site-specific factors.
The final rule is effective on March 2, 2026. In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, this regulation shall be considered issued for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on January 14, 2026. Under section 509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial review of this regulation can be had only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals within 120 days after the regulation is considered issued for purposes of judicial review. Under section 509(b)(2), the requirements in this regulation may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Richard Benware, Engineering and Science Division, Office of Water (Mail Code 4303T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-566-1369; email address:
The EPA is finalizing regulations that apply to wastewater discharges from steam electric power plants, particularly coal-fired power plants. In 2024, the EPA finalized a CWA regulation that revised the technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for the steam electric power generating point source category applicable to flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, bottom ash (BA) transport water, and legacy wastewater at existing sources and combustion residual leachate (CRL) at new and existing sources. 89 FR 40198 (May 9, 2024).
In the last year and a half, the EPA has observed extraordinary increases in energy demand across the U.S., decreases in energy reserves, difficulties in transmission across the electricity grid, increased energy prices, and decreased energy reliability (DCN SE11901, SE11902). In addition, the EPA has identified additional information that makes it clear that, due to supply chain logistical challenges as well as the unique characteristics of each facility's operational needs, the deadlines to comply with the 2024 rule are infeasible and impractical on a nationwide basis. This final action revises the compliance deadlines for existing sources subject to the 2024 rule, as seen in the following table, at a time of both growing energy crisis as well as different circumstances than what existed during the 2024 rulemaking process. These compliance deadline extensions also give utilities and permitting authorities flexibilities needed to ensure affordable and reliable power (DCN SE11915). Table 1 provides an overview of each revised regulatory deadline.
The revised deadlines also extend the date for existing steam electric power plants that seek to achieve permanent cessation of coal combustion to submit a notice of planned participation (NOPP) to December 31, 2034, allowing utilities additional time to assess evolving power demand needed to inform operational planning and decision-making. In addition to specific extensions to regulatory deadlines, this final action also revises the existing transfer provisions at 40 CFR 423.13(o) to allow facilities to switch between compliance alternatives and creates authority in 40 CFR 423.18 for alternative applicability dates and paperwork submission dates, based on site-specific factors. This final rule further establishes tiered pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). In so doing, it creates a compliance pathway for indirect dischargers that plan to become direct dischargers and, furthermore, changes the pretreatment compliance deadlines to provide consistency with the compliance deadlines for direct dischargers meeting best available technology economically achievable (BAT) limitations. This final rule does not change the underlying technology bases for the effluent limitations based on BAT. Subsequent to this rulemaking, the EPA intends to further evaluate data submitted during the public comment period and determine if reconsidering the 2024 BAT requirements is appropriate.
Entities potentially regulated by this action include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table includes the types of entities that the EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not included in Table 2 could also be regulated. To determine whether an entity is regulated by this action, carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 423.10 (Applicability). For questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
The authority for this rule is the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
Unless otherwise provided by law, an agency may reconsider past decisions and revise, replace, or repeal a decision so long as the agency provides a reasoned explanation and considers significant reliance interests.
Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). The CWA establishes a comprehensive program for protecting the Nation's waters. Among its core provisions, the CWA prohibits the direct discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United States (WOTUS), except as authorized under the CWA. Under CWA section 402, discharges may be authorized through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 33 U.S.C. 1342. The CWA also authorizes the EPA to establish nationally applicable, technology-based ELGs for discharges from different categories of point sources, such as industrial,
Furthermore, the CWA authorizes the EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards that restrict pollutant discharges from facilities that discharge wastewater to WOTUS indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), as outlined in CWA sections 307(b) and (c). 33 U.S.C. 1317(b)-(c). The EPA establishes national pretreatment standards for those pollutants in wastewater from indirect dischargers that may pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations. Pretreatment standards are designed to ensure that wastewaters from indirect industrial dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment as those directly discharged and subject to ELGs.
Direct dischargers (
The EPA establishes ELGs by regulation for categories of point source dischargers that are based on the degree of control that can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology. The EPA promulgates national ELGs for major industrial categories for three classes of pollutants: (1) conventional pollutants (
The EPA develops effluent guidelines that are technology-based regulations for a category of dischargers. The EPA bases these regulations on the performance of control and treatment technologies.
There are several TBELs that may apply to a given discharger under the CWA: four types of standards applicable to direct dischargers, two types of standards applicable to indirect dischargers, and a default site-specific approach. The TBELs relevant to this rulemaking are described in detail below.
Traditionally, the EPA defines best practicable control technology (BPT) effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances of facilities within the industry, grouped to reflect various ages, sizes, processes, or other common characteristics. The EPA may promulgate BPT effluent limitations for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, the EPA looks at a number of factors. The EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The EPA also considers the age of equipment and facilities, the processes employed, engineering aspects of the control technologies, any required process changes, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate.
BAT represents the second level of stringency for controlling direct discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants, after BPT. Courts have referred to this as the CWA's “gold standard” for controlling discharges from existing sources.
Section 307(b), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b), of the CWA calls for the EPA to issue pretreatment standards for discharges of pollutants to POTWs (
CWA section 301 and the EPA's implementing regulation at 40 CFR 125.3(a) indicate that technology-based treatment requirements under section 301(b) represent the minimum level of control that must be included in an NPDES permit.
On November 3, 2015, the EPA promulgated a rule revising the regulations for the steam electric power generating point source category at 40 CFR 423. 80 FR 67838 (2015 rule). The 2015 rule set the first Federal limitations on the levels of toxic pollutants (
The 2015 rule addressed effluent limitations and standards for multiple wastestreams generated by new and existing steam electric facilities: BA transport water, CRL, FGD wastewater, flue gas mercury control wastewater, fly ash transport water, gasification wastewater, and legacy wastewater. The 2015 rule required most steam electric facilities to comply with the effluent limitations “as soon as possible” after November 1, 2018, but no later than December 31, 2023. Permitting authorities established particular applicability date(s) within that range for each plant (except for indirect discharges, which discharge to POTWs) at the time they issued the plant's NPDES permit. For plants that opted into the 2015 rule's voluntary incentives program (VIP), which gave plants the certainty of more time to meet more stringent FGD wastewater limitations, the compliance deadline was December 31, 2023.
Electric utilities, environmental groups, and drinking water utilities filed seven petitions for review of the 2015 rule in various circuit courts. The petitions were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as
On August 11, 2017, the EPA announced a rulemaking to potentially revise the new, more stringent BAT effluent limitations and PSES in the 2015 rule that apply to FGD wastewater and BA transport water. The Fifth Circuit subsequently granted the EPA's request to sever and hold in abeyance petitioners' claims related to those limitations and standards, and those claims are still in abeyance. With respect to the remaining claims related to limitations applicable to legacy wastewater and CRL, the court issued a decision in 2019 vacating those limitations as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and unlawful under the CWA, respectively.
On October 13, 2020, the EPA promulgated the Steam Electric Reconsideration Rule, 85 FR 64650 (2020 rule). The 2020 rule revised requirements applicable to existing sources for FGD wastewater and BA transport water. Specifically, the 2020 rule made four changes to the 2015 rule. First, the rule changed the technology basis for control of FGD wastewater and BA transport water. For FGD wastewater, the technology basis was changed from chemical precipitation plus high hydraulic residence time biological reduction to chemical precipitation plus low hydraulic residence time biological reduction.
Environmental groups filed two petitions for review of the 2020 rule, which were consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on November 19, 2020, as
On May 9, 2024, as part of a “suite of final rules” imposing new requirements on the power generation sector, the EPA promulgated the Steam Electric Supplemental Rule (89 FR 40198) (2024 rule). This revision of the regulations at 40 CFR part 423 established a zero-discharge limitation for three wastewaters generated at steam electric power plants: FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and managed CRL. The 2024 rule also established non-zero numeric discharge limitations on mercury and arsenic on discharges of CRL that the permitting authority determines are the functional equivalent of a direct discharge to a WOTUS through groundwater or discharges of CRL that have leached from a waste management unit into the subsurface and mixed with groundwater before being captured and pumped to the surface for discharge directly to a WOTUS (
In this final action, the EPA is not changing the underlying BAT bases in the 2024 rule, nor is the Agency altering the rule's annual pollutant loadings and environmental impacts; however, as the Agency has previously announced, it is considering further rulemaking to modify the 2024 rule's underlying technology bases and associated limitations or standards. Due to the postponement of these loadings and impacts, the EPA has conducted an analysis showing the changes in costs and benefits due to discounting, but given the limited scope of this current rulemaking, it has not at this time updated its other primary analyses from 2024.
A number of parties challenged the 2024 rule in various petitions that were consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as
The EPA has received two petitions for reconsideration, one from the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and one from UWAG.
EEI is a trade association that represents U.S. investor-owned electric companies. On November 13, 2024, EEI sent a petition to the EPA that included recommendations primarily related to CRL applicability (DCN SE11943). This petition was updated with a supplemental letter of EEI priorities on May 8, 2025, which reiterated recommendations for CRL, and which also included discussion of extending the deadlines in the 2020 and 2024 rules (DCN SE11948). With respect to the 2024 rule's permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034 subcategory, EEI recommended extending the NOPP deadline from December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2029, to provide more time to address load growth challenges. EEI also recommended extending the zero-discharge compliance dates of the 2024 rule. Finally, EEI recommended that the EPA extend the generally applicable 2020 rule deadlines for BA transport water and FGD wastewater to at least December 2027 to allow units to transfer out of the 2028 cessation of coal combustion subcategory and, instead, install technologies to meet the 2020 rule's requirements, and thereby continue to operate and produce power past 2025.
UWAG is a voluntary nonprofit group composed of individual energy companies and two national trade associations of energy companies: the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) and the American Public Power Association (APPA). NRECA represents nearly 900 local electric cooperatives across the U.S.,
In addition to these two petitions, on April 25, 2025, the EPA received a request from America's Power, a national trade association representing U.S. steam electric power plants and their supply chains. The letter noted an estimated 29 coal-fired EGUs have committed to retire by 2028 and, in light of emerging challenges to grid reliability, urged the EPA to release these units from their retirement commitments as quickly as possible (DCN SE11903, SE11903A1). America's Power also made recommendations for revisions to the 2020 and 2024 rules.
While the EPA was aware of the general subjects raised in these petitions when finalizing the 2024 rule, as discussed below, load growth and power demands are much higher than predicted just a year and a half ago, and reliability and resource adequacy concerns have only intensified. Forecasts not available at the time of the 2024 rule, and certainly not available for the 2020 rule, warrant additional consideration with respect to the various deadlines discussed in section VII of this preamble. These factors and new information have been evidenced and recognized through numerous reports from and actions by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), grid operators, grid reliability experts, the power industry, utility groups, and regulatory agencies, as described in greater detail in section V of this preamble.
Stakeholders, including grid operators, grid reliability experts, trade associations, and utilities, have raised concerns that a significant number of facilities need more time to understand how their operations fit within a changing landscape of local and regional demand that is untethered from rapidly approaching compliance timelines crafted under different demand assumptions used in the 2024 rule. This includes, among other decisions, whether to avail themselves of the compliance pathway for EGUs seeking to retire or convert to alternative fuel sources by December 31, 2034, by the current NOPP submission deadline of December 31, 2025.
Under these circumstances, the 2024 rule's December 2025 NOPP submission deadline conflicts with the Administration's priorities of ensuring reliable and secure domestic sources of energy to meet demand, as outlined in the Executive Orders section below.
Upon taking office, President Trump issued key executive orders to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy and natural resources, including to support the ongoing adoption and development of cutting-edge technologies. These executive orders took steps to encourage the increase of coal generation to expand domestic energy and avoid shutting down steam electric power plants, which could place the electricity grid at risk, to the extent permitted by law. In accordance with these orders, the EPA has reviewed the relevant issues and information referenced previously relating to the burden of existing compliance deadlines and other issues as part of this rulemaking.
Executive Order 14156, Declaring a National Energy Emergency, invokes emergency authorities to accelerate domestic fossil fuel production and infrastructure expansion, citing energy reliability, affordability, and national security concerns. 90 FR 8433 (January 29, 2025).
Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy, directs Federal agencies to review and remove, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, regulatory roadblocks to energy development within the U.S., including by streamlining permitting processes and reconsidering previous mandates related to climate and renewable energy. 90 FR 8353 (January 29, 2025). It also directs agencies to review and revise, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, existing regulations to identify those that impose undue burdens on development or use of domestic energy resources.
Executive Order 14261, Reinvigorating America's Beautiful Clean Coal Industry and Amending Executive Order 14241, affirms that clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence (AI) data processing centers, and encourages the utilization of coal to meet growing domestic energy demands while ensuring Federal policy does not discriminate against coal production or coal-fired electricity generation. 90 FR 15517 (April 8, 2025).
Executive Order 14179, Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, seeks to ensure the rapid pace of U.S. adoption and development necessary to maintain American dominance and global leadership in AI. 90 FR 8741 (January 31, 2025).
The CWA requires the EPA, in developing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards, to consider a number of different factors. 33 U.S.C. 1314(b)(2)(B). The EPA has considerable discretion in evaluating these relevant factors and determining the weight given to each in reaching its ultimate BAT determination.
Since the promulgation of the 2024 rule in May of 2024, the EPA has become aware of new information and data demonstrating the existence of an energy crisis. Much of the information relied upon by the EPA during the 2024 rulemaking process proved to underestimate energy supply and demand projections, while more recent information and data points to an impending, extraordinary spike in energy demand that cannot currently be satisfied. For example, on October 16, 2024, FERC held a Commissioner-led Reliability Technical Conference to discuss policy issues related to the reliability and security of the North American bulk power system (BPS). Commissioners and witnesses expressed serious concerns about the anticipated retirement of existing generating resources, the addition of significant volumes of variable energy resources, and rapid anticipated electric load growth (DCN SE11933).
More recently, on June 4 and 5, 2025, FERC held another Commissioner-led Technical Conference titled “Meeting the Challenge of Resource Adequacy in Regional Transmission Organization and Independent System Operator Regions.” The technical conference addressed how resource retirements, load growth, and the changing resource mix have contributed to resource adequacy challenges across the nation. NERC testified that “growth projections of electric demand have reached heights unseen in decades, disrupting resource adequacy plans across North America” (DCN SE11950).
Other Federal agencies have also confirmed, and taken action to address, the energy crisis. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE) recently issued an emergency order to delay the closure of Consumers Energy's 1,560-megawatt (MW) J.H. Campbell steam electric power plant in West Olive, Michigan, citing urgent reliability concerns for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) grid, as the Midwest braced for peak summer electricity demand (DCN SE11953). The three-unit steam electric 1,560 MW J.H. Campbell plant, built between 1962 and 1980, was slated to go “cold and dark” by June 2025 as part of Consumers Energy's transition to renewables. In the October 27 revision of the 2025 Final E.O. report, the DOE concluded the retirement of firm power capacity such as coal-fired EGUs is exacerbating the resource adequacy problem, as this capacity is not being replaced on a one-to-one basis. One of the key takeaways in the report is, “The status quo of more generation retirements and less dependable replacement generation is neither consistent with winning the AI race and ensuring affordable energy for all Americans, nor with continued grid reliability (ensuring `resource adequacy')” (DCN SE11976). The DOE also recently issued an emergency order under section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act directing PJM Interconnection (PJM),
Public utilities at the state level are taking similar actions to rapidly change planning activities in response to the energy crisis. In its 2022 integrated resource plan
According to NERC, regions across the North American BPS are positioned to meet peak demand under
More broadly, this heat wave also resulted in a June 24, 2025, power outage that left more than 71,000 customers without electricity in Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and
NERC's mission is to ensure the reliability, resiliency, and security of the North American BPS. The BPS is made up of six regional entities
“Resource adequacy” refers to the ability of an electricity system to meet the power demand of customers at all times, even during peak usage and potential outages. In the December 2024 LTRA, NERC identified increasing resource adequacy challenges for the upcoming 10 years as demand growth surges and power generators announce retirement plans (DCN SE11905). NERC also identified a substantial number of the replacement generation resources as weather dependent and, thus, more variable and less reliable than the resources they would replace. This includes ensuring sufficient generation capacity and reserves to maintain a stable power supply. The MISO recently affirmed the importance of these resources in its 2024 Reliability Imperative report, in which it identified significant challenges associated with new, weather-dependent resources that “do not provide the same critical reliability attributes as the conventional dispatchable coal and natural gas resources that are being retired” (DCN SE11929).
Furthermore, NERC categorized six areas in the U.S. as “Elevated-Risk.”
Since proposal, NERC has also published its seasonal Winter Reliability Assessment (DCN SE12030). This report found that six NERC regions or sub-regions have an elevated risk during extreme weather for the 2025-2026 winter season. Specifically, the report discusses that, while the share of power that coal provides continues to decrease, the ability of coal to be stockpiled for extreme winter weather allows coal to satisfy an increasingly important role that is infeasible or prohibitively costly for natural gas, a fuel that NERC describes as a “just-in-time fuel.”
PJM's 2023 study (DCN SE11847) and 2024 study (DCN SE11901) highlight several trends that increase reliability risks: the growth rate of electricity demand; retirements at risk of outpacing the construction of new resources due to a combination of factors including siting and supply-chain disruptions; and the fact that PJM's interconnection queue is composed primarily of intermittent and limited-duration resources, which need multiple MWs to reliably replace one MW of thermal generation (
The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) also released
In deregulated electricity markets, capacity auctions are used to send signals monetarily that would lead to similar planning as the IRP process. PJM capacity auctions are typically held three years in advance of the capacity delivery year and are designed to ensure sufficient generating capacity to meet electricity demand and grid reliability at lowest cost. PJM uses capacity market auctions to accept offers to provide power at lowest cost first, but recent delays in auctions due to regulatory issues and litigation have led to higher prices. This can be seen with the results of PJM's recent capacity auction for the 2026-2027 delivery year. On July 22, 2025, PJM announced that it had completed its auction and that the clearing price was the settlement cap of $329.17/MW-day, a 22 percent increase over the previous year's clearing price, which was already an increase over the $28.92/MW-day that cleared the auction two years ago. This clearance price achieved adequate capacity, including reserve margins, but cleared by only 139 MW, approximately the amount generated by a single small- to mid-sized EGU. This reflects the tightening margins between supply and demand in
In addition, the 2024 PJM report states, “The demand in each scenario reflects growth from end-use electrification, electric vehicles and data centers. Recent history of this anticipated growth has proven unprecedented and dynamic. Average growth estimates for PJM's summer peak, for example, have increased by 375 percent between the 2022 and 2024 load forecasts, from 0.4 percent per year to 1.6 percent per year. This trend adds to the complexity of ensuring reliability through the energy transition” (DCN SE11901). This report identifies a drastic increase in energy demand, significantly higher than was anticipated in formulating the 2024 rule.
Finally, another important aspect of the LTRA is the interconnection queue. The LTRA reports the interconnection queue has a backlog for the huge variety of replacement sources and storage projects seeking to connect to the grid, such as the ERCOT example above. In summary, the 2024 LTRA identified “critical reliability challenges facing the industry: satisfying escalating energy growth, managing generator retirements, and accelerating resource and transmission development” (DCN SE11905).
A data center is a building or group of buildings that holds computer systems and equipment to power every day digital services. These facilities provide space, power, cooling, and security for servers and network hardware. Data centers power almost everything online, from websites to banking and video streaming. Consumers and companies worldwide depend on services that run through data centers every hour. Many industries, such as healthcare, retail, manufacturing, and government, rely on data centers for secure storage and quick access to information. The demand for cloud computing, e-commerce, streaming, AI programming, and social media makes these sites more important each year. Data centers use a large amount of electricity, making reliable and affordable power one of the most important factors to U.S. economic development and national security (DCN SE12002). Data centers and the massive power they require are critical to national security because they store and process sensitive government, military, and intelligence information, support artificial intelligence (AI) development, and manage critical digital infrastructure (DCN SE12003).
According to the DOE, from 2014 to 2016 the annual energy consumption of data centers in the U.S. remained stable at approximately 60 terawatt-hours (TWh). By 2018, this figure had increased to around 76 TWh, accounting for 1.9 percent of the country's total electricity consumption. Recent forecasts expect total power demand for data centers to be between 74 and 132 GW in 2028, corresponding to 6.7 and 12 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption. The adoption and growth of AI has been cited as a leading driver of surging data center demand in the U.S., with the technology requiring immense computing power, and several utilities are already adopting additional power resources to meet this demand (DCN SE11906). For example, Entergy Louisiana will add three highly efficient steam electric power plants to its system to meet growing power demands due to data center expansion in the state, including Meta's $10 billion data center in northeast Louisiana, which will be the largest in Meta's fleet (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10667, pg. 8). In February 2025, American Electric Power's Indiana & Michigan Power Company reached a joint settlement with the Indiana Office of Utility Customer Counselor, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, Google, and the Data Center Coalition to establish a process for new, large-scale industrial customers like data centers to connect to the grid. Previously, AWS announced a $11 billion investment in a data center campus in New Carlisle, Indiana, and another $2 billion data center in Fort Wayne, Indiana, both among the largest economic development projects in the state (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10667, pg. 8). Alliant Energy has cited Google's $576 million data center investment, and Quality Technology Services' $750 million data center investment, both in Cedar Rapids, as contributing to the company's projected 30 percent increase in electric demand in its service area by 2030 (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10667, pg. 8-9). The National Renewable Energy Center's “Data Center Infrastructure for 2025” shows transmission network and new data center demand capacity coinciding geospatially with large cities, highlighting the challenges demand growth is already placing on the grid (DCN SE11922). The EPA notes that consultants, investors, and ratings firms such as S&P and Moody's identify the U.S. technology sector as one that can initiate, develop, and complete projects relatively quickly, with new data centers operational in as little as two to three years. Meanwhile, the energy sector requires longer lead times to schedule and build infrastructure as a result of extensive planning requirements and significant capital investment.
These concerns have been confirmed by several commenters who have expressed a need for more energy load and reliability due to projected data center buildout, manufacturing growth, and population growth. South Carolina requires additional capacity due to the State's seven percent population increase from 2020 to 2024 (DCN SE12036), and $9.22 billion in economic investments announced in 2023, some of which includes the buildout of data centers (DCN SE12037 and EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10679, pg. 3). Edison Electric Institute, which represents all investor-owned electric companies in the U.S., also cited data center growth as a core reason to continue expanding energy capacity, relying on a 2024 report by the Electric Power Research Institute finding that data centers may consume more than nine percent of U.S. electricity generation annually by 2030, compared to an estimated four percent today (DCN SE12038 and EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10667, pg. 7). EEI further cites the rapid buildout of data centers as a reason why “EEI members that planned to retire facilities under the 2028 [Permanent Cessation of Coal Combustion] PCCC Subcategory are finding during analyses of fleet operability and efficiency that they may need to keep plants running for additional years to meet customer demand” (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10667, pg. 15). Natural gas and coal are forecast to meet over 40 percent of the electricity demand from data centers until at least 2030 (DCN SE11967).
Moreover, as described in the President's July 2025 strategy titled “Winning the Arms Race: America's AI Action Plan” (DCN SE11954), AI systems may pose novel national security risks in areas such as cyberattacks and the development of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive weapons. Ensuring America is at the forefront of AI development is vital for national defense and homeland security. The President issued Executive Order 14179, Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, making it possible for America to retain global leadership in AI. 90 FR 8741 (January 31, 2025). Executive Order 14179 will ensure that AI adoption and
In addition to the documented increase in energy demand, another issue facing the power sector, in addition to compliance with the 2024 rule's deadlines, is challenges in obtaining equipment to maintain and upgrade steam electric power plants. This includes the ready supply of key components of control technologies (
• Pumps, compressors, and blowers have lead times of 28 to 40 weeks due to global vendor capacity constraints.
• Pressure vessels and heat exchangers have fabrication lead times that now extend beyond 30 weeks, influenced by material availability and shop backlogs.
• Electrical and control systems require extended delivery times of 40-plus weeks in some instances due to semiconductor supply shortages.
• Structural steel and specialty alloys are impacted by raw material and fabrication delays, resulting in delivery windows ranging from 26 to 32 weeks.
• Some specialized valves and actuators are quoted at 28 or more weeks.
• Critical instrumentation, including transmitters and analyzers, is averaging 30 weeks due to supply chain dependencies in electronics manufacturing.
The power industry is also experiencing a significant turbine backlog, primarily for natural gas turbines, leading to a further reliance on existing steam electric power plants. A combination of factors, including increasing electricity demand, particularly from data centers, ongoing natural gas plant development using combustion turbines, and airline industry manufacturing, has led to a substantial increase in orders for gas turbines. Three major original equipment manufacturers—GE Vernova, Siemens Energy, and Mitsubishi Power—have reported backlogs stretching into 2029 and beyond. The Electric Power Research Institute reports a five-year-plus wait for new turbine installations (DCN SE11930).
Critical grid components, like transformers, are also facing longer lead times, further impacting project timelines (DCN SE11968). According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the average U.S. electricity grid transformer is 38 years old, fast approaching the 40-year life expectancy of a transformer. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory notes utilities needing to add or replace transformers are currently facing high prices and long wait times due to supply-chain shortages (DCN SE11969). The National Infrastructure Advisory Council reports Hitachi has a waitlist of two to four years for transformers, and supply issues and uncertainty continue to affect development with lead times for transformers averaging 120 weeks and large transformer lead times averaging 80 to 210 weeks, with at least one other U.S. company having a backlog of five years (DCN SE11968). The list of U.S. infrastructure that depends on transformers includes new housing developments, a growing electric vehicle charging station market, and renewable energy projects. For instance, in Texas, companies planned to build 108 new gas-fired power plants and 17 expansions in the next few years to power AI and other heavy industries. In just one example, however, the developer Engie withdrew from two projects in Texas in February 2025 citing “equipment procurement constraints” (DCN SE11951). With the high uncertainty surrounding resource adequacy over the next decade, the need to maintain baseload capacity from existing steam electric power plants will remain for the foreseeable future.
Demand for all major fuels and energy-related technologies jumped in 2024 worldwide, and coal remains a crucial fuel source in addressing potential demand spikes in several countries besides the U.S., notably in China, in India, and across much of Southeast Asia. A May 2025 International Energy Agency report stated that peak demand is slated to grow even faster than overall power demand, and potentially 80 percent faster in emerging markets and developing economies by 2035 (DCN SE11915). These findings highlight that supply-chain issues are increasing globally (DCN SE11977) and will likely continue to increase as the demand and the competition for components escalates across the world.
The EPA notes that there are additional legal pressures leading to generator retirements that are not within the considerations above and are outside the Agency's CWA authority, but that are relevant to the extent they inform conditions facing the steam electric generating industry. These include State or regional laws that may either provide incentives toward retiring steam electric power generation or specifically provide timelines for retirements. An example of the former is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which 10 States have joined to cap and reduce carbon emissions. An example of the latter is that, in 2021, Illinois passed the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act, which, with certain exceptions, required the phase-out of coal-fired power plants by 2030 and natural gas-fired power plants by 2045 (DCN SE11970).
Some steam electric power plants have also entered into settlements with States, the Federal Government, and/or local community groups to retire a plant or EGUs. For example, in 2015, American Electric Power (AEP) announced a settlement with the Sierra Club and other parties to cease coal combustion at Cardinal Unit 1 by 2030 (DCN SE11971). More recently, in 2024, the EPA and two environmental groups entered into a settlement that results in the closure of the Merrimack Station (DCN SE11972). These are just some examples of the settlements that continue to influence steam electric power plants' operations.
Several commenters provided their own examples of how projected energy demand increases have impacted facility retirement dates and additional data to suggest that unprecedented demand is driving policy changes that support the extension of the 2024 rule's deadlines. Talen, for example, has determined that a 2028 planned retirement of two of its facilities—Keystone Generating Station and Conemaugh Generating Station, both in Pennsylvania—is no longer feasible (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10695, pg. 7).
In early 2025, Santee Cooper, a public power utility in South Carolina, reassessed its 2024 IRP adopted in May
Buckeye Power's Cardinal Plant submitted a NOPP intending to retire its unit 3, which was consistent with demand forecasts when the NOPP was submitted in 2021; however, recent PJM capacity market results resulted in discussions between Buckeye Power and PJM to continue operating this unit under a reliability must-run (RMR) order through May 2029 or longer. Ultimately, Cardinal was able to continue operating this unit in light of projected increases without an RMR (DCN SE12008, pg. 125). Similar discussions were had between PJM and KeyCon's Conemaugh Plant, which had filed a NOPP to retire by 2028, but in light of recent auctions and clearing prices soaring to their highest level in decades, KeyCon was able to procure treatment technologies to meet limitations and remain in compliance for coming years (DCN SE12008, pg. 125-26).
Southwestern Electric Power (SWEPCO) originally submitted a NOPP for its Welsh Plant to cease coal combustion by 2028. However, as demand has evolved, to be compliant with its minimum Southwest Power Pool (SPP) capacity obligations, Welsh would need to convert to an alternative fuel source or add new generation before ceasing coal combustion in 2028. If SWEPCO did not meet its capacity obligations, SPP could issue deficiency charges (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10671, p. 16).
Southern Company submitted NOPPs for 2028 retirement for 12 units. While two units retired, two were denied by the public service commission for retirement, others have repowered or plan to repower, and the rest of the units transferred applicability to continue operating in response to load growth (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10705, p. 26). The Georgia Public Service Commission initially postponed a decision on the retirement of Plant Bowen in 2022, and in 2025 supports continued operation to the mid-2030s due to increasing load growth in Georgia (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10705, p. 23).
In addition, several power companies (
The EPA is extending seven deadlines in the 2024 rule, updating the 2024 rule's transfer provisions to allow facilities to switch between compliance alternatives, and creating authority for limited additional timing flexibility for both the 2020 and 2024 rule deadlines, based on site-specific factors. First, the EPA is extending the date for existing steam electric power plants to submit a NOPP for the permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034 subcategory. In addition to this deadline extension, the EPA is expanding the transfer flexibilities in 40 CFR 423.13(o) by including a new transfer provision for facilities wishing to switch between requirements for zero discharge and requirements applicable to the permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034 subcategory. Second, the EPA is extending the latest compliance dates for zero-discharge limitations applicable to discharges of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL. The third set of deadline extensions apply to standards for the same wastewaters from indirect dischargers. Specifically, the EPA is promulgating a set of tiered standards for indirect dischargers that would provide flexibility to achieve zero discharge on the same timelines as direct dischargers. Fourth, the EPA is providing authority for additional site-specific extensions of paperwork submission dates and deadlines in the 2020 or 2024 rules when necessary to address unexpected circumstances.
The EPA's proposed rule solicited comment on each of the provisions described above, including comments on alternatives and comments providing information and data supporting the proposed deadline extensions and related provisions (90 FR 47703 to 47707). Following the thorough engagement process, which included public webinars, tribal consultations, and a careful consideration of all comments and information submitted, the EPA has determined that the final extensions and related modifications are supported by the full record before the Agency. As discussed further below in this section, the EPA finds that none of the alternatives presented by commenters were supported by new information or otherwise warranted modification to the date extensions or other provisions outlined in the proposal. The EPA also finds that suggestions not to move forward with finalizing any of the deadline extensions or related modifications were not warranted in light of the record and statutory factors, as discussed more fully in later parts of this section. As such, and for the reasons described herein, the EPA is finalizing the proposed extensions and modifications. This rule will, in part, provide flexibility to a critical industry in advance of imminent deadlines, which could otherwise force utilities to make premature and irrevocable decisions to begin the process of decommissioning without full consideration of rapidly evolving regional resource adequacy needs.
As part of the proposal, the EPA also requested data to better understand whether and the extent to which it would be appropriate for the EPA to undertake more comprehensive reconsideration of the 2024 rule, in part, to ensure grid reliability beyond this rule's most immediate extensions and related modifications. The decisions described below reflect the EPA's commitment to maintaining a balanced
Following publication of the 2024 rule, stakeholders, including trade associations and utilities, have raised concerns that certain facilities need more time to decide whether to avail themselves of the 2024 rule's compliance pathway for EGUs seeking to retire or convert to alternative fuel sources by December 31, 2034. Based on recent forecasts projecting a surge in energy demand, the EPA finds that the 2024 rule's December 2025 deadline may unreasonably force facilities to decide to retire when they could still be needed to meet local or regional resource adequacy and grid reliability needs. Such premature retirements could result in unforeseen impacts on the ability of the U.S. to ensure that energy remains abundant, affordable, and reliable for Americans. This would be inconsistent with the Administration's prioritization of ensuring a reliable and secure domestic source of energy to meet those demands. The EPA is committed to ensuring these steam electric power plants have the option to remain in operation to increase the Nation's energy supply, meet surging demand (
Since promulgation of the 2024 rule, the EPA has continued to discuss electric reliability issues with the DOE, NERC, and other stakeholders under the framework established in the
As previously explained, in the 2024 rule, the EPA established a subcategory for EGUs permanently ceasing coal combustion by December 31, 2034. For these EGUs, less stringent limitations and standards apply to discharges of pollutants. These less stringent limitations and standards are the same as the limitations and standards previously applicable under the 2020 rule. As there were no nationally applicable limitations and standards for CRL prior to 2024, the subcategory left in place the requirement for permitting authorities to develop case-by-case TBELs using their BPJ, and it established mercury and arsenic limitations based on chemical precipitation after the retirement of the plant. In order to participate in this subcategory, facilities had to submit a NOPP to their permitting authority or control authority by December 31, 2025, and subsequently submit annual progress reports on the steps taken to achieve permanent cessation of coal combustion. The NOPP notifies the permitting authority or control authority of the plant's intent to opt into the 2024 rule's subcategory for sources that anticipate closure or repowering.
At the time of the 2024 rule, the EPA estimated there were “around 50” EGUs whose retirement dates had been announced between 2030 and 2034. While the flexibilities in the new permanent cessation of coal combustion subcategory were also applicable to retirements prior to 2030 (especially with regard to CRL), these post-2030 retirements would have been subject to the full suite of zero-discharge limitations but for the subcategory. Utilities and trade associations have extensively communicated to the EPA that facilities need additional time to decide about ceasing coal combustion in light of surging electricity demand, especially in areas where data centers and manufacturing facilities may be constructed in the near future. Several public comments further confirmed this understanding. For example, Santee Cooper discussed changes in its South Carolina service area that left the utility uncertain as to whether it could retire its Winyah facility by 2033 (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10683).
The EPA received many comments in support of, and in opposition to, the extension of the NOPP submission date extension. Comments in support of the extension pointed to many of the same considerations discussed by the EPA in the proposal. Comments opposing the NOPP extension pointed to many of the same concerns certain commenters had with the deadline extensions as a whole (
The EPA disagrees with comments arguing that the record does not support a NOPP submission date extension and agrees with those commenters supporting the proposed NOPP submission date extension to December 31, 2031. Providing for NOPP submission as late as 2031 allows utilities to evaluate their most recent IRP or three-year capacity market auction result before committing to this pathway, and the new submission deadline does not reflect when all facilities will actually submit their NOPP to receive subcategorized limitations in their permit.
In addition, the EPA disagrees with comments characterizing the NOPP submission date as a substantive regulatory provision in and of itself, whether those comments supported or opposed the extension of that date. The primary function of the NOPP is to inform the permitting authority that the discharger will seek the less stringent subcategorized limitations applicable to EGUs planning to permanently cease coal combustion. In this way, it can help the permitting authority to better understand and prepare the resources needed for permitting these particular facilities. However, beyond conveying this intent to the permitting authority, the NOPP serves no other purpose for regulated utilities or permitting authorities. Regardless of the timing of the NOPP submission, and even if the EPA were to eliminate the requirement to file a NOPP altogether, the limitations of the subcategory and corresponding substantive deadlines would still apply as they did prior to this final deadline-extension rule.
With respect to the suggestion that issuing a DFR extending the NOPP date demonstrates that the EPA pre-judged the outcome of this rulemaking, the Agency disagrees. As the EPA stated above and in the proposal, allowing for NOPP submission as late as 2031 lets utilities evaluate their most recent IRP or three-year capacity market auction result before committing to this compliance pathway. While the EPA
The rationale for the subcategory for the permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034 was set forth in the 2024 rule and, as described in that rule, is based on the statutory factors in CWA sections 301 and 304. The NOPP provides the mechanism for facilities to make use of that subcategory, and thus the date for the NOPP submission is authorized under CWA section 501(a), which allows the Administrator to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions, including establishment of ELGs, pursuant to sections 301 and 304 of the CWA. As such, the EPA is extending the NOPP date in 40 CFR 423.19(h) from December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2031. The new December 31, 2031, NOPP submission date is three years prior to the permanent cessation of coal combustion date and, thus, would allow for the most accurate three-year capacity auctions in deregulated regions (
Contemporaneously with the notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA published a direct final rule extending the date (from December 31, 2025, to December 31, 2031) for existing steam electric power plants to submit a NOPP in the 2024 rule's subcategory for EGUs permanently ceasing coal combustion by December 31, 2034.
The EPA received adverse comments on the direct final rule and thus, as the Agency indicated it would in such event, subsequently withdrew that rule (90 FR 54588, November 28, 2025). The deadline extension for NOPP submission is instead addressed by this final action.
The EPA is establishing a set of new transfer provisions in 40 CFR 423.13(o) to enhance flexibility to choose among compliance alternatives. As described in the 2020 rule, even where facilities have provided a NOPP and publicly announced retirement or repowering plans, actually ceasing coal combustion may “require local or state regulatory approval prior to reducing its utilization or planning to retire . . .” 85 FR at 64709. Such procedural steps continue to exist, and in light of energy demand concerns and commitments, they may not be ultimately fulfilled. Thus, a plant fully intending to retire steam electric power generation under a previous announcement could be subject to unanticipated demand growth or other circumstances that lead a regulatory authority to reject the retirement decision. In such cases, it is reasonable and consistent with the statutory and regulatory framework to permit a plant to transfer back into a compliance pathway that applies the generally applicable zero-discharge limitations. Similarly, it is possible that a plant intending to remain in operation may not clear a capacity auction or may be required by a State regulatory body to retire. In such cases, it would contradict the intent of the subcategory to treat these facilities differently from those that were carrying out earlier planned retirements.
The EPA did not receive adverse comments on the proposed transfer provision distinct from comments relating to the proposed compliance deadline extensions. Several commenters provided suggested edits, largely based on specific needs of a utility or a utility group. However, the EPA did not find the suggested revisions were accompanied with a sufficient underlying rationale to warrant modifying the proposal for this final rule. As such, the EPA is finalizing these provisions as proposed—allowing transfers into and out of the subcategory for EGUs permanently ceasing combustion of coal by 2034 up until the December 31, 2034, deadline—to ensure that facilities facing unexpected changes in operations are not unfairly penalized as compared to the rest of the industrial sector. See the response to comments document (DCN SE12008) for a more detailed discussion on this topic.
As originally promulgated, the 2024 rule's zero-discharge limitations must be met as soon as possible, but “no later than” December 31, 2029. As part of its rationale for establishing this latest date, the EPA stated that this date created “a level playing field” for facilities regardless of where they were in their five-year permit cycle. 89 FR at 40256. After considering the comments, and for the reasons discussed below, the EPA is extending the “no later than” dates for zero-discharge limitations in the 2024 rule (applicable to discharges of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL) to December 31, 2034 (
The EPA finds that postponing the “no later than” dates is warranted for several reasons, supported by the statutory factors, found in sections 301 and 304 of the CWA, of availability, achievability, cost, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. Three reasons, in particular, led to the EPA's finding. First, the December 31, 2029, date for meeting the limitations no longer is “available” for all facilities under the current circumstances due to constraints in the ability to procure and install the control technologies or their component parts, including as a result of supply-chain disruptions, as well as competition for skilled labor. Second, delaying the “no later than” date is critical in allowing facilities that recently invested in technologies to meet the 2020 rule a longer period to amortize the costs of those technologies, which is expected to improve their ability to undertake additional investments towards compliance with the 2024 rule, in addition to having less impact on customer rates. Finally, postponing the “no later than” date until December 31, 2034, gives facilities the ability to transfer out of the permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034 subcategory and still meet the applicable BAT limitations by their deadline, thereby allowing them to continue to generate electricity using coal resources as necessitated by local or regional resource adequacy and reliability needs and to mitigate an impending national energy emergency. This postponement also provides the EPA time to consider a subsequent rulemaking where it can further review new comments and data received on the costs, economic achievability, and energy impacts of the zero-discharge requirements that are subject to extended compliance deadlines in this final rule.
The EPA received a number of comments in support of, and in opposition to, the deadline extensions. One group of commenters argued that the proposed rule's legal and factual bases for the extensions were improper and fully opposed them. These commenters further insisted that the record does not support the reasons the EPA provided as justification. Specifically, these commenters disputed that there were any documented supply-chain delays demonstrating the deadline of 2029 is not achievable. These commenters stated that the EPA only provided anecdotal evidence of supply-
A second group of commenters argued that the deadline extensions would not cure the underlying legal and factual deficiencies in the 2024 rule. These comments typically also included tacit support for the extensions as a temporary fix while the EPA reconsidered the underlying regulatory provisions.
A third group of commenters supported the deadline extensions and, in some cases, recommended changes. These comments supported both the legal and factual bases for the extensions or suggested additional rationales. These comments also supported extending all the zero-discharge limitations, citing the fact that many facilities choose to develop co-treatment of wastewaters. Many of these commenters agreed that there were supply-chain issues affecting the feasibility of a 2029 compliance deadline. One commenter cited a recent six-month delay in a necessary component and overall schedule for a membrane and thermal system designed to meet the VIP limitations for FGD wastewater. Several other comments represented that these systems were not available by 2029 either due to supply-chain issues or other reasons. One of these comments provided an engineering dependency chart demonstrating that a plant in South Carolina would need until December of 2031 to complete installation of a zero-discharge system. Some commenters further suggested that competition over skilled labor meant that, while the 2029 deadlines might be achievable by some facilities, they may not be feasible industrywide.
Several commenters also agreed with the EPA that cost recovery is often spread over longer timeframes than the four years between the 2020 rule deadlines (no later than 2025) and 2024 rule deadlines (no later than 2029). In particular, some commenters pointed to examples of a 20-year bonding program that was approved by one state public utility commission. These commenters also agreed with the EPA that allowing until 2034 would provide the greatest latitude to facilities to transfer between the compliance alternatives of the 2024 rule and avoid rushed decision-making and premature retirements that could impact resource adequacy and reliability. Some commenters suggested that the EPA is warranted in extending compliance deadlines so that facilities would have sufficient time to see the results of any subsequent rulemaking before committing further resources to compliance. Some of these comments pointed to the 2017 postponement rule (82 FR 43494, September 18, 2017) as a precedent for the EPA to take this action. In light of the comments received and EPA's careful review of the record, the EPA is finalizing the zero-discharge compliance deadline extensions as proposed. The following paragraphs further explain the reasons for the EPA's decision.
The first basis supporting the EPA's decision to postpone the latest compliance deadlines for the zero-discharge limitations is the longer-than-expected timelines and delays in procuring necessary components and completing installation of the relevant wastewater control technologies. With respect to the first basis for the postponement, supported by the statutory factors of technological availability and “other factors” (here, supply-chain risks), the EPA concludes that the record clearly demonstrates that at least
In feedback on the proposed rule, electric utilities and trade associations provided information calling into question the ability of plants to meet the 2024 rule zero-discharge requirements on the timeframes set forth in that rule. In particular, some commenters offered new information with timeframes for specific steps in the implementation of zero-discharge technologies that could result in exceedance of the “no later than” December 31, 2029, compliance dates (
This assumption is bolstered by the fact that the vendor that sold the zero-discharge system employed at one plant (the NRG Parish plant) submitted comments on the proposed rule that support the EPA's finding that delayed implementation is warranted, in part, to avoid overwhelming qualified contractors.
In addition to the information that longer timeframes may be needed for at least some plants, supply-chain disruptions risk further delays in these timelines, which were already problematic for compliance. While the EPA agrees in part with comments that supply-chain issues are not wholly “new” concerns, the Agency has identified disruption in supply chains as an issue ever since the 2020 rule (85 FR 64683). The fact that supply-chain issues continue to linger, and that these issues continue to result in delays in the ultimate timeframes to commission wastewater treatment systems, are important aspects of the problem that the EPA should consider.
Furthermore, the nature of supply-chain risks is not static, but continues to evolve. In 2020, the EPA was primarily concerned about supply-chain
Georgia Power Company's Plant Scherer has experienced delays in receiving equipment for its membrane and brine crystallization system that may delay the project timeline by up to 16 weeks. While this 16-week project delay is not expected to singlehandedly cause the facility to miss the 2028 deadline for achieving the 2020 rule's BAT limitations in the VIP, that deadline was over eight years from publication of the 2020 rule and over seven years from the facility submitting a NOPP requesting VIP limitations in its permit. In contrast, the latest zero-discharge deadlines in the 2024 rule were approximately five and a half years from publication and a mere four years from the December 31, 2025 deadline to submit a NOPP, should a facility have opted into the subcategory for the permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034.
Plant Scherer is also not the sole example provided by commenters. Others stated that similar supply-chain issues have impacted installation schedules for at least two other plants in the VIP while waiting for critical component parts, such as specialty alloys and rotating equipment (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10667-A1 Comment Excerpt 11; EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10694-A1, Comment Excerpt 16). Another comment adds that the wait time for membrane delivery can be over two years (
The challenge in weighing supply-chain risks is further supported by comments from technology vendors themselves. While one treatment technology vendor submitted a comment reaffirming its ability to deliver treatment technologies within the original 2029 compliance deadlines, this vendor relied in part on its previous experience and staffing converting BA systems to 2024 rule-compliant systems across the coal fleet. However, the technologies for FGD wastewater and CRL are not the same as those for BA conversions, and even if that experience is directly translatable, BA conversions occurred over a 10-year period from the publication of the 2015 rule to 2025, whereas the timeframe under the 2024 rule is only five and a half years.
Two other zero-discharge technology vendors submitted comments on the proposal expressly supporting the need for additional time. One vendor agreed with the EPA's proposed extension, while the other vendor recommended a staged compliance timeline rather than the “no later than” dates specified in the rule to avoid what they referred to as a “compliance cliff” (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10666-A1, Comment Excerpt Number 3). While the EPA agrees that it could be counterproductive to just push off compliance by five years for all facilities, this is not how section 423.11(t) operates. That provision requires permitting authorities to establish a date that is “as soon as possible” subject to the consideration of four factors but “no later than” the dates that the EPA is postponing in this action. Thus, if properly applied, this will result in some gradual adoption of zero-discharge technologies rather than a rush for all facilities to convert in 2034. Furthermore, a number of facilities are proceeding with these technologies under the VIP or are in the process of transferring out of the permanent cessation subcategory into the VIP, and thus they will still be installing these same technologies by 2028.
Some commenters argued that the compliance date extensions are not warranted because the 2024 rule record demonstrated that membrane, thermal, and SDE technologies could be installed in timeframes shorter than 2029 and because at least one plant (the NRG Parish plant) subsequently did just that in under two years. While the EPA acknowledges that parts of the 2024 rule record appear to support the 2024 rule's original timeframes, the Agency disagrees that the compliance deadline extensions are not warranted. The information pointed out by these commenters must be considered along with other record evidence, particularly newer information, showing longer timeframes are needed, as described above.
After carefully considering the information before it, the EPA has determined that the weight of the evidence shows that the 2024 rule BAT technologies are no longer available nationwide on the timeframes provided for in that rule and, therefore, expecting compliance by 2029 is no longer reasonable. Courts have recognized that the EPA must select a “reasonable” time by which BAT limitations are available.
The second basis supporting the EPA's decision to postpone the latest compliance deadlines for the zero-discharge limitations is the adverse impacts on customer rates, which have seen soaring increases, including the cumulative costs to utilities of complying with both the 2020 and 2024 rules in short succession. This second basis is supported by the statutory factors of “cost” and “other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate,” which in this case is electricity price impacts to residential households. The EPA disagrees with the commenter that suggests that finalizing the deadline extensions would increase residential electric customer bills in either the short run or the long run. Electricity bills are climbing rapidly and, while not all service areas have experienced the same 20 percent electricity price increase seen in New Jersey (DCN SE11952 and SE11973), many states have seen prices rise over recent years (DCN SE12031). Electricity prices had already been a problem for many Americans. In 2021, many moratoria on utility shut-offs ended with tens of billions of dollars in bills coming due “as high as $1,500 to $2,000” for some customers (DCN SE12032), and yet a recent article documented that U.S. Census Bureau data show an increase from 20 percent to 24 percent of households unable to pay their energy bills between 2021 and 2024 (DCN SE12031).
These challenges would continue to mount for utilities forced to comply with the 2024 rule under that rule's deadlines. One municipal commenter explained that, if their utility had to rush to install zero-discharge systems for BA transport water and CRL under the timeframes of the 2024 rule, their customers would face a price increase of up to 15 percent (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10691). Instead, this commenter supported the proposed deadline extensions being finalized because, in part, it would allow the municipality to “orient their budget cycles to the compliance schedule” (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10691). The EPA agrees with this commenter that longer implementation timeframes can moderate impacts to electricity consumers. Specifically, two municipalities that recently procured zero-discharge technologies to treat CRL were able to avoid price increases to existing tipping fees, in part because they were provided ample time to plan and save for these expenditures (DCN SE12033, DCN SE12034).
This consideration is more pronounced for facilities with FGD wastewater. The EPA agrees with comments stating that typical amortization periods for wastewater treatment technologies are 20 years. One comment providing a specific state approval of a 20-year cost-recovery program bears this timeframe out as normal and appropriate (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10665). The 2020 and 2024 rules discussed how facilities incur greater capital costs when amortized over fewer and fewer years. Specifically, the record demonstrated that annualized capital costs approximately double when amortization shrinks from the typical 20-year period to eight years. 84 FR 64640. In some cases, under the 2024 rule, facilities completing installation of a biological treatment system by the end of 2025 would be required to turn around and install zero-discharge systems by 2029.
In the 2024 rule, the EPA's analysis showed that these cumulative costs were economically achievable within the previously projected electricity market supply and demand; however, these supply and demand assumptions have proven inaccurate, as discussed previously.
The third basis supporting the EPA's decision to postpone the latest compliance deadlines for the zero-discharge limitations is the need to ensure plants can continue operating to support grid reliability and in light of legitimate uncertainties about the economic and energy impacts of the 2024 rule. With respect to the third basis for the postponement, based on the statutory factors of economic achievability, as well as non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements) or “other factors” (resource adequacy and grid reliability), the EPA agrees with comments stating that there is a national energy crisis impacting resource adequacy and grid reliability. The EPA has continued to identify information supporting this conclusion, including NARUC (2025), NERC 2025-2026 Winter Reliability Assessment, and information provided in various public comments. The EPA also agrees that increasing demand from data centers, manufacturing, and other causes could exacerbate these issues in the short run. The EPA received several comments detailing population growth, manufacturing growth, and data center
While these commenters list a litany of supposed errors in the EPA's rationale, their complaints sometimes contradict each other. For example, some commenters state that the EPA does not have the expertise to make judgments about reliability and resource adequacy or that the Agency should defer to states, which are given the primary oversight of reliability-related issues, whereas other commenters accuse the Agency of not conducting sufficient analysis on those issues. Some commenters even go so far as to suggest that the EPA second-guess the DOE's lawfully issued Federal Power Act section 202(c) orders.
The EPA disagrees with the premise of these comments, as they illustrate a misunderstanding that the Agency is trying to regulate the electric grid or make primary findings regarding the operations thereof. To the contrary, the EPA is merely pointing to what competent state, national, and North American electric reliability authorities have already concluded as the Agency decides how best to implement its statutory directive to establish technology-based regulations governing point source discharges under the CWA. Even taking these commenters' information as true, the EPA finds that, at most, it demonstrates that there is uncertainty as to future demand growth, resource adequacy needs, and reliability concerns. To the extent that these commenters point to information that calls out these uncertainties, the EPA agrees that the future on these difficult issues is uncertain, but that is no reason to continue with the status quo. In fact, uncertainty is commonly accounted for by reliability authorities through probabilistic assessments. For example, NERC states that it conducts its analysis of electricity shortfall risks by considering “probability-based risk assessments” (DCN SE12030).
The EPA notes that there is also uncertainty in the extent to which the 2024 rule is driving closures in the near term. Closures matter in determining the economic achievability of the rule, as well as impacts on grid reliability, which the EPA may consider as an “energy requirement” or, alternatively, an appropriate “other factor” in its BAT decision-making. The EPA disagrees with comments stating that the 2024 rule analyses demonstrate that the costs of the rule are still economically achievable and that the impacts on coal-fired plants are small. In response to the EPA's request for data to support any subsequent rulemaking, commenters have raised concerns that the Agency's data may be stale, the Agency may have underestimated costs, and these underestimated costs may have led to underestimated market impacts.
However, it is also not reasonable for some commenters to request that the EPA update all the Agency's data and analyses prior to finalizing this deadline-extension rule, and such an update is not legally required. The EPA has always been clear that it would conduct any reconsideration in multiple phases (DCN SE12039), and in the proposed deadline-extension rule the Agency explicitly stated that it would use information received from its data request to “define the scope of this subsequent rulemaking to potentially revise the underlying technology bases for certain limitations and standards in the 2024 rule” (90 FR 47708). This is consistent with the approach taken in the 2017 postponement rule. That rule was finalized relatively quickly, and without revising the EPA's major analyses, which were only updated during the subsequent 2020 reconsideration rule (85 FR 64650), a substantial effort that took three years. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the EPA's 2017 postponement rule as a lawful follow-on rulemaking to the 2015 rule.
The EPA also notes that coal-fired power plants serve a unique niche in the electric grid. As discussed in NARUC (2025) and NERC 2025-2026 Winter Reliability Assessment, these plants, unlike natural gas plants, have fuel stockpiles and can reliably provide dispatchable power during extreme weather (DCN SE12000 and DCN SE12030). These findings are consistent with the operations of the Keystone and Conemaugh plants, which total 3,400 MW of nameplate capacity and were dispatched during Winter Storm Elliot, allowing PJM to avoid a load shedding event (DCN SE12042). This illustrates the importance of maintaining a diverse fleet of generating units that includes a variety of fuel sources, a fact that the EPA cited in subcategorizing oil-fired units in the 2015 rule (80 FR 67856).
Based on the foregoing considerations, the EPA has concluded that an approach that meets the statutory directives and environmental goals of the CWA while respecting the needs for resource adequacy and reliability is warranted in the short term. In particular, by extending the latest compliance deadlines for the zero-discharge requirements in the 2024 rule to December 31, 2034, the EPA can help ensure that plants that might be planning for retirement or repowering by 2034 can more readily stay online past that date to meet the Nation's energy requirements and still be on track to meet the otherwise applicable effluent limitations. Furthermore, while the commenters paint a picture in which costs and impacts of the 2024 rule are small, interconnection queue backlogs are resolved, and new generation and storage projects are able to quickly address resource adequacy concerns, this scenario falls on one end of a spectrum of probabilistic outcomes.
The EPA disagrees with public comments suggesting that these extensions would result in widespread delays in compliance. The EPA is not postponing the earliest compliance date for the 2024 rule, which has since passed and, as a result, facilities without some of the limitations described above have already begun submitting NOPPs (DCN SE12001) and installing technology to comply with zero-discharge limitations (EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819-10666). These extensions are not intended to simply provide this industrial sector with a blanket deferral of compliance, but instead to appropriately acknowledge the rapidly changing demand on this industry and provide permitting authorities greater flexibility to react in real time to the evolving challenges on the power sector. Of note is the fact that a permitting authority is required to evaluate the same criteria in section 423.11(t) as was required in the 2024 rule when considering the “as soon as possible” date. The factors at section 423.11(t) include consideration of “Time to expeditiously plan (including to raise capital), design, procure, and install equipment to comply with the requirements of the final rule” and “Other factors as appropriate.” For these reasons, the EPA disagrees with comments suggesting that it is necessary to postpone the earliest compliance dates. Therefore, the EPA is not postponing the “as soon as possible” date. See
While the majority of steam electric power plants directly discharge the three wastestreams for which the EPA established zero-discharge limitations in the 2024 rule, there are still one or more indirect dischargers of each of these wastewaters. The EPA finds that the considerations discussed above in this preamble that warrant longer applicability timing for zero-discharge requirements on direct dischargers are equally applicable to indirect dischargers. Thus, the EPA is finalizing a new tiered standard for indirect dischargers that conforms with the Act and allows an indirectly discharging plant to choose to be subject to the same limitations, and on the same timeframes, as apply to existing direct dischargers.
Section 307(b)(1) of the CWA requires that pretreatment standards “shall specify a time for compliance not to exceed three years from the date of promulgation.” 33 U.S.C. 1317(b)(1). This three-year period is similar to the three years stated in sections 301(b)(2)(C), (D), and (F), which apply to BAT limitations. 33 U.S.C. 1311(b)(2)(C), (D), and (F). Section 301(b)(2)(C) states that “there shall be achieved . . . compliance with [BAT] effluent limitations . . . as expeditiously as practicable but in no case later than three years after the date such limitations are promulgated . . . and in no case later than March 31, 1989.”
Given that BAT limitations and PSES are intended to be analogous, as previously described, it would make sense that the three-year requirement in CWA section 307 also applies only to the EPA's initial pretreatment standards for an industry. This is supported by CWA section 307(b)(2), which includes language stating that the Administrator shall “from time to time” revise its pretreatment standards and
In the first tier of the standard, indirect dischargers are required, by January 1, 2029, to meet pre-2024 rule standards for FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL. These standards (which are based, respectively, on biological treatment plus chemical precipitation, high-recycle-rate systems, and the permitting authority's BPJ) are available and achievable, as supported by the record in the EPA's prior rules. In the second tier of the standard, facilities opting to file a permit application with their permitting authority to directly discharge these wastewaters are allowed to continue indirectly discharging until the compliance date determined by the permitting authority, but no later than December 31, 2034, provided they certify that they will complete the conversion to direct discharge. In the second tier of the standard for facilities that do not opt to become direct dischargers, the tiered standard changes to zero discharge by January 1, 2029. In either case, this pretreatment standard is one standard that tightens over time, and so it conforms to the requirement of the Act that pretreatment standards specify a time for compliance not to exceed three years from the date of promulgation.
The EPA received a number of comments in support of, and in opposition to, the tiered standard for indirect dischargers. Comments against the tiered standard included general opposition to the delay in compliance with the 2024 standard, claims that the EPA lacks a record supporting the delay, and questions regarding the Agency's legal authority to delay the 2024 pretreatment standards. The EPA disagrees with commenters that argue there is no record support for the extension, as detailed in the paragraphs above supporting the compliance date extension for the zero-discharge BAT limitations. The Agency also disagrees that the PSES compliance deadlines cannot lawfully be extended beyond three years from promulgation of the 2024 rule, for the reasons discussing EPA's statutory authority under Section 307 of the CWA, explained above.
The EPA agrees with commenters that support the tiered standard for PSES because the approach provides consistency in the compliance deadlines between requirements for indirect and direct dischargers. The tiered standard gives facilities that have infrastructure that conveys wastewater to a publicly owned treatment works adequate time to design, procure, and install new, zero-discharge technology to comply with the 2024 limitations. This approach will provide equitable regulatory treatment across permitted facilities regardless of their discharge circumstance (
Finally, the EPA received comments opposing the zero-discharge PSES, suggesting that indirect dischargers should continue to be able to discharge to POTWs. The EPA also received comments from utilities and industry trade associations that the zero-discharge technologies used to establish PSES and BAT limitations in the 2024 rule are not available or economically achievable and are a primary cause of coal-fired power plant retirements. As previously explained, the EPA is considering future action to revise the zero-discharge BAT limitations and PSES for the relevant wastestreams.
The EPA is finalizing a site-specific timing flexibility to be incorporated in the permit conditions set forth in 40 CFR 423.18(d), based on the statutory factors of “availability,” as well as “non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)” or, alternatively, “other factors” the Administrator deems appropriate (
While the EPA is aware that several utilities have already pushed back plans to retire coal units by 2028 in order to support regional resource adequacy, trade associations and regional transmission organizations have discussed further scenarios with the Agency that could lead to impractical timeframes for the installation of technologies needed to meet applicable limitations. In one scenario, such as that experienced at Buckeye Power's Cardinal Plant (DCN SE12043), a utility may have announced that one or more EGUs at a plant would retire by 2028 (making it eligible for the 2020 rule's subcategory for the permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2028), while the remainder would continue generation. If the IRP process or capacity auctions indicate that future needs may not be met, these EGUs may need to back out of previous retirement decisions. However, the plant may have combined wastewaters, such as combined FGD wastewaters from a joint FGD unit that treats flue gas from the entire plant. In the case that the plant was properly developing a treatment system that could treat wastewater from the EGUs it had intended to continue operating, the continued operation of one or more additional EGU(s) could lead to more wastewater than the system can treat. In such circumstances, the plant would be forced to choose between noncompliance or retiring an EGU needed for local resource adequacy. The EPA agrees that a plant in such a situation should be given the time to build out treatment systems and comply with the 2020 rule given the rapidly evolving resource needs for this critical industry.
In another scenario, such as that experienced at KeyCon's Conemaugh plant (DCN SE12042), a plant that had submitted a NOPP for permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2028 may learn through the IRP process or capacity auctions that its continued operation is necessary to support local resource adequacy. Such facilities can still use the transfer flexibilities in 40 CFR 423.13(o) to transfer to the VIP limitations for FGD wastewater and the generally applicable limitations for BA transport water by December 31, 2025. However, if a plant had not taken significant steps to design, bid, and procure these technologies prior to the transfer deadline, it would not be practicable for the plant to do so by the deadlines in the 2020 rule, particularly where the generally applicable BA transport water limitations have the same deadline as the transfer itself. In such circumstances, a plant could be forced into deciding whether to risk noncompliance or retire despite being needed for local resource adequacy. Furthermore, requirements to first notify or gain approval from a state public utility commission might make formally submitting a transfer notice by December 31, 2025, impracticable.
Finally, stakeholders have expressed concerns with supply chains, as discussed in sections V and VI. As also discussed, the rapid growth of data centers, in some cases, takes materials and components that might otherwise have been used in an ELG compliance technology. Thus, it is possible that facilities may have to wait on parts that are available on the market, but that are not available on the timelines originally believed or agreed to in a contract. In such cases, it is reasonable and consistent with the statutory and regulatory scheme that a plant should have sufficient time to obtain and install its compliance technologies and should not be penalized for factors outside of its control. While the EPA cited supply-chain concerns as part of the reason for the compliance deadline extensions for the 2024 rule's zero-discharge limitations from 2029 to 2034 discussed above, here, supply-chain concerns serve as an independent basis for the additional site-specific flexibilities because these flexibilities would also apply to 2020 rule deadlines and are limited to unexpected circumstances that might arise in a site-specific context affecting a project schedule, which is not as likely to be an issue for deadlines farther out into the future, such as the 2034 deadlines. Moreover, while the more general compliance deadline extensions until 2034 are intended to address systemic issues experienced at the industry-level, this site-specific flexibility is intended to address unforeseen issues at particular facilities. See the response to comments document (DCN SE12008) for further discussion on EPA's decision to finalize these site-specific flexibilities.
The EPA is requiring that a plant submit an initial request letter and regular progress reports to their permitting authority. The initial request letter must include the circumstance under which it is requesting alternative applicability timing. The letter must also include detailed engineering dependency charts that would allow the permitting authority to establish an alternative applicability date and, where appropriate, an associated schedule of milestones in the permit, as well as determine the frequency of regular progress reports. For instance, if a plant needed only an extra six months to install relevant technologies, then monthly progress reports might be warranted; however, if the same plant needed an extra six years to install relevant technologies, then annual or biannual progress reports might be sufficient.
The EPA received comments both in support of, and in opposition to, these provisions. Commenters opposed to the flexibilities argued that they are arbitrary and unlawfully fail to include sufficient safeguards. These commenters more specifically took issue with the EPA presenting no new data to indicate that facilities require additional time for compliance. Commenters argued that the EPA has not explained why the 2024 rule and its deadlines do not already account for reliability, capacity needs, or supply-chain issues. Commenters also suggested that the CWA already allows the EPA and state authorities to adjust national requirements for unique site-specific circumstances through statutory variances, such as fundamentally different factors (FDF) variances. Some commenters suggested that the EPA should, while others suggested the Agency should not, explicitly describe the circumstances which warrant or qualify for flexibility.
Commenters in favor of the flexibilities also asked that these flexibilities be automatically applied via a fixed extension. Some commenters also requested some specific changes to the language in 40 CFR 423.18(d). Commenters asked that language be revised or added to call out facilities or EGUs that move within a permanent cessation of coal combustion subcategory. One commenter provided an example of an EGU changing from retiring to continuing operation but changing fuel sources. Commenters also requested that the EPA clarify whether 40 CFR 423.18(d) provisions apply to requirements for zero discharge only or also apply to advanced biological treatment systems. Another commenter requested that the EPA establish national guidance and an interim implementation framework. Finally, the EPA received feedback on specific language changes for the provisions.
In general, the EPA disagrees that the establishment of the new site-specific applicability date provision in section 423.18(d) is arbitrary, unnecessary, or otherwise insufficiently supported. However, the EPA acknowledges that, as part of the proposal, it did rely on relatively generic scenarios rather than provide specific examples to demonstrate the need for these provisions. The EPA has also added a new memoranda to the record,
The EPA also disagrees with comments that the Agency should explicitly list additional circumstances in the new section 423.18(d) and agrees with those instead recommending the same or similar approach to the proposal. These provisions are meant for extraordinary measures beyond what was foreseen in the ELG analysis or even in a facility's initial planning. The EPA expects that facilities should and will plan to meet the compliance dates as specified in the ELG; however, should market conditions change too late for a facility to feasibly come into compliance, then 40 CFR 423.18(d) may be invoked. The EPA views these flexibilities as extraordinary measures. Thus, the EPA recommends that utilities and their permitting authorities turn to these flexibilities only as a last resort and only for the reasons and issues described in 423.18(d)(3).
Given the emergency nature that the provisions are intended to address, despite some comments requesting more prescriptive language in the regulation, the EPA is declining to explicitly list conditions or qualifiers which must be met prior to being granted these flexibilities. Likewise, the EPA also disagrees with the commenter suggesting that the flexibility be finalized as an automatic extension. Such an extension would be overbroad for some facilities while potentially being too short for others. The EPA finds that the decisions surrounding when and how to administer these flexibilities should be left to the permitting authority, who will be best positioned to consider all the relevant factors at that time and establish alternative applicability dates that are appropriate in light of each facility's specific circumstances.
The EPA also disagrees with some commenters stating that the flexibilities do not include safeguards. The EPA has crafted a set of circumstances that require very detailed showings. For example, section 423.18(d)(3)(iii) is only available when supply-chain issues result in a delay of “a necessary component (not merely a preferred component where there are reasonable substitutes) at a key stage of fabrication or installation . . .” Furthermore, while the EPA does not explicitly include backstops as requested by these commenters, the 2020 rule implementation is complete on December 31, 2028. Thus, as of January 1, 2029, a facility would have to be in compliance, have permanently ceased coal combustion, or have begun some formal transfer with today's new extensions. A facility failing to complete one of these actions would already be in noncompliance. Third, these site-specific flexibilities are not automatic like the transfers of section 423.13(o). Instead, a facility would be required to undergo a permit renewal or permit modification to incorporate any alternative applicability timing.
Finally, the EPA has included a number of reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including requirements for some of the very information commenters suggest is needed, and a requirement to post this documentation to the facility's public-facing ELG Compliance Data and Information website. For further discussion of implementation, see the implementation memo (DCN SE12026).
After considering the feedback received from the public on this topic and the full record before it, the EPA is finalizing a requirement for permitting authorities to extend the NOPP submission dates or applicability timing for any compliance date in the 2020 or 2024 rules (including the VIP limitations for FGD wastewater) due to these or any other unexpected and uncontrollable circumstances. These flexibilities, as determined appropriate by a permitting authority, would be included as a new permit condition via 40 CFR 423.18(d). This would allow an alternative applicability date and, where appropriate, associated schedule of milestones, to be included in a permit, notwithstanding the existing applicability timing in the regulatory text. See the EPA's response to comments document (DCN SE12008) for further discussion of the public comments received on this provision, as well as additional detail supporting the Agency's findings.
In the 2020 rule, the EPA discussed how changed circumstances in a plant's operations could affect compliance with the ELG. This discussion distinguished voluntary versus involuntary changes in operations. As examples of involuntary changes, the EPA noted that electric utilities are regulated by a variety of agencies that can legally require continued generation at a plant (
Since the 2024 rule, stakeholders have questioned whether 40 CFR 423.18(a) can be read to include other types of actions not explicitly listed. Specifically, four scenarios were raised for which stakeholders wish further clarification from the EPA. These include the following:
• Whether 40 CFR 423.18(a)(2) is interpreted to include FERC's acceptance of a reliability must-run agreement as being a reliability must-run agreement issued by a public utility commission as contemplated within this subsection;
• Whether 40 CFR 423.18(a)(3) is interpreted to include the following as a qualifying event: where an EGU(s) has certified it would cease combustion of coal, and an appropriate balancing authority projects, pursuant to its authority, that doing so would cause a resource adequacy shortfall for an upcoming delivery year;
• Whether 40 CFR 423.19(i)(1)(ii) is interpreted to include the 30-day submission applicability to any findings made pursuant to 40 CFR 423.18(a)(3); and
• Whether 40 CFR 423.19(i)(3) is interpreted such that the termination of need statement submission is also triggered 30 days from when the source is no longer subject to extended production (which is increased production) resulting from the qualifying event.
With respect to the first issue, the EPA intended for any reliability must-run agreement or similar order to be covered. The EPA believes that, between 40 CFR 423.18(a)(2) and 423.18(a)(3), there is sufficient flexibility that either provision or both could apply to such orders depending on the entity making or receiving the filing.
With respect to the second issue, the EPA received a similar question from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) at the time of the 2023 proposal. There, the EPA pointed out that TVA was certified by NERC as the reliability coordinator for itself and several other utilities. Therefore, the record supported that TVA had the authority to issue operating instructions and emergency operating instructions with which any utilities (including itself) must comply, making TVA a competent electricity regulator. Since 40 CFR 423.18 refers broadly to “a competent electricity regulator (
With respect to the third issue, the EPA notes that 40 CFR 423.19(i)(2)(ii) refers back to (i)(2)(i), which in turn refers back to any qualifying event in 40 CFR 423.18(a). Since the reference does not limit qualifying events to any subparagraph in 40 CFR 423.18(a), the EPA agrees that any event under (a)(3) would trigger the reporting and recordkeeping requirement.
With respect to the final issue, the EPA again agrees that extended production is increased production.
The EPA received comments supporting these clarifications. One commenter requested further clarification as to whether a reliability must-run directive may emanate from NERC-certified reliability coordinator that oversees the balancing area. Finally, one commenter asked the EPA to codify these clarifications.
With respect to directives from a NERC-certified reliability coordinator, the EPA agrees that such an order could qualify under section 423.18(a)(3) as “any other reliability-related order [. . .] by a competent electricity regulator . . .”
Finally, the EPA disagrees with the single comment suggesting codification of these clarifications. Unlike the codification of “energy emergency alert” in the 2024 rule, where that type of action was not clearly in line with the other enumerated actions in section
As set forth in section III, explaining the EPA's authority for taking this action, unless otherwise provided by law, agencies may reconsider past decisions and revise them, so long as they provide a reasoned explanation and consider significant reliance interests.
In the 2024 rule, the EPA estimated that the cost to industry of zero discharge of FGD wastewater would be $179 million per year, the cost to industry of zero discharge of BA transport water would be $19 million per year, and the cost to industry of zero discharge and chemical precipitation of CRL would be $218 million per year in annualized costs at a 3.76 percent discount rate. Combined, this led to a total compliance cost estimate of $416 million per year at a 3.76 percent discount rate. At that time, the EPA determined that these costs were economically achievable to the industry. The deadline extensions and flexibilities finalized in today's action are designed to lessen the burden to comply with the existing Steam Electric ELGs, in part due to the dramatic increase in energy demand described above, and the EPA anticipates that these flexibilities will allow utilities to better make compliance decisions that impose minimum economic impact across the industry and to their customers.
As discussed in today's preamble, there have been significant changes in market conditions and state and federal legislation affecting the power sector since the EPA conducted the 2024 Rule analysis; therefore, there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding the costs and benefits presented based on the 2024 analysis, given recent changes affecting the electricity sector.
The final rule extends by five years the “no later than” deadline for complying with zero-discharge limitations for BA transport water, FGD wastewater, and managed CRL. As the rule specifies that the limitations are to be met “as soon as possible . . . but no later than,” it is possible that plants will comply sooner and according to a schedule that is similar to that for the baseline. To model the effects of the final rule, the EPA conservatively assumed that each affected plant would implement technologies five years later than assumed in the analysis of the 2024 rule,
The EPA also received several adverse comments stating that the underlying cost and economic impact analysis for the 2024 rule used old data, particularly in light of the incredible increase in energy demand across the U.S. in the last year and current projections. Subsequent to this rulemaking effort, the EPA intends to undertake a further reconsideration of certain aspects of the existing regulations. Should the EPA decide in a future action to reopen the BAT basis for the underlying 2024 rule more broadly, it will make a decision at that time (based on the current conditions of the industry) as to the need for updating both the underlying data and/or the Agency's modeled costs and economic impacts.
The purpose of this section is to clarify the EPA's intent with respect to the severability of provisions of this final rule. In the event of a stay or invalidation of part of this rule, the Agency's intent is to preserve the remaining portions of the rule to the
This final rule extends the NOPP submission deadline for the subcategory for permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034. It is the EPA's position that this extension is justified and supported by the record independently of the compliance date extensions. Although the invalidation of compliance date extensions would result in a NOPP submission date in 2031 that is two years after the latest compliance dates for the generally applicable limitations, the EPA finds that this would still be appropriate as the practicalities of permitting would result in facilities submitting NOPPs prior to the latest compliance dates to avoid receiving permits with zero-discharge limitations.
This final rule extends certain compliance dates associated with zero-discharge limitations and standards for discharges of pollutants found in three steam electric wastestreams. The final rule provides extended dates for limitations and standards associated with each wastestream in separate sections that do not rely on one another. Although the decision to extend deadlines applicable to each wastestream rests on overlapping facts, the decision to extend the compliance dates for limitations for each wastestream was made independently of the decisions to extend the other compliance dates.
In addition, the rule creates a site-specific flexibility for additional time to comply with the limitations in the 2020 and 2024 rules under four separate sets of circumstances. The EPA finds that there is support and authority for this site-specific flexibility independent of the support and authority for the general compliance deadline extension for zero-discharge limitations. Thus, the EPA would have promulgated this flexibility even if it did not simultaneously promulgate the more general compliance deadline extension until 2034. Furthermore, the EPA finds that there is support and authority for each circumstance provided for in this site-specific flexibility, which is independent of the support and authority for the other circumstances. For example, if a court were to find that the site-specific flexibility for one circumstance (
This final rule also provides flexibility for steam electric facilities to opt into different compliance pathways that exist in the rule, for example, due to changed circumstances. This flexibility to transfer to a different compliance pathway is unrelated to other provisions in the final rule, and the EPA's decision to allow for such transfers is unrelated to other aspects of the rule.
Finally, this final rule creates authority for alternative applicability dates for limitations promulgated in the 2020 or 2024 rules, based on site-specific factors. This authority is independent from other changes being finalized, and the EPA's decision to provide for such authority is unrelated to other aspects of this final rule. For example, in the event of a stay or invalidation of any extended compliances dates for the zero-discharge limitations or standards, the EPA finds there is continued authority for alternative applicability dates, as discussed in this paragraph, and such authority could continue to be implemented.
These examples are illustrative, rather than exhaustive, and the EPA intends for each portion of this final rule to be independent and severable. Furthermore, if application of any portion of this final rule to a particular circumstance is determined to be invalid, the EPA intends that this rule remain applicable to all other circumstances.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This action is an economically significant regulatory action as defined under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to E.O. 12866 interagency review have been documented in the docket. From a 2024 rule baseline, the EPA estimated that this action would result in annualized cost savings of $61 million at a three percent discount rate, and $112 million at a seven percent discount rate.
The Agency also prepared monetized benefits, attempting to incorporate some of the current uncertainty in the industry changes, and as such are presenting a range of monetized benefits. EPA estimates this action would result in forgone benefits ranging between $3.3 million at the low end and $95 million to $232 million at the high end at a three percent discount rate; and between $3.3 million at the low end and $112 million to $271 million at the high end at a seven percent discount rate. See memorandum entitled “
This action is considered an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action. This final rule provides burden reduction by allowing additional time for the regulated community associated with their decision-making.
The information collection activities in this rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 7814.02 (OMB Control Number 2040-0313) and is included in the docket for this rule. The ICR is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
The EPA is promulgating several new reporting and recordkeeping requirements or changes as part of the final rule. First, to implement this rule's expanded transfer flexibilities, under CWA sections 304(i) and 308, this rule includes expanded reporting and
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the EPA will announce that approval in the
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the EPA concludes that the impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities and that the Agency is certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the rule relieves regulatory burden on the small entities subject to the rule. This action consists of a compliance date extension for the steam electric power generating industry, including small entities, which will allow for greater flexibility for compliance. The EPA has therefore concluded that this action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. In addition, the EPA previously certified that the 2024 rule, which had a higher cost burden than is anticipated for this action, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA (89 FR 40198).
As small entities were estimated to incur an estimated 21 percent of the annualized compliance costs for meeting BA, FGD, and managed CRL limitations in the 2024 rule analysis, the EPA expects that they may see a corresponding share of the estimated cost savings from the compliance date extension (
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes as specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA's analyses show that no plant subject to the final ELGs is owned by Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the Agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order.
Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.
This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The compliance date extensions would allow EGUs to continue operations with additional time for decision-making and will beneficially, rather than adversely, impact supply, distribution, or use.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Electric power generation, Power facilities, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 423 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1251
The revisions and addition read as follows:
(g) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Dischargers must meet the effluent limitations for FGD wastewater in this paragraph (g)(4)(i) by a date determined by the permitting authority that is as soon as possible beginning July 8, 2024, but no later than December 31, 2034. These effluent limitations apply to the discharge of FGD wastewater generated on and after the date determined by the permitting authority for meeting the effluent limitations, as specified in this paragraph (g)(4)(i).
(k) * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Except for those discharges to which paragraphs (k)(4)(ii) through (iv) of this section applies, or when the bottom ash transport water is used in the FGD scrubber, there shall be no discharge of pollutants in bottom ash transport water. Dischargers must meet the discharge limitation in this paragraph (k)(4)(i) by a date determined by the permitting authority that is as soon as possible beginning July 8, 2024, but no later than December 31, 2034. The limitation in this paragraph (k)(4)(i) applies to the discharge of bottom ash transport water generated on and after the date determined by the permitting authority for meeting the discharge limitation, as specified in this paragraph (k)(4)(i).
(l) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Dischargers must meet the effluent limitations for combustion residual leachate in this paragraph (l)(1)(i) by a date determined by the permitting authority that is as soon as possible beginning July 8, 2024, but no later than December 31, 2034. The effluent limitations in this paragraph (l)(1)(i) apply to the discharge of combustion residual leachate generated on and after the date determined by the permitting authority for meeting the effluent limitations, as specified in this paragraph (l)(1)(i).
(o) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) On or before December 31, 2034, a facility may convert:
(A) From the generally applicable zero discharge limitations under paragraphs (g)(4)(i), (k)(4)(i), or (l)(1)(i) of this section to limitations for electric generating units permanently ceasing coal combustion under paragraphs (g)(4)(iii), (k)(4)(iii), or (l)(2)(i) of this section; or
(B) From limitations for electric generating units permanently ceasing coal combustion under paragraphs (g)(4)(iii), (k)(4)(iii), or (l)(2)(i) of this section to the generally applicable zero discharge limitations under paragraphs (g)(4)(i), (k)(4)(i), or (l)(1)(i) of this section.
(e) * * *
(3)
(i) Dischargers must meet the standards in paragraph (e)(1) of this section by January 1, 2028. The standards in paragraph (e)(1) of this section apply to the discharge of FGD wastewater generated on and after January 1, 2028.
(ii) By the dates in paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section there shall be no discharge of pollutants in FGD wastewater:
(A) January 2, 2028; or
(B) Where a certification statement has been submitted pursuant to § 423.19(p), December 31, 2034.
(g) * * *
(3)
(i) Dischargers must meet the standards in paragraph (g)(1) of this section by January 1, 2028. The standards in paragraph (g)(1) of this section apply to the discharge of bottom ash transport water generated on and after January 1, 2028.
(ii) By the dates in paragraph (g)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section, there shall be no discharge of pollutants in bottom ash transport water:
(A) January 2, 2028; or
(B) Where a certification statement has been submitted pursuant to § 423.19(p), December 31, 2034.
(j) * * *
(1)
(i) Except for those discharges to which paragraph (j)(1)(ii) of this section applies, by the dates in paragraph (j)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section, there shall be no discharge of pollutants in combustion residual leachate:
(A) January 2, 2028; or
(B) Where a certification statement has been submitted pursuant to § 423.19(p), December 31, 2034.
(ii) After the retirement of all units at a facility, the quantity of pollutants in CRL shall not exceed the quantity determined by multiplying the flow of CRL permeate times the concentrations listed in the table 7 to § 423.13(g)(3)(i) or the flow of CRL distillate times the concentrations listed in the table in § 423.15(b)(13).
(d)(1) Notwithstanding the dates associated with any limitations in § 423.13(g), (k), or (l), a permitting authority shall establish, in a facility's permit, an alternative applicability date and, where appropriate, an associated schedule of milestones, for achieving the required limitations when the facility meets one of the circumstances in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, provided that the facility submits an initial request letter pursuant to § 423.19(q) and the permitting authority finds that request factually supported in the letter and attachments provided.
(2) Notwithstanding the dates associated with any notice of planned participation required to be submitted under § 423.19(g), (j), or (l), a permitting authority may accept a late notice of planned participation provided that the facility meets one of the circumstances in paragraph (d)(3) of this section, submits an initial request letter pursuant to § 423.19(q), and the permitting authority finds that request factually supported in the letter and attachments provided. Transfers pursuant to § 423.13(o)(1)(ii) but receiving alternative § 423.19(l) submission dates in this paragraph (d)(2) shall be deemed timely. In no case may a late notice of planned participation be accepted pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2) after December 31, 2028.
(3) Circumstances which a permitting authority shall find warrant an alternative applicability date or later notice of planned participation submission date based on factual support under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section include:
(i) Where a facility needs an alternative applicability date upon making a permissible transfer between limitations prior to the deadlines in § 423.13(o) due to:
(A) An unexpected change in regional capacity market prices; or
(B) An unexpected change in local demand which materially exceeds projections made in the most recent iterations of integrated resource plans or other planning documents;
(ii) Where a facility has one or more electric generating units using a wastewater treatment system treating combined wastewater (
(A) An unexpected change in regional capacity market prices; or
(B) An unexpected change in local demand which materially exceeds projections made in the most recent iterations of integrated resource plans or other planning documents;
(iii) Where a facility needs an alternative applicability date because it faces an unexpected supply chain issue that delays a necessary component (not merely a preferred component where there are reasonable substitutes) at a key stage of fabrication or installation such that the timeline for reaching steady-state treatment is delayed; or
(iv) Where a facility faces any other circumstance that requires additional time and is wholly outside both the facility's control and the facility's ability to plan for.
(4) A facility availing itself of this paragraph (d) may consider the alternative applicability dates or alternative notice of planned participation submission dates when evaluating compliance for purposes of § 423.13(o)(2).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, each facility subject to one or more of the reporting requirements in paragraphs (d) through (q) of this section must maintain a publicly accessible internet site (ELG website) containing the information specified in paragraphs (d) through (q) of this section, if applicable. This website shall be titled “ELG Rule Compliance Data and Information.” The facility must ensure that all information required to be posted is immediately available to anyone visiting the site, without requiring any prerequisite, such as registration or a requirement to submit a document request. All required information must be clearly identifiable and must be able to be immediately downloaded by anyone accessing the site in a format that enables additional analysis (
(h) * * *
(1)
(l)
(p)
(q)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) The estimated duration of the alternative applicability timing;
(ii) The timeframes of various milestones, tasks, and sub-tasks;
(iii) The number and magnitude of contingencies; and
(iv) Any other appropriate and relevant factor.
(5)
This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1060 to End, revised as of July 1, 2025, in section 1090.95, remove the second instances of paragraphs (c)(10) and (c)(20).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposal to grant.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant, with conditions, no-migration variances for four categories/groups of wastes, containing up to 250 temporary disposal units (“put piles”) at any one time, from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) standards at Clean Harbors' Grassy Mountain (Clean Harbors) commercial treatment, storage and disposal facility (TSDF) in Tooele County, UT. These variances will allow Clean Harbors to temporarily store treated hazardous wastes that are awaiting LDR compliance verification in put piles within their Subtitle C (hazardous waste) landfill. The petitioner demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal units for as long as the wastes remain hazardous. Additionally, once LDR compliance is verified, the put piles will be disposed within the onsite RCRA hazardous waste Landfill area and will be subject to the conditions set out in the Compliance Monitoring Plan section of this document.
Comments must be received on or before January 30, 2026.
You may send comments, identified by EPA-R08-RCRA-2025-0420, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Jesse Newland, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, mail code: 8LCR-RC-P, telephone number: (303) 312-6353, email address:
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2025-0420. All documents in the docket are listed in the
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-RCRA-2025-0420, at
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.
This action applies only to Clean Harbors' Grassy Mountain facility (Clean Harbors) located in Tooele County, Utah.
On July 16, 2024, Clean Harbors submitted to EPA a no-migration variance (NMV) petition, in accordance with 40 CFR 268.6, seeking an
Sections 3004(d) through (g) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6294(d)-(g), prohibit the land disposal of hazardous wastes unless such wastes meet the LDR treatment standards (“treatment standards”) established by EPA (“Agency”).
However, RCRA 3004(d)(1),
An NMV is a formal decision that can be rendered by the EPA in response to a petition filed with the Agency, to allow land disposal within a particular disposal unit, of specific prohibited waste when it has been demonstrated, “to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal unit . . . for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.”
The regulatory requirements for an NMV under the RCRA LDRs were codified in 40 CFR 268.6 in 1986,
Any instance where a waste pile does not meet the applicable LDR standards and an NMV has not been granted would violate LDR requirements—hazardous waste either must meet the LDR standards or have an approved NMV in place. To provide guidance specific to this circumstance, the EPA issued “
The 2023 guidance acknowledges the need for unique considerations when a no migration demonstration for put piles occurs within a Subtitle C Landfill prior to permanent disposal in the Landfill. “EPA expects that petitioners will be able to take advantage of existing facility information (
Approval of an NMV petition is delegated to the EPA Regional Administrator for the EPA Region in which the waste management unit is located. States are not authorized to implement the NMV authority; however, the EPA consulted with Utah prior to proposing to grant this NMV. The final decision will be published in the
40 CFR 268.6(e) acknowledges the potential for post-approval changes in conditions at the no migration unit(s) and/or the environment around the no migration unit(s). For purposes of these variances, these changes must be reported to the Regional Administrator of Region 8 (Region 8 Administrator) if these changes significantly depart from the conditions described in the variances and affect the potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the units as follows:
1. If Clean Harbors plans to make changes to the unit(s)' design, construction, or operation, such a change must be proposed, in writing, and include a demonstration to the Region 8 Administrator at least 30 days prior to making the change. The Region 8 Administrator will determine whether the proposed change invalidates the terms of the approved variance and will determine the appropriate response. Any change must be approved by the Region 8 Administrator prior to being made.
2. If Clean Harbors discovers that a condition at the site which was modeled or predicted in the petition does not occur as predicted, this change must be reported, in writing, to the Region 8 Administrator within 10 days of discovering the change. The Region 8 Administrator will determine whether the reported change from the terms of
On July 16, 2024, Clean Harbors' Grassy Mountain facility (Clean Harbors) in Tooele County, Utah, submitted an NMV petition to the EPA seeking an exemption from the LDR prohibition on placing hazardous waste on the ground, if that waste does not meet the prescribed LDR standards of 40 CFR 268.40, by demonstrating that for as long as the waste remains hazardous, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the disposal units. Clean Harbors' no migration demonstration applies to 250 put piles at any one time located within the facility's Subtitle C Landfill cell, known as “Cell 8,” Clean Harbors also requested that this variance proactively apply to future put piles of identical waste characteristics that would be staged in future proposed and permitted Subtitle C Landfill cells, known as “Cells 9 to 13.”
While this Notice of Proposal to Grant applies only to those put piles placed within existing Landfill Cell 8, upon permit approval of Landfill Cells 9, 10, 11, 12, and/or 13, Clean Harbors may submit to the Agency, an addendum to this petition to expand this NMV and all of its conditions and requirements, to the put piles within the new landfill cell(s) if:
1. Clean Harbors is in compliance with the approved NMV,
2. The new landfill cell(s) use the same disposal unit engineered controls concept (
3. The duration of temporary placement must remain at six (6) months or less and comply with the conditions established herein,
4. The waste categories remain the same, and
5. The monitoring program (
In response to EPA requests following the original July 2024 submission, Clean Harbors provided supplemental information for the Agency's evaluation of Clean Harbors' no-migration demonstration. The original petition and the response to Agency information requests (together referred to as “the petition”) can be found in the docket (EPA-R08-RCRA-2025-0420).
Clean Harbors' petition included the following components: (a) facility description, (b) site characterization, (c) identification and characterization of the affected wastes, (d) disposal unit engineered controls, (e) duration of temporary staging, (f) air pathway mitigation, (g) monitoring program, and (h) uncertainty analysis. These are discussed below.
Clean Harbors' Grassy Mountain facility (EPA ID Number: UTD991301748) is located three miles East and seven miles north of Knolls, Tooele County, Utah. The mean annual precipitation in the region is approximately 7.9 inches and 0.5 inches for rain and snow, respectively. The permitted facility, which covers an area of approximately 640 acres, with an additional 0.5-mile buffer along the perimeter, is expected to be in operation for more than ten years. A RCRA Part B Permit (hazardous waste permit) was issued by the EPA in 1998 and later transferred to the State of Utah for subsequent renewals. The latest renewal (signed on October 4, 2023) for a 10-year term, was issued by the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control.
Clean Harbors' hazardous waste permit authorizes the facility to manage liquid, solid or semisolid hazardous waste and non-hazardous industrial waste. The facility has three active hazardous waste Landfill cells, two of which are also authorized for disposal of PCB waste. Waste treatment services provided at the facility include solidification, stabilization and macro/microencapsulation of hazardous waste and evaporation of non-hazardous wastewater. Solid, liquid, and sludge wastes are accepted in containerized or bulk loads (
Currently, all put piles are temporarily stored in Landfill Cell 8 until LDR compliance has been confirmed, then compliant piles are moved to the working face of Landfill Cell 8. Put piles that fail to meet LDR standards are retreated and subsequently returned to a put pile in Landfill Cell 8. It is important to note that this variance, if approved, will apply to the each put pile and not to Landfill Cell 8. As stated in the 2023 guidance, where multiple piles contain the same or similar wastes, the petition can address these units as a group where such piles are effectively being managed as a single unit. As such, the Agency proposes that each of the four categories/groups of treated wastes described in the Waste Characterization section below will have its own variance; however, each put pile within each category/group will be assigned its own unit boundary.
Each put pile (approximately 35-cubic yards) is placed on a polyethylene barrier sheet (20-mil minimum thickness) within Landfill Cell 8. Because wastes are treated and presumed to meet LDR standards prior to placement in Landfill Cell 8, and storage in the petitioned units is temporary, the Agency has established unit boundaries (
The Agency proposes that the unit boundaries extend vertically one inch below the 20-mil thick polyethylene liner and laterally one foot short of the outermost surface edges of the 20-mil thick polyethylene liner. Air dispersion compliance will be demonstrated at the outer thickness of the Posi-Shell® liner.
In accordance with 40 CFR 268.6(a)(1), Clean Harbors indicated that the following four categories/groups of hazardous wastes and their underlying hazardous constituents (UHCs) found at 40 CFR 268.48 could be temporarily placed in the put piles after treatment to meet LDR standards: (1) general metals (D002, D004-D011); (2) cyanide/sulfide with metals (D002, D004 through D011, F006 through F012, F019); (3) high-chromium wastes (D002, D004 through D011, F006); and (4) ammonia (D002, D004-D011). These four waste categories/groups may be stabilized via treatment with any combination of the following reagents to prevent leaching: cement kiln dust, water, calcium polysulfide, ferrous sulfate, and sodium hypochlorite. The stabilization processes performed include the LDR technology standards for chemical oxidation (CHOXD), neutralization (NEUTR), chemical reduction (CHRED) and deactivation (DEACT).
Clean Harbors' hazardous waste treatment process for the four waste categories/groups is found in section 7, “Waste Treatment Process” of the facility's Waste Analysis Plan (WAP) dated July 25, 2025, available on the Utah Department of Environmental
40 CFR 268.6(b)(5) requires the petitioner to include an analysis to identify and quantify any aspects of the demonstration that contribute significantly to uncertainty. The analysis must include an evaluation of the consequences of predictable future events, including, but not limited to, earthquakes, floods, severe storm events, droughts, or other natural phenomena. This analysis has already been performed in conjunction with Clean Harbors' approved RCRA Part B permit for the broader landfill and as such, the Agency accepts Clean Harbors' uncertainty analysis as presented in the petition located in the docket.
The bases for the EPA's proposed conclusion that Clean Harbors has demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty that no hazardous constituents will migrate from the put piles for as long as the wastes remain hazardous are discussed in this section. Although wastes are treated with the intent of meeting the RCRA LDR standards prior to being placed in put piles, this NMV is a safeguard to ensure that any temporary storage of treated hazardous waste complies with statutory and regulatory standards, particularly in those instances where a treated hazardous waste placed in a temporary waste pile does not meet LDR standards. This NMV is conditioned upon the temporary nature of the put piles within Landfill Cell 8 and is intended for situations where the temporary waste piles are used as part of an overall strategy to confirm consistent and compliant treatment that meets the applicable LDR treatment standards.
Where reasonable, the Agency considered existing landfill design and operating requirements (40 CFR 264.301) that include run-on and run-off controls to prevent the migration of hazardous constituents beyond the designated unit boundary. Additional information including monitoring data and discussions regarding the temporary nature of these put piles (
i.
Clean Harbors provided analytical data indicating that approximately 95% of all waste treated met the LDR standards following the first treatment procedure, without the need for additional treatment; however, in the early 2020's the passing rate decreased, due to some wastes having higher than expected concentrations of certain constituents. Clean Harbors reanalyzed incoming waste streams to adjust their treatment recipe/methods. Continued improvement in treatment effectiveness was demonstrated from 2022 to the present. In 2022, 316 waste piles were treated and analyzed and 282 met post-treatment LDR standards, resulting in a net “pass rate” of 89.2%. In 2023, 345 waste piles were treated and analyzed and 317 met post-treatment LDR standards (91.9%). From January to March of 2024, 113 waste piles were treated and analyzed and 108 met post-treatment LDR standards (95.6%). By the end of March 2024, 126 waste piles were treated and analyzed and 121 met post-treatment LDR standards (96%). The results of these waste analyses are summarized in table A-1 of the petition located in the docket for today's document.
The sampling methodology used by Clean Harbors to verify compliance with LDR standards for the wastes post-treatment was deemed adequate for this NMV because: (1) verification samples were collected in accordance with the facility's approved WAP that requires sample(s) be collected from each batch of treated waste (see section 7.1 of the WAP: one batch is generally equivalent to the volume of one put pile; (2) the samples were collected and analyzed over extended periods of time to demonstrate long-term compliance history; (3) the treated wastes were analyzed for compliance with UTS for UHCs likely to be found in the wastes; and (4) pass or fail determinations for LDR compliance were presented for all wastes sampled and net pass rates were calculated from these determinations as described in the preceding paragraph. The current pass rate for temporarily staged subject waste piles exceeds 95%, demonstrating that these put piles do not routinely receive treated wastes that do not meet applicable LDR standards, thereby supporting the “temporary” nature of storage for each waste category. The Agency concludes that Clean Harbors has provided sufficient waste characterization information in its petition to support the conclusion of treatment effectiveness.
ii.
iii.
The put piles will be encapsulated (liner below and Posi-Shell® atop) by the unit-specific engineered barriers discussed below to prevent migration of hazardous constituents beyond the waste pile boundary. These unit-specific barriers are distinct from the existing landfill controls, such as run-on and run-off controls, that were considered in the overall prevention of migration of hazardous constituents.
A liner of at least 20-mil thickness polyethylene geomembrane must be used as a barrier to vertical and lateral migration for the put piles. The liner beneath the pile will provide a barrier for vertical migration. The Agency agrees that a minimum of 20-mil thickness barrier is sufficient for this temporary application that will last six (6) months or less. Because the layout of the put piles is accommodated within the standard width of a pre-fabricated geomembrane roll, the liner must be one solid piece without the need for welding of seams. The lack of seams lends to additional assurance that migration of hazardous constituents will not migrate through a broken seam. The Agency concludes that a liner of at least 20-mil thickness, in conjunction with the inspection program described in the Compliance Monitoring Program section, is appropriate for use in this temporary disposal scenario; however, there must always be at least 12 inches of the liner visible on all sides of the waste pile to prevent potential migration of the waste from the edge of the liner.
Clean Harbors will use a Posi-Shell® cover to act as a rain and wind barrier for put piles, to ensure no migration of hazardous constituents from the waste piles occurs via lateral migration or air pathways. Posi-Shell® is a spray-applied mortar applied as a coating to the surface of the put piles, with a minimum cover thickness of
To ensure Posi-Shell® is appropriate for put pile covering, the Agency reviewed several case studies provided by Clean Harbors where Posi-Shell® was demonstrated to prevent erosion, air dispersion, infiltration of rainwater, and overall migration of wastes. Table 2 in the petition located in the docket summarizes these case studies.
The Agency concludes that Posi-Shell®, or under the limited inclement weather circumstances described above, a minimum 20-mil polyethylene sheeting cover, will serve as an appropriate barrier to protect the put pile from wind dispersion, erosion and rainwater infiltration.
Before placing the put piles in the temporary storage area of Landfill Cell 8, Clean Harbors must grade the temporary storage area where waste piles will be located. The grading must be relatively flat but with a slight positive grade to preclude ponding of water on the polyethylene liners. If one does not yet exist, a diversion berm of sufficient height/width to direct run-on away from the area must be constructed upgradient of the staging area. As Landfill Cell 8 is filled, if the waste grade changes adjacent to the put pile temporary storage area, additional diversion berms must be added, where necessary, to divert stormwater run-on and run-off to isolate the staging area on the working face of Landfill Cell 8. To control run-off, in addition to the Posi-shell® coating, Clean Harbors will include depressions in the waste and ditches around the inside perimeter of Landfill Cell 8 embankments. In combination with General Surrounding Area Engineered Controls described below, these controls must be constructed and operated to contain the water volume of a 24-hour, 100-year storm event.
iv.
v.
vi.
Clean Harbors must maintain at the facility a put pile monitoring plan that includes, at a minimum, components (1-15) below, many of which were included by Clean Harbors in the petition and the Agency adopts as proposed.
Deficiencies identified during inspection must be remedied/repaired to ensure no migration of hazardous constituents occurs. Deficiencies may include but are not limited to: cracking, breakdown or insufficient application of the Posi-Shell cover; gaps, tears or holes in plastic sheeting utilized for the management of the unit; presence of stormwater run-on flow and/or ponded water; visibly exposed waste; poor overall pile condition. Deficiencies must be remedied within one (1) week of discovery and remedies must be recorded in the facility's operating record.
Deficiencies described by this section must be remedied regardless of whether Clean Harbors determines that a migration of hazardous constituents has occurred or may have occurred, if LDR compliance analyses of the waste in the unit is not yet available. If Clean Harbors determines that there has been a migration of hazardous constituents from any of the units, or is unable to remedy any deficiency within one (1) week of discovery, Clean Harbors must immediately suspend receipt of prohibited waste at the put pile and notify the Region 8 Administrator, in writing, within ten (10) days of the determination that a release has occurred.
1. Review and tracking of LDR standard “pass rates” for put piles. To ensure that the waste piles are only being “temporarily stored,” as described in the February 2023 guidance, if the failure rate of the initial verification test for treated put piles exceeds 5% in a calendar month, Clean Harbors must conduct a root cause analysis and adjust the treatment protocol for the affected category of waste.
2. Inspection of the temporary staging area for put piles prior to deploying the 20-mil polyethylene liner. The underlying area must be free of large or rigid objects that may damage the liner.
3. Observing that the liner is not displaced or damaged during placement of the waste piles on the liner to confirm the integrity of the liner beneath a waste pile. A damaged liner must be replaced with a new liner.
4. Daily inspection of covered waste piles to verify integrity of the liner, cover, and overall pile condition. Inspectors must, at a minimum, check for (1) signs of stormwater run-on flow that has or is migrating towards a put pile, or other signs of potential for put pile erosion, undermining, or washout of the waste encapsulation barriers; (2) damage from strong winds, heavy rain, or other extreme weather events (
5. Appropriate Posi-Shell® application. Adhering to inclement weather application prohibitions as recommended by the manufacturer. If a waste pile is unable to be immediately covered with a Posi-Shell® (
6. Verify 100% coverage of Posi-Shell® is achieved over the entire waste pile (no bare or thin spots).
7. Confirm that the minimum
8. Confirm that the Posi-Shell® cover is sufficiently set (hardened) before a moderate to heavy rainfall event.
9. Promptly re-apply Posi-Shell® cover if any deficiencies are identified during application, including but not limited to lack of coverage, thickness, or hardening.
10. Checking for loss of 100% coverage of Posi-Shell®, or other signs of cover degradation (imminent potential for loss of effectiveness or thickness).
11. Remove ponded water on the landfill surface that could affect the put piles.
12. Modify, as needed, run-on controls to continue to divert surface water around the waste pile staging area.
13. Maintain or alter, as appropriate, landfill grading to prevent put pile run-on.
14. Isolate the four categories/groups of put piles from each other.
15. Maintain landfill equipment.
The Agency proposes that Clean Harbors has successfully demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents beyond the unit boundary for treated hazardous wastes temporarily stored in put piles within their permitted Subtitle C hazardous waste Landfill Cell 8 while awaiting LDR compliance verification.
Therefore, EPA proposes to grant, with conditions, no-migration variances for the four categories/groups of wastes designated herein, containing up to 250 put piles at any one time at Clean Harbors' Grassy Mountain TSD.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is announcing the extension of the Application Fast Track (AFT) pilot program that was published August 3, 2023 (88 FR 51260-51265), and extended September 30, 2024 (89 FR 79504), which continues the expedited processing of qualified direct Operating Loans (OL) and Farm Ownership Loans (FO) to family farmers and ranchers. AFT has been available to all customers nationwide since January 1, 2024. AFT is being extended to allow for an expanded number of applicants that qualify for AFT and to allow FSA time to make the program permanent through publication of a final rule. FSA will see the pilot run until December 31, 2026 or until the aforementioned final rule is published, whichever is sooner. This will allow time for FSA to continue to evaluate the administrative effectiveness of AFT while drafting the final rule. The initial results of AFT reflect a significant improvement in processing times for all customers, and FSA is continuing to monitor loan performance, and overall satisfaction with the AFT pilot program from both customers and staff.
The effective date for the extension of AFT as provided in this notice is December 30, 2025.
Houston Bruck; telephone: (202) 650-7874; email:
FSA is extending the “Application Fast Track” that was published August 3, 2023 (88 FR 51260-51265), which continues the expedited processing of qualified direct OLs and FOs to family farmers and ranchers. AFT provides an alternative underwriting process for applicants that meet certain financial benchmarks. AFT has been available to all customers nationwide since January 1, 2024. FSA is expanding AFT, enabling an increased number of applicants to qualify for the streamlined AFT process and will see the pilot run until December 31, 2026 or until FSA publishes a final rule to codify the program, whichever is sooner. All other AFT pilot provisions are unchanged in this notice from what was announced in the August 3, 2023, notice.
The August 3, 2023 notice that originally announced the pilot program (88 FR 51260-51265) provided specific details regarding which sections of 7 CFR parts 761, 764, and 765 were waived for the pilot program because they would have been contradictory to the alternative underwriting process that AFT provides. Those sections of the CFR will be amended before December 31, 2026, to permanently codify the alternative underwriting process provided by AFT. The affected sections of the CFR are: 7 CFR 761.8(a); 7 CFR 761.103(b)(6) and (7); 7 CFR 761.103(c)(2) and (4); 7 CFR 761.104 (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g); 7 CFR 764.107(b)(1); 7 CFR 764.154(a)(2); 7 CFR 764.154(b) and (b)(1); 7 CFR 764.254(a)(2); 7 CFR 764.254(b)(2); 7 CFR 764.401(a)(1)(i) and (b)(1); 7 CFR 764.453(a) and (b); and 7 CFR 765.105(b).
The authority to conduct AFT is provided in section 333D of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT, 7 U.S.C. 1983d), which authorizes pilot projects of limited scope and duration to evaluate processes and techniques to improve program efficiency and effectiveness.
The initial results of AFT reflect a significant improvement in processing times for all customers, with no impact to portfolio performance and loan repayment. FSA is continuing to monitor loan performance, overall satisfaction with the AFT pilot program from both customers and staff, and the administrative effectiveness of AFT. The initial results of the AFT pilot program have resulted in approximately 23 percent of customers qualifying for AFT, with significant reduction in processing time for those applications of approximately 8 calendar days. FSA portfolio performance, loan repayment rates, and delinquency rates, have not been impacted by AFT.
Questions on AFT may be directed to the Farm Loan Programs staff in the local FSA county office. The local FSA county office may be found at
In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), there are no changes to the information collection approved by OMB under control numbers 0560-0236 and 0560-0237.
The environmental impacts have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the USDA regulation for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 1b).
The purpose of AFT is to improve internal underwriting processes to expedite Farm Loan Programs application processing. The limited discretionary aspects of AFT do not have the potential to impact the human environment as they are administrative. Accordingly, these discretionary aspects are covered by the FSA Categorical Exclusions specified in 7 CFR 1b.4(c)(1)(i) that applies to Farm Loan Programs, provided no extraordinary circumstances are found to exist. As such, the implementation of AFT and the participation in AFT do not constitute major Federal actions that would significantly affect the quality of
The title and number of the Federal assistance programs, as found in the Assistance Listing, to which this document applies is 10.406 Farm Operating Loans and 10.407 Farm Ownership Loans.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision of a currently approved information collection request associated with the Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP).
We will consider comments that we receive by March 2, 2026.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by this method:
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Jenae Orso.
For specific questions related to collection activity, contact Jenae Orso; (229) 850-0194; email:
OCCSP provides cost share assistance to producers and handlers of agricultural products for the costs of obtaining or maintaining organic certification under the National Organic Program (NOP). Section 10606 of H.R. 1 (Pub. L. 119-21, also referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”) authorized $10,000,000 in National OCCSP funding for fiscal years 2025 through 2031 (7 U.S.C. 6523(d)). An additional $1,000,000 in Agricultural Management Assistance funding is available for each fiscal year (7 U.S.C. 1524(b)). This notice announces that FSA is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision of a currently approved information collection request associated with OCCSP. FSA will announce the OCCSP application periods for certified organic operations and State Agencies in a future final rule.
To receive cost share assistance, producers and handlers submit an application form and itemized invoices showing expenses paid to a third-party certifying agency for certification services during the fiscal year for which the application is submitted. Producers and handlers who apply through State Agencies must also submit a W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification. Producers and handlers who apply through FSA county office must submit AD-2047, Customer Data Worksheet, and SF-3881, ACH Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment Form, if not already on file with FSA.
FSA also accepts applications from State Agencies to establish grant agreements to administer OCCSP for producers and handlers in their States. Participating State Agencies will submit SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance; a signed Notice of Grant and Agreement Award; SF-425, Federal Financial Report; an annual narrative report, and an annual spreadsheet of organic operations that were reimbursed for eligible expenses. State Agencies will also submit at least one SF-270, Request for Advance of Reimbursement; for the purpose of calculating the burden for this collection, FSA has used an estimate of 2 responses for SF-270, which is the average number submitted by respondents annually in recent years.
FSA is requesting a revision of the approved information collection. The revisions are due to adjustments to the estimated number of respondents based on program participation in recent years, changes to the estimated hours per response for some responses to accurately reflect the time necessary to complete them, updates to reflect the forms currently used for FSA programs to administer grant agreements and collect respondent information, and changes to accurately account for exempt burden hours. For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per response hours multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the
(3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.
Q-Edge Corporation (Q-Edge) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Houston, Texas within FTZ 84. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 19, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: plastic air guide hood; laptop; tablet; desktop computer; server; main logic board; motherboard with data processing function; keyboard; notebook sub-assembly; stylus pen; solid-state drive-storage unit for data; projection module; aluminum alloy keycap; antenna for microcomputer; expansion circuit board for audio and video with USB interface; back cover for tablets made of aluminum alloy; plastic conduits to hold wires; cover assembly of aluminum alloy; steel or plastic; cushioning pad made of plastic; fixed steel clamp; fixed steel frame for computer; plastic front cover for computers and servers; laptop computer upper casing made of aluminum alloy; laptop; memory expansion interface circuit board; computer case frame made of aluminum alloy; network interface expansion circuit board and interface card; network interface card; protective plastic cover computers, server and pencil; tablet computer keyboard with motherboard and protective cover; tablet computer keyboard; server motherboard with central processing unit; stylus pen for use with tablet; cell phone; smart TV streaming module with wireless network adapter; smartwatch; Bluetooth audio device; antenna module for smartphone; smartwatch main logic board; smart phone main logic board; semi-finished assembly for smartwatch; smartwatch back cover assembly; speaker module; sub-assembly receiver; mainboard for earphones; touchscreen with liquid crystal display for tablet; organic light-emitting diode display module for smartwatch; display assembly for smart phone; camera lens; camera module; driver circuit board for display; rear camera module; power switch panel without signal transmission lines; light emitting diode; touch panel for tablets and servers; ringer device; and, laser radar scanning module (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 4.50%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: double-sided adhesive tape; hot melt adhesive film; solder paste; humidity indicator sheet made of cellulose-based paper with reactive dye; composite electromagnetic shielding sheet used to prevent interference; thermal conductive sheet made of silicone and alumina; heat gel; plastic pellets of polyethylene; plastic granules acrylonitrile butadiene styrene; polyethylene with primary shape of formaldehyde; plastic granules of polycarbonate; plastic granules of polycarbonate and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene with polycarbonate content greater than 50%; plastic granules of high-performance polyamides; plastic granules of high-performance polyamides; plastic granules of polyamides; heat resistant labels; self-adhesive protective film made of polyethylene foam for support and protection of goods; protective film of ethylene; polypropylene protective film; acrylic plastic sheet; polycarbonate protective film; protective polyethylene terephthalate plastic film; polyurethane protective film; plastic synthetic leather foam; plastic foam for protection and support of servers; silicone rubber cushion pad; plastic protective cover for tablets; sulfurized rubber shim; vulcanized rubber sealing gasket; vulcanized rubber spacer; protective paper dustproof separator; polyester fiber conductive and antistatic mesh fabric for microphone; glass panel for laptop; fiberglass and resin support board for tablet keyboard; fiberglass spacer; cold-rolled stainless-steel strip; steel acoustic module temporary screw; steel stud and rod with diameter greater than 6mm; steel nut; steel spacer; steel washer; steel button holder; steel spring; steel spiral spring; steel test block; titanium copper alloy foil; tinfoil; phosphor bronze foil; copper gasket; copper slotted nuts copper; copper nut; brass nut; copper spring; aluminum alloy extrusion; aluminum alloy rectangular thick plate; aluminum foil with padding and paper backing; aluminum rivets; aluminum studs; aluminum alloy test block; aluminum spacer; standard black of tantalum; subscriber identity module card ejector; chain link made of steel; stainless steel, glass and plastic decorative name plate; plastic heat dissipation fan; plastic air guide hood; laptop computer; motherboard with central processing unit; main logic board for tablet, computers, and servers; keyboard for tablet; touchpad for laptop; notebook computer bottom casing components of aluminum alloy; magnet and steel absorption strip; antenna with cover; steel axle protection cover; backlight module; backlight panel; built-in microphone with acoustic protection cover; steel dust net; plastic clips; plastic buttons; aluminum alloy computer cover; copper and polyester fiber conductive film; stainless steel connection bar; plastic and steel fixed mounting bracket; plastic and steel fixed board; plastic steel fixed bar, brackets and clips; plastic and steel fixed brackets; plastic and teel fixed clips; metal (stainless steel/copper/alloy) or conductive composite electromagnetic shielding; glass protective panel; heat sink; interface extension circuit board; keyboard panel; fiberglass and resin keyboard mounting block; keypad function control circuit board; light emitting diode indicator circuit board; light sensing circuit board; motherboard (without CPU); heatsink without fan for passive cooling; protective screen with casing; strip non-wired coated float
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Brian Warnes at
P.J. Wallbank Springs, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Port Huron, Michigan within FTZ 210. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on December 29, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include parts of clutches for motor transport vehicles (duty rate of 2.5%).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include stamped steel (duty rate of 2.9%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (section 1702) or section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 1702 and section 232 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the
For further information, contact Brian Warnes at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that overhead door counterbalance torsion springs (overhead door springs) from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation is October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024.
Applicable December 31, 2025.
Seth Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0029.
On June 2, 2025, Commerce published in the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that followed the
The products covered by this investigation are overhead door springs from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
Alcomex informed Commerce prior to verification that it was withdrawing from participation as a mandatory respondent in this investigation.
All issues raised by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as Appendix II.
Because Alcomex withdrew from participation in this investigation prior to verification, we determine that Alcomex's data cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination in this investigation because this data could not be verified. We further determine that Alcomex significantly impeded the investigation and did not act to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information. Therefore, we also find it appropriate to base Alcomex's dumping margin on AFA. For further discussion,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding rates that are zero,
Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero,
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Because Commerce applied AFA to the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, Alcomex, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the petition, there are no calculations to disclose for this final determination, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with sections 733(d)(1)(B) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of overhead door springs from India, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after March 4, 2025, 90 days prior to the date of publication of the
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue an antidumping duty order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 736(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) of overhead door springs from India no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This final determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is helically-wound, overhead door counterbalance torsion steel springs (overhead door counterbalance torsion springs) and any cones, plugs or other similar fittings for mounting and creating torque in the spring (herein collectively referred to as cones) attached to or entered with and invoiced with the subject overhead door counterbalance torsion springs. Overhead door counterbalance torsion springs are helical steel springs with tightly wound coils that store and release mechanical energy by winding and unwinding along the spring's axis by an angle, using torque to create a lifting force in the counterbalance assembly typically used to raise and lower overhead doors, including garage doors, industrial rolling doors, warehouse doors, trailer doors, and other overhead doors, gates, grates, or similar devices. The merchandise covered by this investigation covers all overhead door counterbalance torsion springs with a coil inside diameter of 15.8 millimeters (mm) or more but not exceeding 304.8 mm (measured across the diameter from inner edge to inner edge); a wire diameter of 2.5 mm to 20.4 mm; a length of 127 mm or more; and regardless of the following characteristics:
• wire type (including, but not limited to, oil-tempered wire, hard-drawn wire, music wire, galvanized or other coated wire);
• wire cross-sectional shape (
• coating (
• winding orientation (left-hand or right-hand wind direction);
• end type (including, but not limited to, looped, double looped, clipped, long length, mini warehouse, Barcol, Crawford, Kinnear, Wagner, rolling steel or barrel ends); and
• whether the overhead door counterbalance torsion springs are fitted with hardware, including but not limited to fasteners, clips, and cones (winding or stationary cones).
For purposes of the diameters referenced above, where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above.
The steel torsion springs included in the scope of this investigation are produced from steel in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight.
Subject merchandise includes cones attached to or entered with and invoiced with the subject overhead door counterbalance torsion springs. Such cones, which are typically cast aluminum, aluminum alloy or steel (but may be made from other materials) are made to mount the subject springs to the overhead door counterbalance system and create and maintain torque in the spring. Cones or other similar fittings that are not attached to the subject springs or are not entered with and invoiced with the subject springs are not included within the scope unless entered as parts of kits as described below.
Subject merchandise also includes all subject overhead door counterbalance torsion springs and cones or other similar fittings for mounting and tensioning the spring entered as a part of overhead door kits, overhead door mounting or assembly kits, or as a part of a spring-operated motor assembly or as a part of a spring winder assembly kit for torsion springs. When counterbalance torsion springs and cones or other similar fittings for attaching and tensioning the torsion spring are entered as a part of such kits, only the counterbalance spring and cones or other similar fittings in the kit are within scope.
Subject merchandise also includes overhead door counterbalance torsion springs that have been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to cutting to length, attachment of hardware, cones or end-fittings, inclusion in garage door kits or garage door mounting or assembly kits, or any other processing that would not remove the merchandise from the scope of this investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope overhead door counterbalance torsion springs.
All products that meet the written physical description are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• leaf springs (slender arc-shaped length of spring steel of a rectangular cross-section);
• disc springs (conical springs consisting of a convex disc with the outer edge working against the center of the disc);
• extension springs (close-wound round helical wire springs that store and release energy by resisting the external pulling forces applied to the spring's ends in the direction of its length);
• compression springs (helical coiled springs with open wound active coils (such open winding is also known as pitch) that are designed to compress under load or force); and
• spiral springs (torsion springs wound as concentric spirals such as a clock spring or mainspring).
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7320.20.5020, 7320.20.5045, and 7320.20.5060. They may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 8412.90.9085 if entered as parts of spring-operated motors. They may also be classified in HTSUS subheading 8412.80.1000 (spring-operated motors) if entered as part of a spring counterweight assembly for an overhead door. They may also be classified in HTSUS subheading 7308.90.9590, a basket category that includes metal garage doors entered with mounting accessories or assemblies. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable December 29, 2025.
Mira Warrier and Jerry Xiao, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-8031 and (202) 482-2273, respectively.
On June 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of L-Lysine (Lysine) from the People's Republic of China.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1)(A)(b)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On October 10, 2025, the petitioner
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of overhead door counterbalance torsion springs (overhead door springs) from India. The period of investigation is January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023.
Applicable December 31, 2025.
Zachary Shaykin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2638.
On April 3, 2025, Commerce published its
For a complete description of the events that followed the
The products covered by this investigation are overhead door springs from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intended to conduct verification of the sales and benefit information submitted by Alcomex Springs Pvt Ltd. (Alcomex) for use in our final determination. However, because Alcomex withdrew its participation from this investigation prior to Commerce's verification, Commerce did not conduct verification.
The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For the list of the issues raised by parties, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
Because Alcomex withdrew from participation in this investigation prior to verification, we determine that Alcomex's data cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching a determination in this investigation because this data could not be verified. We further determine that Alcomex significantly impeded the investigation and did not act to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information. Therefore, we also find it appropriate to base Alcomex's countervailable subsidy rate on AFA. For further discussion,
We made certain changes to the countervailable subsidy rate for Alcomex, certain non-selected respondents in this investigation, and all other producers and/or exporters of overhead door springs from India since the
Commerce preliminarily determined, in accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), that critical circumstances exist with respect to overhead door springs from India produced and/or exported by Alcomex, the non-responsive companies,
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, if the individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Because Commerce applied AFA to the sole mandatory respondent, respondents not selected for individual examination, and all-other producers and/or exporters of subject merchandise in this investigation, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, there are no calculations to disclose for this final determination pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with sections 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) and 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, and pursuant to our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of overhead door springs from India. Because the final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of molded fiber products from India no later than 45 days after this final determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded.
If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is helically-wound, overhead door counterbalance torsion steel springs (overhead door counterbalance torsion springs) and any cones, plugs or other similar fittings for mounting and creating torque in the spring (herein collectively referred to as cones) attached to or entered with and invoiced with the subject overhead door counterbalance torsion springs. Overhead door counterbalance torsion springs are helical steel springs with tightly wound coils that store and release mechanical energy by winding and unwinding along the spring's axis by an angle, using torque to create a lifting force in the counterbalance assembly typically used to raise and lower overhead doors, including garage doors, industrial rolling doors, warehouse doors, trailer doors, and other overhead doors, gates, grates, or similar devices. The merchandise covered by this investigation covers all overhead door counterbalance torsion springs with a coil inside diameter of 15.8 millimeters (mm) or more but not exceeding 304.8 mm (measured across the diameter from inner edge to inner edge); a wire diameter of 2.5 mm to 20.4 mm; a length of 127 mm or more; and regardless of the following characteristics:
• wire type (including, but not limited to, oil-tempered wire, hard-drawn wire, music wire, galvanized or other coated wire);
• wire cross-sectional shape (
• coating (
• winding orientation (left-hand or right-hand wind direction);
• end type (including, but not limited to, looped, double looped, clipped, long length, mini warehouse, Barcol, Crawford, Kinnear, Wagner, rolling steel or barrel ends); and
• whether the overhead door counterbalance torsion springs are fitted with hardware, including but not limited to fasteners, clips, and cones (winding or stationary cones).
For purposes of the diameters referenced above, where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above.
The steel torsion springs included in the scope of this investigation are produced from steel in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; and (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight.
Subject merchandise includes cones attached to or entered with and invoiced with the subject overhead door counterbalance torsion springs. Such cones, which are typically cast aluminum, aluminum alloy or steel (but may be made from other materials) are made to mount the subject springs to the overhead door counterbalance system and create and maintain torque in the spring. Cones or other similar fittings that are not attached to the subject springs or are not entered with and invoiced with the subject springs are not included within the scope unless entered as parts of kits as described below.
Subject merchandise also includes all subject overhead door counterbalance torsion springs and cones or other similar fittings for mounting and tensioning the spring entered as a part of overhead door kits, overhead door mounting or assembly kits, or as a part of a spring-operated motor assembly or as a part of a spring winder assembly kit for torsion springs. When counterbalance torsion springs and cones or other similar fittings for attaching and tensioning the torsion spring are entered as a part of such kits, only the counterbalance spring and cones or other similar fittings in the kit are within scope. Subject merchandise also includes overhead door counterbalance torsion springs that have been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to cutting to length,
• leaf springs (slender arc-shaped length of spring steel of a rectangular cross-section);
• disc springs (conical springs consisting of a convex disc with the outer edge working against the center of the disc);
• extension springs (close-wound round helical wire springs that store and release energy by resisting the external pulling forces applied to the spring's ends in the direction of its length);
• compression springs (helical coiled springs with open wound active coils (such open winding is also known as pitch) that are designed to compress under load or force); and
• spiral springs (torsion springs wound as concentric spirals such as a clock spring or mainspring).
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7320.20.5020, 7320.20.5045 and 7320.20.5060. They may also be classified under HTSUS subheading 8412.90.9085 if entered as parts of spring-operated motors. They may also be classified in HTSUS subheading 8412.80.1000 (spring-operated motors) if entered as part of a spring counterweight assembly for an overhead door. They may also be classified in HTSUS subheading 7308.90.9590, a basket category that includes metal garage doors entered with mounting accessories or assemblies.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain producers of exporters of carbazole violet pigment 23 (pigment) from India received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022.
Applicable December 31, 2025.
Brian Warnes, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0028.
On April 14, 2025, Commerce published the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
The product covered by this
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
Based on our review and analysis of the information received during this segment and comments received from parties, for this final determination, we made certain changes to the countervailable subsidy rate calculations for Meghmani, Gharda, and
As a result of this review, Commerce determines the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed in connection with these final results to interested parties within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies subject to this review for shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate (20.55 percent)
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On December 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in
Applicable December 22, 2025.
Dmitry Vladimirov, AD/CVD
On February 22, 2022, Commerce published its
On May 31, 2024, the CIT remanded the
On December 11, 2025, the CIT sustained Commerce's final remand redetermination.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its
Commerce will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for: (1) Hunan Sinoboom Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd.; (2) Mantall Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.; (3) Noblelift Intelligent Equipment Co., Ltd.; (4) Oshkosh JLG (Tianjin) Equipment Technology Co., Ltd.; (5) Sany Marine Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.; (6) Terex (Changzhou) Machinery Co., Ltd.; (7) Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd.; and (8) Xuzhou Construction Machinery Group Fire-Fighting Safety Equipment Co., Ltd.
Because Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co., Ltd., has a superseding cash deposit
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received a covered merchandise referral from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in connection with a CBP investigation concerning alleged evasion of the antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the People's Republic of China (China). Commerce is initiating a covered merchandise inquiry to determine whether the merchandise described in the referral is subject to the AD/CVD orders on OCTG from China. Interested parties are invited to comment and submit factual information addressing this initiation.
Applicable December 31, 2025.
Harrison Tanchuck, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-7421.
Section 517(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides a procedure whereby if, during the course of an Enforce and Protect Act (EAPA) investigation, CBP is unable to determine whether the merchandise at issue is covered merchandise within the meaning of section 517(a)(3) of the Act, it shall refer the matter to Commerce to make such a determination. Section 517(a)(3) of the Act defines covered merchandise as merchandise that is subject to an AD order issued under section 736 of the Act or a CVD order issued under section 706 of the Act. Section 517(b)(4)(B) of the Act states that Commerce, after receiving a covered merchandise referral from CBP, shall determine whether the merchandise is covered merchandise and promptly transmit its determination to CBP. Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.227 establish procedures for covered merchandise referrals that Commerce receives from CBP in connection with an EAPA investigation.
On December 1, 2025, Commerce received a sufficient covered merchandise referral from CBP regarding CBP EAPA Investigation No. 8143
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(b)(1), Commerce is hereby notifying interested parties that it is initiating a covered merchandise inquiry to determine whether the merchandise subject to the referral is covered merchandise within the meaning of section 517(a)(3) of the Act. Additionally, Commerce intends to provide interested parties with the opportunity to participate in this segment of the proceeding, including through the submission of comments and factual information, and, if appropriate, verification. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(m)(2), Commerce is initiating a single inquiry regarding the merchandise described in the covered merchandise referral on the record of the AD proceeding. Upon issuance of a final covered merchandise determination, Commerce will include a copy of the determination on the record of the CVD proceeding.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(d)(1), within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties are permitted one opportunity to submit comments and factual information addressing the initiation. Within 14 days of the filing of such comments, any interested party is permitted one opportunity to submit comments and factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by the other interested parties.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(d)(2), following initiation of a covered merchandise inquiry, Commerce may also issue questionnaires and verify submissions
In certain circumstances, Commerce may issue a preliminary determination as to whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the product that is subject to the covered merchandise inquiry is covered by the scope of the AD/CVD orders. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.227(c), Commerce intends to issue a final determination within 120 days of the publication of this notice (this deadline may be extended if Commerce determines that good cause exists to warrant an extension). Promptly after publication of Commerce's final determination, Commerce will convey a copy of the final determination in the manner prescribed by section 516A(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act to all parties to the proceeding and Commerce will transmit its final determination to CBP in accordance with section 517(b)(4)(B) of the Act.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.227(d)(5), during the pendency of this proceeding, Commerce may rescind, in whole or in part, a covered merchandise inquiry. Situations in which Commerce may rescind a covered merchandise inquiry include if CBP withdraws its covered merchandise referral or if Commerce determines that it can address CBP's covered merchandise referral in another segment of the proceeding. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(c)(3), Commerce may align the deadlines of this covered merchandise inquiry with the deadlines of another segment of the proceeding if it determines it is appropriate to do so.
Parties are hereby notified that this may be the only notice that Commerce publishes in the
The merchandise covered by the
The merchandise covered by the
The OCTG coupling stock covered by the
The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only, the written description of the scope of the
The covered merchandise inquiry will address whether the scope covers the OCTG produced by Boly Pipe in Thailand out of steel billets
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via ACCESS, unless an exception applies.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.227(l)(1), Commerce will notify CBP of the initiation of the covered merchandise inquiry and direct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of entries of products subject to the covered merchandise inquiry that were already subject to the suspension of liquidation, and to apply the cash deposit rate that would be applicable if the product were determined to be covered by the scope of the
Interested parties that wish to participate in this segment of the proceeding and be added to the public service list for this segment of the proceeding must file a letter of appearance in accordance with 19 CFR 351.103(d)(1), with one exception: the relevant parties to CBP's EAPA investigation publicly identified by CBP in the covered merchandise referral referenced above are not required to submit a letter of appearance and will be added to the public service list for this segment of the proceeding by Commerce.
Commerce placed an APO on the record on December 4, 2025.
Representatives of interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under the APO in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to this segment of the proceeding, with one exception: APO applicants representing the parties that have been identified by CBP as an importer in the covered merchandise referral (referenced above) are exempt from the additional filing requirements for importers pursuant to 19 CFR 351.305(d).
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 517(b)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.227(b).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that polypropylene corrugated boxes from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable December 31, 2025.
Alex Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4956.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 14, 2025.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation are polypropylene corrugated boxes from Vietnam. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Commerce has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, Commerce has calculated normal value in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Furthermore, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, Commerce preliminarily has relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, for the Vietnam-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's preliminary determination,
In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from Vietnam for the Vietnam-wide entity but do not exist for mandatory respondent Viet Nam Jia Bao Rui Company Limited (Jia Bao Rui). For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis,
In the
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Commerce intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, correct any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise, as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. Commerce preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise from the Vietnam-wide entity. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to all unliquidated entries of merchandise from the Vietnam-wide entity that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On December 19, 2025, pursuant to section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(i) and (ii), Jia Bao Rui requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is polypropylene corrugated boxes. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are boxes, bins, totes, or other load-bearing containers made for holding goods, that are made of corrugated polypropylene sheets, also known as polypropylene hollow core sheets, polypropylene fluted sheets, polypropylene twin wall sheets, or multi wall sheets. Such polypropylene sheets are “corrugated,” “fluted,” or “hollow core,” meaning the inside of the sheet contains channels or pockets of air which make the sheets lightweight, while retaining strength and durability. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are typically produced from a plastic resin consisting of 50 percent or more polypropylene. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are covered by the scope irrespective of the particular mix of polypropylene homo-polymer, polypropylene co-polymer, recycled or virgin polypropylene, or ancillary chemicals such as electrostatic agents or flame retardants. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are formed by corrugated polypropylene sheets cut to length, die-cut into specific box shapes, and may be cut or scored to allow each side of the box to be folded into shape. Polypropylene corrugated boxes may include a tab or attached portion of polypropylene corrugated sheet (commonly referred to as a “manufacturer's joint”) that has been cut, slotted, or scored to facilitate the formation of the box by stapling, gluing, welding, or taping the sides together to form a tight seal. One-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are die-cut or otherwise formed so that the top, bottom, and sides form a single, contiguous unit. Two-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are those with a folded bottom and a folded top as separate pieces. Multi-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are those with separate bottoms and tops that are fitted to a single folded piece comprising the sides of the box. Polypropylene corrugated boxes may be printed with ink or digital designs.
The subject merchandise includes polypropylene corrugated boxes with or without handles, with or without lids or tops, with or without reinforcing wire, whether in a one-piece, two-piece, or multi-piece configuration, and whether folded into shape or in an unfolded form. The subject merchandise includes all polypropylene corrugated boxes regardless of size, shape, or dimension. The subject merchandise also includes polypropylene corrugated box lids or tops when imported separately from polypropylene corrugated boxes.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 3923.10.9000. Although the HTSUS statistical reporting number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of standard prices and fee percentage.
NMFS publishes the individual fishing quota (IFQ) standard prices and fee percentage for cost recovery for the IFQ Program for the halibut and sablefish fisheries of the North Pacific (IFQ Program). The fee percentage for 2025 is 2.4 percent. This action is intended to provide holders of halibut and sablefish IFQ permits with the 2025 standard prices and fee percentage to calculate the required payment for IFQ cost recovery fees due by January 31, 2026.
The standard prices and fee percentages are valid on December 31, 2025.
Tristan Mandeville, Fee Coordinator, 907-586-7231.
NMFS Alaska Region administers the IFQ Program in the North Pacific. The IFQ Program is a limited access system authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act). Fishing under the IFQ Program began in March 1995. Regulations implementing the IFQ Program are set forth at 50 CFR part 679.
In 1996, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was amended to, among other purposes, require the Secretary of Commerce to collect a fee to recover the actual costs directly related to the management and enforcement of any individual quota program. This requirement was further amended in 2006 to include collection of the actual costs of data collection and to replace the reference to “individual quota program” with a more general reference to “limited access privilege program” at section 304(d)(2)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Section 304(d)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act also specifies an upper limit on these fees, when the fees must be collected, and where the fees must be deposited.
On March 20, 2000, NMFS published regulations at § 679.45 to implement cost recovery for the IFQ Program (65 FR 14919, March 20, 2000). Under the regulations, an IFQ permit holder must pay a cost recovery fee for every pound of IFQ halibut and sablefish that is landed on their IFQ permit(s), including any halibut that is landed as guided angler fish. The IFQ permit holder is responsible for self-collecting the fee for all IFQ halibut and sablefish landings on their permit(s). The IFQ permit holder is also responsible for submitting IFQ fee payments(s) to NMFS on or before January 31 of the year following the year in which the IFQ landings were made. The total dollar amount of the fee is determined by multiplying the NMFS published fee percentage by the ex-vessel value of all IFQ landings made on the permit(s) during the IFQ fishing year. As required by § 679.45(d)(1) and (d)(3)(i), NMFS publishes this notice of the fee percentage for the IFQ halibut and sablefish fisheries in the
The fee is based on the sum of all payments made to fishermen for the sale of the fish during the year. This includes any retro-payments (
For purposes of calculating IFQ cost recovery fees, NMFS distinguishes between two types of ex-vessel value: actual and standard. Actual ex-vessel value is the amount of all compensation, monetary or non-monetary, that an IFQ permit holder received as payment for his or her IFQ fish sold. Standard ex-vessel value is the default value used to calculate the fee. IFQ permit holders have the option of using actual ex-vessel value if they can satisfactorily document it; otherwise, the standard ex-vessel value is used.
Section 679.45(b)(3)(iii) requires the Regional Administrator to publish IFQ standard prices during the last quarter of each calendar year. These standard prices are used, along with estimates of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings, to calculate standard ex-vessel values. The standard prices are described in U.S. dollars per IFQ equivalent pound for IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings made during the 2025 year. According to § 679.2, IFQ equivalent pound(s) means the weight amount, recorded in pounds, and calculated as round weight for sablefish and headed and gutted weight for halibut, for an IFQ landing. The weight of halibut in pounds landed as guided angler fish is converted to IFQ equivalent pound(s) as specified in 50 CFR 300.65(c)(5)(ii)(E). NMFS calculates the standard prices to closely reflect the variations in the actual ex-vessel values of IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish landings by month and port or port-group. The standard prices for IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish are listed in the tables that follow the next section. Data from ports are combined as necessary to protect confidentiality.
NMFS calculates the fee percentage each year according to the factors and methods described at § 679.45(d)(2). NMFS determines the fee percentage that applies to landings made in the previous year by dividing the total costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of the IFQ Program (management costs) during the previous year by the total standard ex-vessel value of halibut and sablefish IFQ landings made during the previous year (fishery value). NMFS identifies the actual management costs associated with certain management, data collection, and enforcement functions through an established accounting system that allows staff to track labor, travel, contracts, and procurement. NMFS is continuing to review our analysis of cost recovery and the appropriate costs to collect to support these programs as designed. NMFS plans to provide a comprehensive discussion of agency costs in the upcoming annual report for the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, scheduled for June 2026, which may result in changes to how agency costs are calculated for future fee notices. NMFS calculates the fishery value as
Using the fee percentage formula described above, NMFS determined that the percentage of management costs to fishery value for the 2025 calendar year is 2.4 percent of the standard ex-vessel value. An IFQ permit holder is to use the fee percentage of 2.4 percent to calculate their fee for IFQ equivalent pound(s) landed during the 2025 halibut and sablefish IFQ fishing season. An IFQ permit holder is responsible for submitting the 2025 IFQ fee payment to NMFS on or before January 31, 2026. Payment must be made in accordance with the payment methods set forth in § 679.45(a)(4)(iv). Payment can be made using credit card, debit card, or electronic check via the
The 2025 fee percentage of 2.4 percent is less than the 2024 fee percent of 3.0 percent (89 FR 105006, December 26, 2024). Net fishery management costs decreased by 12.5 percent compared to 2024, and the total fishery value increased by 28 percent compared to 2024, resulting in a lower fee percentage for 2025.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 2, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Jeanne M. Holm Center for Officer Accessions and Citizen Development, Academic Affairs; 60 W Schumacher Ave., Maxwell AFB, AL 36112; Mr. William McClurg, 334-953-2398.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 2, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Human Resources Activity, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 04C16-09, Alexandria, VA 22350, Nidhi Vij, (831) 539-3756.
United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 30, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by January 30, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, (571) 372-7574,
Military sexual assault victims, parents, other family members, friends,
Defense Human Resources Activity, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of revised per diem rates in non-foreign areas outside the continental U.S.
Defense Human Resources Activity publishes this Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 330. Bulletin Number 330 lists current per diem rates prescribed for reimbursement of subsistence expenses while on official Government travel to Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the possessions of the United States (U.S.). The Calendar Year (CY) 2025 lodging and meal rate review for Alaska resulted in rate changes for multiple locations.
The updated rates take effect January 1, 2026.
Holly Korcel, 571-372-1300,
This document notifies the public of revisions in per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Allowance Committee for travel to non-foreign areas outside the continental United States. The CY 2025 lodging and meal rate review for Alaska resulted in lodging rate increases for multiple locations. Bulletin Number 330 is published in the
If you believe the lodging, meal or incidental allowance rate for a locality listed in the following table is insufficient, you may request a rate review for that location. For more information about how to request a review, please see the Defense Travel Management Office's Per Diem Rate Review Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page at
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice; correction.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a document in the
Mr. Paul D. Clouse, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Inland Waterways Users Board, by telephone at 202-768-3157, or Mr. Steven D. Riley, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), by telephone at 703-659-3097.
In the
e.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 2, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to OPNAV Forms/Information Collections Office (DNS-14), 2000 Navy Pentagon, Room 4E563, Washington, DC 20350-2000, ATTN: Ms. Ashley Alford, or call 703-614-7585.
This information is necessary to make a comprehensive assessment of an applicant's suitability for naval service. The collected data includes personal, educational, and background details, which are used to determine an individual's mental, physical, and moral qualifications. This information is essential for making initial accession decisions, determining eligibility for specific jobs or special programs, and ensuring that applicants meet the high standards required for service in the U.S. Navy.
Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (ED) announces the opportunity to apply for competitive grants for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 for the Braille Training Program, Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.235E.
Complete proposals must be submitted electronically through the
Stephanie Badger, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 219-2185. Email:
The Braille Training program (84.235E) offers financial assistance to projects that will (1) provide training in the use of braille for personnel providing vocational rehabilitation services or educational services to youth and adults who are blind; (2) develop braille training materials; (3) develop methods used to teach braille; and (4) develop activities used to promote the knowledge and use of braille and nonvisual access technology for youth and adults who are blind. The FY 2026 competition includes a priority, selection criteria, and requirements. The priority is: Braille Training Program.
This document of the U.S. Department of Education was signed on December 29, 2025, by Rachel Oglesby, Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Education. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by the U.S. Department of Education. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned has been authorized to sign the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the U.S. Department of Education. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On December 18, 2025, the President of the United States signed an Executive Order providing for the closing of Executive Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government on Wednesday, December 24, 2025, and Friday, December 26, 2025. Accordingly, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) will be closed on Wednesday, December 24, 2025, and Friday, December 26, 2025. The Commission already planned to be closed for the Federal holiday on December 25, 2025.
Pursuant to section 385.2007 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 385.2007 (2025), all filings and documents due to be filed on Wednesday, December 24, 2025, or Friday, December 26, 2025, will be accepted as timely on the next official business day.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
l.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at
m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
The existing project works consist of: (1) a reservoir that has a gross storage capacity of 6,080 acre feet and a surface area of 392.9 acres at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 5,155.9 feet;
PacifiCorp proposes to rehabilitate one generator unit (either generator Unit 2 or 3) to improve its efficiency and increase its nameplate capacity. Under PacifiCorp's proposed upgrades, the project would have a maximum capacity of 7.58 MW.
n. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
You may also register online at
o. 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
p.
q. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that the commission received the following accounting Request filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection FERC-551 (Reporting of Flow Volume and Capacity by Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines). There are no proposed changes to the record retention requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due March 2, 2026.
Please submit comments via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
The posting requirements are based on the Commission's authority under section 23 of the NGA (as added by the Energy Policy Act of 2005), which provides, in relevant part, that the Commission may issue such rules as necessary and appropriate to provide for the dissemination of “information about the availability and prices of natural gas at wholesale and in interstate commerce.”
The posting of FERC-551 information occurs on a daily basis. The data must be available for download for not less than 90 days from the date of posting and must be retained by the pipeline for three years.
—Management (Occupation Code 11-0000): $83.41.
—Business (Occupation Code 13-0000): $55.13.
—Financial (Occupation Code 13-2051):$68.56.
These various occupational categories' wage (and benefits) figures are averaged and weighted equally, giving an average of $69.03/hour. The resulting wage figure is rounded to $69/hour for use in calculating wage figures in the FERC-551 renewal.
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.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Igiugig Village Council filed a request to use the Traditional Licensing Process on October 29, 2025. Igiugig Village Council provided public notice of its request on October 29, 2025. In a letter dated December 22, 2025, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved Igiugig Village Council's request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; and NMFS under section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
l. With this notice, we are designating Igiugig Village Council as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
m. Igiugig Village Council filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed and/or printed on the Commission's website (
You may register online at
o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 13511-010. Pursuant to Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by April 30, 2027.
p. 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
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on proposed revisions of the currently approved information collection, FERC-725N, (Mandatory Reliability Standards: TPL Reliability Standards).
Comments on the collection of information are due March 2, 2026.
You may submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. RD25-4-000) by one of the following methods: Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
○
○
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
The FERC-725N information collection requirements are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. OMB's regulations require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements will not be penalized for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The Commission solicits comments on the need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. The Commission bases its paperwork burden estimates on the additional paperwork burden presented by the proposed new Reliability Standard TPL-008-1. The new defined term “extreme temperature assessment” is not expected to generate any new burden as it is a definition used within the body of Reliability Standards. Reliability Standards are objective-based and allow entities to choose compliance approaches best tailored to their systems. Additionally, proposed Reliability Standard TPL-008-1, Requirement R1 identifies each responsible entity that shall complete its responsibilities such that the extreme temperature assessment is completed at least once every five calendar years. The NERC Compliance Registry, as of November 20, 2024, identifies unique U.S. entities that are subject to mandatory compliance with proposed Reliability Standard TPL-008-1, as 62 planning coordinators (PC) and 204 transmission planners (TP). Based on
The annual responses and burden hours for proposed Reliability Standard TPL-008-1 will be 266 responses: 16,880 hours.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection FERC-915 (Public Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders—Records Retention Requirements). There are no proposed changes to the requirements.
Comments on the collection of information are due March 2, 2026.
Please submit comments via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
The Commission imposes the FERC-915 record retention requirements (18 CFR 35.41(d)) on applicable sellers to retain, for a period of five years, all data and information upon which they bill the prices charged for “electric energy or electric energy products sold pursuant to Seller's market-based rate
The record retention period of five years is necessary due to the importance of records related to any investigation of possible wrongdoing and related to assuring compliance with the codes of conduct and the integrity of the market. The requirement is also necessary to ensure consistency with the rule prohibiting market manipulation (adopted in Order No. 670
File Clerk (Occupation code: 43-4071), $35.94 an hour, rounded to an hourly cost to $36.
In addition, there are records storage costs. We anticipate that records are predominantly stored electronically for all respondents at a negligible cost. For all respondents, we estimate a total of 65,000 cu. ft. of records in off-site storage. Based on an approximate storage cost of $0.24 per cubic foot, we estimate total annual storage cost to be $15,600.00 (or $6.22 annually per respondent). The total annual cost for all respondents (burden cost plus off-site storage) is $100,940.00 (or $85,340 + $15,600); the average total annual cost per respondent is $40.22 ($6.22 + $34.00
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Hunt Storage Field Abandonment Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in Kanawha County, West Virginia. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the project. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity authorization. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 22, 2026. Comments may be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on November 13, 2025, you will need to file those
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
Columbia provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” which addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. 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
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP26-23-000) on 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, MD 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
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
Columbia proposes to abandon injection/withdrawal wells, observation wells, special wells, all associated pipelines and aboveground appurtenances, and the Hunt Compressor Station in Kanawha County, West Virginia. The Project would end delivery of about 12.4 million cubic feet of natural gas per day and would have no effect to existing customers.
The Project would consist of the following facilities:
• Plug and abandon sixteen injection/withdrawal wells;
• Plug and abandon three observation wells;
• Plug and abandon three special wells, which are observation wells that currently serve low pressure distribution systems;
• Abandon approximately 7.18 miles of various storage pipelines in the Hunt Storage Field (0.45 miles to be abandoned by removal and 6.72 miles to be abandoned in place);
• Abandon by removal the Hunt Compressor Station, including the associated buildings, appurtenances, and aboveground station piping;
• Abandon by removal all above-ground appurtenances including pipeline markers, cathodic protection test stations, rectifiers, casing vents, and above-ground pipeline blowdown vents; and
• Abandon in place compressor station fencing, remaining below-ground piping and miscellaneous appurtenances.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Abandonment of the proposed associated buildings, appurtenances, temporary contractor workspace, compressor stations, wells, and pipelines would disturb about 77.72 acres of land. Following abandonment, Columbia would maintain about 23.53 acres of permanent right-of-way and 28.91 acres of existing permanent access road; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. No federal, state, or special use lands would be affected by the project.
Any environmental document issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under the relevant general resource areas:
• geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• land use;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Following this scoping period, Commission staff will determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.
(1) Send an email to
OR
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Additional information about the project is available from the FERC website at
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that on December 18, 2025, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC (Columbia Gulf), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, 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 Columbia Gulf's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-496-000, for authorization to offset and replace approximately 2,620 feet of its 30-inch-diameter Mainline 100 pipeline crossing Casey Creek with approximately 2,700 feet of new 30-inch-diameter pipeline. All of the above facilities are located in Adair County, Kentucky (Casey Creek Project). The project will allow Columbia Gulf to protect its pipeline in an area where creek erosion has occurred. The estimated cost for the project is $22 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 LaShawndra R. Proctor, Manager of Project Authorizations, Columbia Gulf
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 23, 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 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 23, 2026.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-47-000 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 CP26-47-000.
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: LaShawndra R. Proctor, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, 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
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
30-Day notice of submission of information collection for approval from Office of Management and Budget.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or the Agency) is seeking public comments concerning a previously approved information collection known as “Advances to Housing Associates,” which has been assigned control number 2590-0001 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). FHFA intends to submit the information collection to OMB for review and approval of a three-year extension of the control number, which is due to expire on January 31, 2026.
Interested persons may submit comments on or before January 30, 2026.
Submit comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Washington, DC 20503, Fax: (202) 395-3047, Email:
•
•
•
FHFA will post all public comments on the FHFA public website at
Deattra Perkins, Senior Financial Analyst, by email at
Section 10b of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) establishes the requirements for making Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank) advances (secured loans) to nonmember mortgagees, which are referred to as “Housing Associates” in FHFA's regulations.
Part 1264 of FHFA's regulations implements the statutory eligibility requirements and establishes uniform review criteria the Banks must use in evaluating applications from entities that wish to be certified as a Housing Associate. Specifically, § 1264.4 implements the statutory eligibility requirements and provides guidance to an applicant on how it may satisfy those requirements.
In part 1266 of FHFA's regulations, subpart B governs Bank advances to Housing Associates that have been approved under part 1264. Section 1266.17 establishes the terms and conditions under which a Bank may make advances to Housing Associates.
The OMB control number for the information collection, which expires on January 31, 2026, is 2590-0001. The likely respondents include entities applying to be certified as a Housing Associate and current Housing Associates.
FHFA estimates the total annualized hour burden imposed upon respondents by this information collection to be 314 hours (14 hours for applicants + 300 hours for current Housing Associates), based on the following calculations:
FHFA estimates that the total annual average number of entities applying to
FHFA estimates that the total annual average number of existing Housing Associates over the next three years will be 75, with one response per Housing Associate required to comply with the regulatory reporting requirements. The estimate for the average hours per response is 4 hours. Therefore, the estimate for the total annual hour burden for current Housing Associates is 300 hours (75 certified Housing Associates × 1 response per associate × 4 hours = 300 hours).
In accordance with the requirements of 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FHFA published an initial notice and request for public comments regarding this information collection in the
FHFA requests written comments on the following: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FHFA functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FHFA's estimates of the burdens of the collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 2, 2026.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
(1) Account Creation: For job seekers, creating an account is optional. To create an account the user must enter their first name, last name, and email address. Those mandatory fields will be used to send an automated email allowing the user to validate their login credentials. In addition, for job seekers participating in the programs listed above, their HWC account will be linked to their existing program file in the Bureau of Health Workforce Management Information Systems Solution database and allow an initial import of existing data at the request of the user.
(2) Profile Completion: Users may fill out a profile, but this function will be optional and includes fields such as location, discipline, specialty, and languages spoken. The information collected, if published by the user, can be searched by approved site POCs seeking potential candidates for health care job opportunities at their site. Job seekers also can set their security and privacy settings on their accounts to make their profiles searchable by other end users or private at any time. In addition, all information collected through the HWC will be stored within existing secure Bureau of Health Workforce Management Information Systems Solution databases and will be used internally for report generation on an as-needed basis.
HRSA is requesting a revision and is seeking to use the previously approved forms. The revisions are because of an increase in the estimated annual burden due to an increase in web page traffic, leading to an increase in the number of accounts created.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 2, 2026.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
For this submission, HRSA proposes to extend the following reports:
•
•
•
•
•
•
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Office of the Secretary, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before March 2, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier/OMB control number 0945-0002 and title of collection, “Civil Rights and Conscience Complaint and Health Information Privacy, Security, & Breach Notification Complaint”. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
• Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to
• By
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights, Attention: Harold Henderson, 200 Independence Ave. SW, Suite 515F, Washington, DC 20201, Attention: OMB Control Number 0945-0002.
To obtain copies of supporting material for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please email Harold Henderson at
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The estimated burden follows:
OCR estimates that the average time needed to complete either complaint form is 45 minutes (.75 hours), which has not increased since the forms were last revised. Respondents to the information collection include individuals or households, or organizations. Based on examination of actual complaint levels over the past two years, OCR projects that OCR will average 15,468 civil rights related complaints per year and 31,985 privacy related complaints per year.
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 a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Cancer Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Program Project: Cancer Research, January 08, 2026, 10:00 a.m. to January 09, 2026, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended due to SRO changed from Dr. Majed Hamawy to Dr. Micael Lindquist. The meeting is closed to the public.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel PAR Panel: Native American Research Centers for Health (NARCH) January 12, 2026, 11:00 a.m. to January 12, 2026, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the start time from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
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.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel Member Conflict: Immunology of Hypersensitivity and Host Defense, January 28, 2026, 10:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the meeting date from January 20, 2025, to January 28, 2026. The meeting is closed to the public.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc. (Ponce, PR), as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc. (Ponce, PR), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 5, 2024.
Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc. (Ponce, PR) was approved, as a commercial gauger as of September 5, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2027.
Robert P. Munivez, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 4150 Interwood South Parkway, Houston, TX 77032, tel. 281-560-2937.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc., 228 Sabanetas Industrial Park, Ponce, PR 00716 has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13.
Altol Petroleum Products Services Inc. (Ponce, PR) is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval of King Inspection and Testing, Inc. (Carson, CA), as a commercial gauger and laboratory.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that King Inspection and Testing, Inc. (Carson, CA), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of June 27, 2025.
King Inspection and Testing, Inc. (Carson, CA), was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of June 27, 2025. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2028.
Dr. Laura Granell-Ortiz, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501-A North, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that King Inspection and Testing, Inc., 1300 E 223rd St., #410, Carson, CA 90745, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
King Inspection and Testing, Inc. (Carson, CA), is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
King Inspection and Testing, Inc. (Carson, CA), is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of approval of Intertek USA, Inc. (Wilmington, NC), as a commercial gauger.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc. (Wilmington, NC), has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 29, 2024.
Intertek USA, Inc. (Wilmington, NC) was approved as a commercial gauger as of August 29, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2027.
Dr. Laura Granell-Ortiz, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 116 Bryan Road, Suite 101, Wilmington, NC 28412, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products in accordance with the provisions 19 CFR 151.13.
Intertek USA, Inc. (Wilmington, NC), is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of accreditation and approval.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Thionville Surveying Company, Inc. (Harahan, LA), has been approved to gauge animal and vegetable oils and accredited to test certain animal and vegetable oils for customs purposes for the next three years as of May 14th, 2024.
Thionville Surveying Company, Inc. (Harahan, LA), was approved and accredited as a commercial gauger and laboratory as of May 14th, 2024. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2027.
Dr. Laura Granell-Ortiz, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1501A North, Washington, DC 20004, tel. 202-344-1060.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Thionville Surveying Company, Inc., 5440 Pepsi St. Harahan, LA 70123, has been approved to gauge animal and vegetable oils and accredited to test certain animal and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13.
Thionville Surveying Company, Inc (Harahan, LA), is approved for the following gauging procedures for animal and vegetable oils from the National Institute of Oilseed Products (NIOP), and International Standards Organization (ISO):
Thionville Surveying Company, Inc (Harahan, LA) is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for animal and vegetable oils set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory (CBPL) Methods and Standard Organizations:
Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to
U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of a modified system of records.
This notice announces that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is modifying eligible DHS System of Records Notices identified below. DHS will adopt OMB-required routine use language to clarify that DHS will disclose information to the U.S. Department of the Treasury in certain circumstances.
Submit comments on or before January 30, 2026. These modified systems will be effective upon publication. New or modified routine uses will be effective January 30, 2026.
The public is invited to submit any comments, identified by docket number 2025-1108 by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number 2025-1108. All comments received will be posted without change to
For general questions, or privacy concerns, please contact: Roman Jankowski,
The Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019 and the Executive Order 14249,
To satisfy the routine use requirement in the Executive Order and OMB Memorandum M-25-32, DHS is issuing a notice in the
Department of Homeland Security Privacy Act notices and citations follow.
Please refer to the
Please refer to the
Please refer to the
“To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.”
Please refer to the
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
December 22, 2025.
Peter Stebbins (202-205-2039), 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 November 20, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 53388, November 25, 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 7, 2026, and the Commission's views will be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter.
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.
United States International Trade Commission.
Change in transmittal date of the Commission's report.
At the request of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Commission will transmit its report no later than April 27, 2026.
All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Project Leader Rudy Telles Jr. (202-205-2597 or
The Commission published notice of institution of the above-referenced investigation in the
By order of the Commission.
On December 22, 2025, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Amended Consent Decree in the civil action
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Settlement Agreement. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to Amended Consent Decree for
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the Amended Consent Decree may be examined at and downloaded from this Justice Department website:
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor.
Notice.
This notice describes changes to the Department of Labor's Delinquent Filer Voluntary Compliance Program (DFVC Program or Program).
The DFVC Program is effective on December 31, 2025. The Program adopted herein modifies, as of its effective date, the DFVC Program adopted on April 27, 1995 (60 FR 20874) and modified on March 28, 2002 (67 FR 15052) and Jan. 29, 2013 (78 FR 6135).
Scott C. Albert, Office of the Chief Accountant, Employee Benefits Security Administration; telephone (202) 693-8360. This is not a toll-free number.
The Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) introduced the DFVC Program in 1995. It is intended to encourage, through the assessment of reduced civil penalties, delinquent plan administrators to comply with their reporting obligations under Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). Administrators of multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs), that are not group health plans but provide benefits that consist of medical care (non-plan MEWAs) and Entities Claiming Exception (ECEs), who fail to file a Form M-1 annually and upon the occurrence of specific events may be subject to civil penalties under ERISA section 502(c)(5). Administrators of MEWAs that are group health plans (plan MEWAs) who fail to file a Form M-1 annually and upon the occurrence of specific events may be subject to civil penalties under section 502(c)(2) of ERISA.
Following a review of the DFVC Program, as modified in 2002 and 2013, the Department has determined to expand the penalty relief to plan MEWAs, non-plan MEWAs, and ECEs who are required to file the Form M-1. As with prior DFVC modifications, because the modifications to the DFVC Program include lower civil penalty assessments, the modifications are being put into effect upon publication of this notice in the
The Secretary of Labor has the authority under sections 502(c)(2) and 502(c)(5) of ERISA and the Secretaries' regulations to assess civil penalties against plan administrators who fail or refuse to file complete and timely reports as required under sections 101(b) and 101(g) of ERISA and related regulations. Pursuant to 29 CFR 2560.502c-2 and 2560.502c-5, EBSA has maintained a program for the assessment of civil penalties for noncompliance with ERISA's reporting requirements. The Department may, in its discretion, waive all or part of a civil penalty assessed under sections 502(c)(2) or 502(c)(5) upon a showing by the administrator that there was reasonable cause for the failure to file a complete and timely report or that there was reasonable cause why the penalty, as calculated, should not be assessed.
To encourage delinquent filers to voluntarily comply with the annual reporting requirements under Title I of ERISA, the Department adopted, on April 27, 1995, the DFVC Program (60 FR 20874). The Program, as adopted in 1995, permitted administrators otherwise subject to the assessment of higher civil penalties for failing to file a timely annual report to pay reduced civil penalties for voluntarily complying with the requirement to file an annual report under Title I of ERISA. The 1995 DFVC Program provided reduced penalties for plan administrators filing the Form 5500, plan administrators filing annual reports for apprenticeship and training plans described in section 2520.104-22 and for “top hat” plans described in section 2520.104-23(a). Under the terms of the DFVC Program, the Department reserved the right to modify or terminate the Program upon publication of a notice in the
In 2002, the Department modified the Program by reducing civil penalty assessments. It capped the cumulative daily penalty amount for Form 5500 annual reports for a plan year at $750
In 2013, the Department issued a
The Department is now modifying the DFVC Program to further facilitate and encourage voluntary compliance with certain of ERISA's reporting requirements. These modifications expand the types of entities eligible for the program to include MEWAs and ECEs seeking to file a late Form M-1. The Department is also simplifying and updating the process governing the assessment of the flat rate penalty for top hat and apprenticeship and training plans. A discussion of the changes follows.
The Department, to encourage voluntary compliance with ERISA's reporting requirements, is extending to plan and non-plan MEWAs and ECEs that are required to file Form M-1 the same $750 maximum penalty amount currently available to small plans filing a late Form 5500, and to filers of apprenticeship and training plans and top hat plans.
In addition, top hat and apprenticeship plans will no longer be directed to the DFVC payment calculator. All plans eligible to pay a flat $750 fee will follow a link to a
The DFVC Program modifications collect only self-identifying login information from late M-1 filers and facilitate payment through the Department's website. Accordingly, the Department has determined that the PRA does not apply to these modifications.
The DFVC Program is intended to afford eligible MEWA administrators (described in Section 2 of this Notice) the opportunity to avoid the assessment of civil penalties otherwise applicable to administrators who fail to file timely required reports. Eligible administrators may avail themselves of the DFVC Program by complying with the filing requirements and paying the civil penalties specified in Section 3 of this Notice.
.01 Scope. The DFVC Program described in this Notice provides relief from assessment of civil penalties otherwise applicable to MEWA and ECE administrators who fail or refuse to file timely required reports. The relief extends to plan MEWAs that fail to provide a Form M-1 receipt confirmation code on the Form 5500 because they have failed or refused to file a timely Form M-1. Relief under this Program does not extend to penalties that may be assessed for reports that are otherwise determined by the Department to be incomplete or otherwise deficient.
.02 Eligibility. The DFVC Program is available only to a MEWA or ECE administrator that complies with the requirements of Section 3 or Section 4, as appropriate, of this Notice prior to the date on which the administrator is notified in writing by the Department of a failure to file a timely report under Title I of ERISA.
.03 Effective date. The DFVC Program described herein shall be effective December 19, 2025. The Department intends that this DFVC Program to be of indefinite duration; however, the Program may be modified from time to time or terminated in the sole discretion of the Department upon publication of notice in the
.01 General. A MEWA administrator electing to file a late Form M-1 under this DFVC Program must comply with the requirements of this Section 3.
.02 Filing a Complete Form M-1.
(a) The MEWA or ECE administrator must file a complete Form M-1 Return/Report, for the most recent filing year. The requirement to file once for the most recent filing year applies to MEWAs and ECEs who either failed to file annually or who failed to file upon the occurrence of certain other events specified in 29 CFR 2520.101-2. This filing shall be submitted electronically in accordance with the EFAST electronic filing requirements. See the EFAST internet site at
.03 Payment.
(a) The MEWA or ECE administrator shall pay the $750.00 penalty amount by submitting electronic payment in accordance with the
(b) Liability for Applicable Penalty Amount.
The MEWA or ECE administrator is personally liable for the payment of civil penalties assessed under sections 502(c)(2) and 502(c)(5) of ERISA; therefore, civil penalties, including amounts paid under this DFVC Program, shall not be paid from the assets of an employee benefit plan.
.01 Payment of a penalty under the terms of this DFVC Program constitutes, with regard to the late or delinquent filings submitted under the Program, a waiver of an administrator's right both to receive notices of intent to assess a penalty under 29 CFR 2560.502c-2 and 2560.502c-5 from the Department and to contest the Department's assessment of the penalty amount.
.02 Acceptance by the Department of a filing and penalty payment made pursuant to this DFVC Program does not represent a determination by the Department as to the status of the arrangement as a plan, or the particular type of plan under Title I of ERISA.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 2, 2026.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Belinda Cannon, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
Section 21 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the “OSH Act”) (29 U.S.C. 670) authorizes the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to conduct directly, or through grants and contracts, education, and training courses. These courses must ensure an adequate number of qualified personnel to fulfill the purposes of the Act, provide them with short-term training, inform them of the importance and proper use of safety and health equipment, and train employers and workers to recognize, avoid, and prevent unsafe and unhealthful working conditions.
Under Section 21, the agency awards training grants to nonprofit organizations to provide part of the training. Organizations that receive these grants must submit the Grantee Quarterly Progress Report (GQPR; OSHA 171, Revised 5/14) as required by the Department of Labor under 29 CFR 95.51. This regulation states that grant recipients (grantees) must submit progress reports to the awarding agency at least annually but no more than quarterly. The reports must contain a comparison of actual accomplishments with goals and objectives established for the reporting period and, if appropriate, the program's output.
Therefore, the GQPR allows OSHA to monitor a grantee's performance and to determine if a recipient is using funds as specified in its grant application. After the grant recipient submits a GQPR, the agency compares the information provided by the grant recipient in the report to the quarterly milestones proposed by the grant recipient in the work plan and budget that accompanied its grant application.
This information includes: identifier data (organization name, grant number, and period covered by the report); the date and location where the training occurred; the number of workers and employers attending training sessions provided by the organization during the quarter; the class length (in quarter hours); a description of the training provided; a narrative account of grant activities during the quarter (including capacity building activities, needs assessment activities, development of training materials/curriculum, evaluation activities, and other educational activities); and an evaluation of progress regarding planned versus actual work accomplished.
Using this information, OSHA can determine if the grant recipient is meeting the proposed program goals and objectives, as described in the grant proposal, and is spending funds consistent with the proposed budget.
Requiring these reports on a quarterly basis enables the agency to identify training and expenditure discrepancies in a timely fashion so that it can implement appropriate action. In addition, this information permits OSHA to assess a grant recipient's ability to meet projected milestones and expenditures.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other
OSHA is requesting that OMB revise the approval of the information collection requirements contained in Susan Harwood Training Grant Program. The agency is requesting that the burden of 6,324 hours remain the same for recipients. The use of the GrantSolutions system reduces the time the agency needs to process training grants.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for UL LLC, as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA will add one standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on December 31, 2025.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of UL LLC (UL) as a NRTL. UL's expansion covers the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
UL submitted an application, dated July 11, 2024 (OSHA-2009-0025-0074), to expand recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing UL's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the UL expansion applications, go to
OSHA staff examined UL's expansion application, its capability to meet the requirements of the test standard, and other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that UL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition, subject to the specified limitations and conditions. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant UL's expanded scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of UL's recognition to include the additional test standard listed in Table 1 below:
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
In this notice, OSHA also announces the final decision to add one new test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Table 2 below lists the standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA has determined that this test standard is an appropriate test standard and will add it to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standard listed above as an American National Standard. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 01-00-004, Chapter 2, Section VIII), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, UL must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. UL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. UL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. UL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on UL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of UL as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above. Additionally, OSHA will add one standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878; June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Nemko North America, Inc. for expansion of the recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before January 15, 2026.
Comments may be submitted as follows:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that Nemko North America, Inc. (NNA) is applying for expansion of the current recognition as a NRTL. NNA requests the addition of three test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
NNA submitted an application on July 30, 2024 (OSHA-2013-0016-0033), to expand the recognition to include three additional test standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1, below, lists the appropriate test standards found in NNA's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
NNA submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent documentation, indicates that NNA has met the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding the recognition to include the addition of three test standards for NRTL testing and certification listed in Table 1. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of NNA's application.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether NNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments, staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant NNA's application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878; June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for DEKRA Certification Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). Additionally, OSHA announces the final decision to add two standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on December 31, 2025.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of DEKRA Certification Inc. (DEKRA) as a NRTL. DEKRA's expansion covers the addition of thirty-two test standards and one recognized test site to the NRTL scope of recognition. The test site is located in Dresden, Germany.
OSHA's recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
DEKRA submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition on March 19, 2024 (OSHA-2019-0009-0023), requesting the addition of thirty-two test standards and one additional test site located at: Enderstrasse 92b, 02177 Dresden, Germany. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA staff performed an on-site review of DEKRA's testing facility at DEKRA Dresden, Enderstrasse 92b, 02177 Dresden, Germany associated with this application on March 3-4, 2025, in which assessors found some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. DEKRA addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing DEKRA's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the DEKRA's application, go to
OSHA staff examined DEKRA's expansion application, conducted a detailed on-site assessment, and examined other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that DEKRA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed in this notice. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant DEKRA's expanded scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of DEKRA's recognition to include the
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
In this notice, OSHA also announces the final decision to add two new test standards to the NRTL Program's List of
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, DEKRA must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. DEKRA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. DEKRA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. DEKRA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on DEKRA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of DEKRA as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above. Additionally, OSHA will add two standards to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 7-2025 (90 FR 27878; June 30, 2025), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Standard on Rigging Equipment for Material Handling.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by March 2, 2026.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Belinda Cannon, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The collection of information provisions of the standard specifies affixing identification tags or markings on rigging equipment, marking special custom design lifting accessories, shift inspections, periodic inspections, developing and maintaining inspection records, and maintaining dates and results of certain shackle/hook load tests.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Standard on Rigging Equipment for Material Handling. The agency is seeking to retain the same burden of 49,160 hours.
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Amanda Laihow, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Labor.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Request for State or Federal Workers' Compensation Information.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by March 2, 2026.
You may submit comment as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and mark it confidential.
•
• OWCP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as
Anjanette Suggs, Office of Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, at (202) 354-9660 (phone) or
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
The Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 901 et
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
This information collection request concerns the Request for State or Federal Compensation Information. OWCP has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
Request for public comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Certification of School Official.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
All comments must be received on or before March 2, 2026.
You may submit comment as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
•
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and mark it confidential.
•
• OWCP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
Anjanette Suggs, Office of Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
The Certification by School Official information collection mandates that in order to qualify as an eligible dependent for black lung benefits, a child aged 18- to 23-years must be a full-time student as described in the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. 901
This information collection is being classified as an extension of an existing collection. 30 U.S.C. 902(g); 20 CFR 725.209, 725.218 require that all relevant medical evidence be considered before a decision can be made regarding a claimant's eligibility for benefits. By signing the CM-981 form, the claimant authorizes physicians, hospitals, medical facilities or organizations, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to release medical information about the miner to the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. The form contains information required by medical institutions and private physicians to enable them to release pertinent medical information. This information collection is currently approved for use through June 30, 2026.
This information collection is subject to PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB under the PRA approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
OWCP is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to the Certification by School Official. OWCP is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of OWCP's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection 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,
Documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns Certification by School Official. OWCP has updated the data with respect to the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request from the previous information collection request.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Notice announcing commencement of proceeding with request for Petitions to Participate.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce commencement of a proceeding to determine reasonable rates and terms for the use of certain copyrighted works by public broadcasting entities for the period beginning January 1, 2028, and ending December 31, 2032. The Copyright Royalty Judges also announce the date by which a party wishing to participate in the rate determination proceeding must file its Petition to Participate and the accompanying $150 filing fee.
Petitions to Participate and the filing fee are due no later than January 30, 2026.
The petition to participate form is available online in eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board's online electronic filing application, at
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or
The Copyright Act provides that the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) will commence a proceeding every fifth year to determine rates and terms for the reproduction, distribution, performance or display of certain works by public broadcasting entities (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(f)) in the course of the activities described in 17 U.S.C. 118(c). 17 U.S.C. 803(b)(1)(A)(i)(V);
Parties with a significant interest in the outcome of the proceeding to determine the royalty rate for public broadcasting entities must provide the information required by § 351.1(b) of the Judges' regulations by completing and filing the Petition to Participate form in eCRB. Parties must pay the $150 filing fee when filing each Petition to Participate form. Parties must use the form in eCRB instead of uploading a document and must comply with the requirements of § 351.1(b)(1) of the Copyright Royalty Board's regulations. 37 CFR 351.1(b)(1). Only attorneys admitted to the bar in one or more states or the District of Columbia and members in good standing will be allowed to represent parties before the Judges. Only an individual may represent herself or himself and appear without legal counsel. 37 CFR 303.2.
The Judges will address scheduling and further procedural matters after receiving petitions to participate.
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.
Notice announcing commencement of proceeding with request for Petitions to Participate.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce commencement of a proceeding to determine reasonable rates and terms for the digital performance of sound recordings and the making of ephemeral recordings by satellite radio and “preexisting” subscription services for the period beginning January 1, 2028, and ending December 31, 2032. The Copyright Royalty Judges also announce the date by which a party wishing to participate in the rate determination proceeding must file its Petition to Participate and the accompanying $150 filing fee.
Petitions to Participate and the filing fee are due no later than January 30, 2026.
The petition to participate form is available online in eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board's online electronic filing application, at
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or
Under the Copyright Act, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges), generally, must commence a proceeding every five years to determine reasonable rates and terms to license the digital transmission of sound recordings and the making of ephemeral recordings to facilitate those transmissions by preexisting subscription services
Parties with a significant interest in the outcome of the rate proceeding and wish to participate in the proceeding must provide the information required by § 351.1(b) of the Judges' regulations by completing and filing the Petition to Participate form in eCRB. Parties must pay the $150 filing fee when filing each Petition to Participate form. Parties must use the form in eCRB instead of uploading a document and must comply with the requirements of § 351.1(b)(1) of the Copyright Royalty Board's regulations. 37 CFR 351.1(b)(1). Only attorneys admitted to the bar in one or more states or the District of Columbia and members in good standing will be allowed to represent parties before the Judges. Only individuals may represent themselves and appear without legal counsel. 37 CFR 303.2.
The Judges will address scheduling and further procedural matters after receiving petitions to participate.
Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), Library of Congress.
Notice announcing commencement of proceeding with request for Petitions to Participate.
The Copyright Royalty Judges announce commencement of a proceeding to determine reasonable rates and terms for making and distributing phonorecords for the period beginning January 1, 2028, and ending December 31, 2032. The Copyright Royalty Judges also announce the date by which a party wishing to participate in the rate determination proceeding must file its Petition to Participate and the accompanying $150 filing fee.
Petitions to Participate and the filing fee are due no later than January 30, 2026.
The petition to participate form is available online in eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board's online electronic filing application, at
Docket: For access to the docket to read submitted documents, go to eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board's electronic filing and case management system, at
Anita Brown, CRB Program Specialist, at (202) 707-7658 or
The Copyright Act provides for the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) to commence a proceeding every fifth year to determine rates and terms for making and distributing phonorecords pursuant to the statutory license in 17 U.S.C. 115, 803(b)(1)(A)(i)(V); 804(b)(4).
Parties with a significant interest in the outcome of the phonorecords royalty rate proceeding must provide the information required by § 351.1(b) of the Judges' regulations by completing and filing the Petition to Participate form in eCRB. Parties must pay the $150 filing fee when filing each Petition to Participate form. Parties must use the form in eCRB instead of uploading a document and must comply with the requirements of § 351.1(b)(1) of the Copyright Royalty Board's regulations. 37 CFR 351.1(b)(1). Only attorneys admitted to the bar in one or more states or the District of Columbia and members in good standing will be allowed to represent parties before the Judges. Only an individual may represent herself or himself and appear without legal counsel. 37 CFR 303.2.
The Judges will address scheduling and further procedural matters after receiving petitions to participate.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a request dated May 8, 2025, as supplemented by letter dated August 21, 2025, from Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, to allow the implementation of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the fifth Inservice Inspection (ISI) interval at McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The exemption was issued on December 23, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1798 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
John Klos, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5136; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy, the licensee) is the holder of the Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) No. NPF-9 for McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (McGuire Unit 1), which is a pressurized water reactor (PWR) located in Huntersville,
On July 17, 2024, NRC issued a final rule incorporating by reference Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.147, Revision 21 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), Accession No. ML23291A003), into Title 10 of the
By application dated May 8, 2025 (ML25128A041), as supplemented by letter dated August 21, 2025, (ML25233A035), the licensee, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” requested an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the use of Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the fifth ISI interval at McGuire Unit 1, which is not in accordance with Condition 2 on Code Case N-921, as specified in RG 1.147, Revision 21. The fifth ISI interval at McGuire 1 began on December 1, 2021. The licensee stated that the proposed exemption does not impact the Inservice Testing (IST) program or snubber program, which are implemented under the requirements of the ASME Operation and Maintenance Code.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security and (2) special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), special circumstances are present when at least one of the following six conditions are met:
(i) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances conflicts with other rules or requirements of the Commission; or
(ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or
(iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated; or
(iv) The exemption would result in benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from the grant of the exemption; or
(v) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; or
(vi) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.
The exemption would authorize exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the use of Code Case N-921, after the start dates of the fifth ISI interval at McGuire Unit 1. As stated, 10 CFR 50.12(a) allows the NRC to grant an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, including 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y), when the exemption is authorized by law. An exemption is authorized by law where it is not expressly prohibited by statute or regulation. A proposed exemption is implicitly authorized by law if it will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, is consistent with the common defense and security, and special circumstances are present, and no other provisions in law prohibit, or otherwise restrict, its application. The NRC staff has determined that no provisions in law expressly prohibit or otherwise restrict the application of the requested exemption. The NRC staff has also determined, as explained below, that the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, is consistent with the common defense and security, and special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption is authorized by law.
This exemption would allow the licensee to implement Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the fifth ISI interval at McGuire Unit 1. The action does not change the manner in which the plant operates and maintains public health and safety because the exemption does not result in a change to the facility or the current operating license. The licensee stated that extending the ISI interval by two years does not impact the technical basis supporting any of the currently authorized 10 CFR 50.55a alternatives and does not create any particular challenge in reconciling the ISI inspection schedules to conform with the three four-year periods specified in Code Case N-921. Accordingly, the NRC staff reviewed the alternatives listed in Attachment 2 of the licensee's exemption request for ISI interval-related impacts and identified several common themes in these alternatives and evaluated the alternatives as described below.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified by RA-20-0031 is associated with the delay in updating the inservice inspection program code of record during the first inspection period of the fifth 10-year ISI interval. The NRC staff confirmed that this authorized alternative granted by letter dated August 21, 2020 (ML20230A205) was only applicable through the first inspection period of the fifth 10-year ISI interval (
Additionally, the NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified by RA-19-0352 is based on a technical report that considers the primary degradation mechanisms applicable to reactor pressure vessel studs, assesses typical design basis loads and transients, evaluates the stresses using a finite element analysis of the reactor vessel head closure, identifies and evaluates flaw stability limits, and evaluates fatigue crack growth of a postulated flaw in the reactor pressure vessel studs. The NRC staff confirmed that while this authorized alternative granted by letter dated November 18, 2022 (ML22096A003), incorporates a time-related assumption (
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternatives identified by RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 are based on technical reports, as identified below, which were originally developed based on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals:
• EPRI Technical Report 3002015906, “Technical Bases for Inspection Requirements for PWR Steam Generator Class 1 Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds and Class 1 and Class 2 Vessel Head, Shell, Tubesheet-to-Head, and Tubesheet-to-Shell Welds,” 2019 (ML20225A141).
• EPRI Technical Report 3002014590, “Technical Bases for Inspection Requirements for PWR Steam Generator Feedwater and Main Steam Nozzle-to-Shell Welds and Nozzle Inside Radius Sections,” 2019 (ML19347B107).
• EPRI Technical Report 3002015905, “Technical Bases for Inspection Requirements for PWR Pressurizer Head, Shell-to-Head, and Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds,” 2019 (ML21021A271).
These assessments include flaw tolerance evaluations using probabilistic fracture mechanics and deterministic fracture mechanics, and a survey of inspection results from 74 domestic and international nuclear units. Based on the conclusions of the three reports, the licensee requested an alternative to the ASME Section XI examination
While the analyses in these technical reports were developed based on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals in calculating failure probability, the staff noted that there are offsetting factors that account for potential impacts of a 12-year ISI interval. First, these technical reports and the licensee's submittal for the authorized alternatives (see ML23256A088 and ML23264A853) contain generic and plant-specific sensitivity studies that considered a pre-service inspection followed by various scenarios for subsequent inservice inspections as well as a plant-specific limiting scenario, which was not specifically considered in these EPRI technical reports. The NRC staff finds that these sensitivity studies bound the impacts of a 12-year ISI interval, where the examinations may be more spread out in time but not eliminated. In addition, the analyses in these technical reports assume the existence of flaws in the subject welds. This is a conservative assumption, since the examination history of these locations does not indicate that significant cracking is occurring. Additionally, specific inspections to be completed by the licensee at pre-determined years as part of its performance monitoring plan are outlined in the respective approval letters for RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257. The NRC staff noted that these scheduled inspections at the Duke Energy fleet addressed within RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 ensure that no more than 20 years elapses between the performance of an ASME Code, Section XI, examination for the respective weld/component and is scheduled to occur regardless of the length of the ISI interval. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for this performance monitoring plan in those alternatives is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years. Finally, the licensee stated that alternatives RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257, which addressed the steam generator welds and pressurizer welds, respectively, are authorized only through the end of the current license. Therefore, the licensee must reassess this examination requirement at the end of the license, regardless of the length of the ISI interval.
Accounting for these factors, as discussed above, the NRC staff finds that the NRC staff's basis for approving the alternatives in RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
Based on its review of the licensee's analysis of alternatives in Attachment 2 of the exemption request, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption would not result in any significant reduction in the effectiveness of the ISI programs implemented by the licensee at McGuire Unit 1. Further, based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption would not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
The requested exemption would allow the licensee to implement Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the fifth ISI interval at McGuire Unit 1. The change is administrative in nature, adequately controlled by the ISI Program criteria and ASME Code requirements and is not related to security issues. The length of the ISI interval is also not related to security issues. Thus, NRC staff determined that the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption, and, therefore, the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
The regulation under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) states, in part, that “[t]he Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present,” and describes, in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(i)-(vi), the conditions under which special circumstances exist. In the licensee's exemption request submittal Section III, “Basis for Approval of Exemption Request,” item (d), the licensee stated that three of the six special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present:
(ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
(iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.
(vi) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.
The NRC staff performed an independent review of the special circumstances claimed by the licensee.
For the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the licensee stated that the purpose of the July 2024 final rule (89 FR 58039) was to identify ASME Code cases that the NRC determined to be acceptable for use. The licensee noted that NRC's approval of Code Case N-921 includes a condition that “This code case can only be implemented at the beginning of an ISI interval as part of a routine update of the ISI program.” The licensee provided the following support to the claim that application of the regulation would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule:
• The licensee stated that the exemption would not inhibit the ability of the licensee to comply with the ASME BPV XI examination distribution requirements.
• Table 3 for McGuire Unit 1 of the licensee's submittal described the new inspection period dates and corresponding refueling outages.
• The licensee evaluated all NRC-authorized alternative requests in Attachment 2 of the licensee's submittal, consistent with NRC concerns expressed in the 89 FR 58039 final rule preamble (see NRC staff's independent review in Section III.B above).
• The licensee stated that the site ISI program owners routinely modify the ISI examination schedule during the ISI interval due to various reasons, such as evolving availability of qualified personnel and equipment.
In the 89 FR 58039 final rule preamble, the NRC communicated that order and predictability of licensee ISI programs is a paramount consideration. The careful advance planning required by ASME BPV XI and 10 CFR 50.55a maximizes licensee effectiveness in successfully executing all ISI requirements. The successful execution of ISI requirements, in turn, contributes to nuclear safety by providing a data stream used to continuously evaluate the structural integrity of safety-related components. The NRC staff determined that the licensee provided adequate evidence that, if the NRC staff approves the proposed exemption, the ISI programs at McGuire Unit 1 will be managed in a manner that promotes order and predictability.
In the 89 FR 58039 final rule, the NRC added a new condition requiring that Code Case N-921 be implemented at the start of a new ISI interval. The basis for the condition is that implementation of Code Case N-921 in the middle of an ISI interval creates complications related to existing examination schedules and alternatives that were approved assuming a 10-year ISI interval. As discussed above, the licensee demonstrated that no currently approved alternatives are impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years. Another concern identified by the NRC staff with allowing mid-cycle implementation of Code Case N-921 involves potential complications of reconciling ISI inspection schedules to conform with the three 4-year periods specified in Code Case N-921. As discussed above, the licensee stated that in anticipation of implementing Code Case N-921, it proactively adjusted examination schedules accordingly to maintain compliance with Code Case N-921 periodic distribution requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that application of the regulation would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule because the licensee demonstrated that mid-cycle implementation of Code Case N-921 will have no impact on the ISI programs at McGuire Unit 1. Based on the above, the NRC staff determined that the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present for the requested exemption. Since the regulations require that one of the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) be satisfied before NRC may grant an exemption, the NRC staff did not evaluate the licensee's additional claims that the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) and (vi) are also applicable.
The NRC staff determined that the exemption discussed herein meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) because (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or
The criteria for determining whether an action involves a significant hazards consideration are found in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The exemption only involves an ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature. The exemption does not adversely affect plant equipment, operation, or procedures. Therefore, there are no significant hazard considerations, because granting the exemption 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 exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature, and does not involve any changes in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.
Since the exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature, it does not contribute to any significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Since the exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature, it does not involve any construction impact.
The exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature and does not impact the potential for or consequences from accidents.
The exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change regarding examination scheduling requirements and other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature, because it is associated with the marginal extension from a 10-year to 12-year ISI interval.
Based on the above, NRC staff determined that the exemption meet the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with these exemption requests.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's request for exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the implementation of ASME Code Case N-921 after the start date of the fifth ISI interval at McGuire Unit 1.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated: December 23, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the Commission.”
Submit comments by January 30, 2026. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Heather Dempsey, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0856; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0414 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:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the Commission.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a request dated May 8, 2025, as supplemented by letter dated August 21, 2025, from Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, to allow the implementation of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth Inservice Inspection (ISI) interval and fourth Containment ISI (CISI) at Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3.
The exemption was issued on December 23, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1799 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
John Klos, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5136; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke Energy, the licensee) is the holder of the Subsequent Renewed Facility Operating Licenses (SRFOLs) Nos DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3), which consist of three Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) located in Seneca, South Carolina. The SRFOLs provide, among other things, that the facilities are subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
On July 17, 2024, NRC issued a final rule incorporating by reference Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.147, Revision 21 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), Accession Nos. ML23291A003), in Title 10 of the
By application dated May 8, 2025 (ML25128A041), as supplemented by letter dated August 21, 2025, (ML25233A035), the licensee, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” requested an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the use of Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, which is not in accordance with Condition 2 on Code Case N-921, as specified in RG 1.147, Revision 21. The sixth ISI and fourth CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, began on July 15, 2024. The licensee stated that the proposed exemption does not impact the Inservice Testing (IST) program or snubber program, which are implemented under the requirements of the ASME Operation and Maintenance Code.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security and (2) special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), special circumstances are present when at least one of the following six conditions are met:
(i) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances conflicts with other rules or requirements of the Commission; or
(ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or
(iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated; or
(iv) The exemption would result in benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from the grant of the exemption; or
(v) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; or
(vi) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.
The exemption would authorize exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the use of Code Case N-921, after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3. As stated, 10 CFR 50.12(a) allows the NRC to grant an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, including 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y), when the exemption is authorized by law. An exemption is authorized by law where it is not expressly prohibited by statute or regulation. A proposed exemption is implicitly authorized by law if it will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, is consistent with the common defense and security, and special circumstances are present, and no other provisions in law prohibit, or otherwise restrict, its application. The NRC staff has determined that no provisions in law expressly prohibit or otherwise restrict the application of the requested exemption. The NRC staff has also determined, as explained below, that the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, is consistent with the common defense and security, and special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption is authorized by law.
This exemption would allow the licensee to implement Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3. The action does not change the manner in which the plant operates and maintains public health and safety because the exemption does not result in a change to the facility or the current operating license. The licensee stated that extending the ISI interval by two years does not impact the technical basis supporting any of the currently authorized 10 CFR 50.55a alternatives and does not create any particular challenge in reconciling the ISI inspection schedules to conform with the three four-year periods specified in Code Case N-921. Accordingly, the NRC staff reviewed the alternatives listed in Attachment 3 of the licensee's exemption request for ISI interval-related impacts and identified several common themes in these alternatives and evaluated the alternatives as described below.
Several of the authorized alternatives in Attachment 3 of the licensee's exemption request are unrelated to the length of the ISI interval. The NRC staff's assessment of each of these authorized alternatives is documented below.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternatives identified by 15-ON-001 and RA-20-0036 are related to repair techniques by installation of replacement pressure-retaining parts that fully encapsulate the degraded piping. The NRC staff confirmed that the authorized alternatives granted by letters dated December 29, 2015 (ML15349A453) and July 30, 2020
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified by RA-22-0174 is related to the use Code Case N-752, which provides a process for determining the risk-informed categorization and treatment requirements for Class 2 and 3 pressure-retaining items or the associated supports. The NRC staff confirmed that this authorized alternative granted by letter dated December 13, 2023 (ML23262A967), is unrelated to the length of the ISI interval and is only associated with the risk-informed categorization and treatment for repair and replacement activities in Class 2 and 3 systems in lieu of current regulatory requirements for codes and standards. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for approving this alternative is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified by RA-23-0018 is related to the use Code Case N-853 (with two deviations), which provides an alternative to the defect removal requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code to repair or proactively mitigate the Alloy 600 nozzle welds. The NRC staff confirmed that this authorized alternative granted by letter dated October 20, 2023 (ML23285A074), is unrelated to the length of the ISI interval and is only associated with techniques to preemptively mitigate or repair the subject components to address Primary Water Stress Corrosion Cracking susceptibility. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for approving this alternative is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified by RA-19-0418 is related to the modification in scope and schedule for required examinations required by IWL, “Requirements for Class CC Concrete Components of Light-Water Cooled Power Plants” of Section XI of ASME Code. By letter dated August 21, 2025, (ML25233A035), the licensee confirmed it will maintain the ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL-2400 inspection schedules after adopting the 12-year ISI interval per Code Case N-921. The staff noted that the ASME Section XI, Subsection IWL-2400 inspection schedules are independent interval dates, since the timing of these inspections are based on the date of the structural integrity test. Thus, the NRC staff confirmed that this authorized alternative granted by letter dated December 7, 2021 (ML21335A106), is unrelated to the length of the ISI interval and is only associated with deferring certain required examinations by five years. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for approving this alternative is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternatives identified by RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 are based on technical reports, as identified below, which were originally developed based on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals:
• EPRI Technical Report 3002015906, “Technical Bases for Inspection Requirements for PWR Steam Generator Class 1 Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds and Class 1 and Class 2 Vessel Head, Shell, Tubesheet-to-Head, and Tubesheet-to-Shell Welds,” 2019 (ML20225A141).
• EPRI Technical Report 3002014590, “Technical Bases for Inspection Requirements for PWR Steam Generator Feedwater and Main Steam Nozzle-to-Shell Welds and Nozzle Inside Radius Sections,” 2019 (ML19347B107).
• EPRI Technical Report 3002015905, “Technical Bases for Inspection Requirements for PWR Pressurizer Head, Shell-to-Head, and Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds,” 2019 (ML21021A271).
These assessments include flaw tolerance evaluations using probabilistic fracture mechanics and deterministic fracture mechanics, and a survey of inspection results from 74 domestic and international nuclear units. Based on the conclusions of the three reports, the licensee requested an alternative to the ASME Code, Section XI, examination requirements for the subject steam generator and pressurizer welds in RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257, respectively.
While the analyses in these technical reports were developed based on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals in calculating failure probability, the NRC staff noted that there are offsetting factors that account for potential impacts of a 12-year ISI interval. First, these technical reports and the licensee's submittal for the authorized alternatives (see ML23256A088 and ML23264A853) contain generic and plant-specific sensitivity studies that considered a pre-service inspection followed by various scenarios for subsequent inservice inspections as well as a plant-specific limiting scenario, which was not specifically considered in these EPRI technical reports. The NRC staff finds that these sensitivity studies bound the impacts of a 12-year ISI interval, where the examinations may be more spread out in time but not eliminated. In addition, the analyses in these technical reports assume the existence of flaws in the subject welds. This is a conservative assumption, since the examination history of these locations does not indicate that significant cracking is occurring. Additionally, specific inspections to be completed by the licensee at pre-determined years as part of its performance monitoring plan are outlined in the respective approval letters for RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257. The NRC staff noted that these scheduled inspections at the Duke Energy fleet addressed within RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 ensure that no more than 20 years elapses between the performance of an ASME Code, Section XI, examination for the respective weld/component and is scheduled to occur regardless of the length of the ISI interval. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for this performance monitoring plan in those alternatives is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years. Finally, the licensee stated that alternatives RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257, which addressed the steam generator welds and pressurizer welds, respectively, are authorized only through the end of the current license. Therefore, the licensee must reassess this examination requirement at the end of the license, regardless of the length of the ISI interval.
Accounting for these factors, as discussed above, the NRC staff finds that the NRC staff's basis for approving the alternatives in RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
Furthermore, the NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified by RA-20-0328 is based on an NRC-approved topical report, as identified below, which was originally developed based on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals:
• WCAP-16168-NP-A, Revision 3, “Risk-Informed Extension of the Reactor Vessel In-Service Inspection Interval,” 2011 (ML11306A084).
WCAP-16168-NP-A provides the technical and regulatory basis for decreasing the frequency of inspections by extending the ASME Code, Section Xl, inservice inspection (ISI) interval from 10 years to 20 years for ASME Code, Section XI, Category B-A and B-D reactor vessel (RV) welds in pressurized water reactors.
While the methodology and analyses in this topical report were developed based, in part, on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals in calculating failure probability, the NRC staff noted that there are offsetting factors that account for potential impacts of a 12-year ISI interval. First, Section 3, “Pilot Plant Summary,” and Section 4, “Risk Assessment,” in WCAP-16168-NP-A includes data and results from a sensitivity study and quantitative risk assessment that provide the technical basis for extending the ASME Section XI Inspection interval from 10 years to 20 years for Category B-A and B-D RV nozzle welds, which bounds the impacts of performing ISI inspections under a 12-year ISI interval. Second, WCAP-16168-NP-A also assumes the existence of embedded flaws in welds, plates (includes forgings), and inner surface breaking flaws in the subject components. The NRC staff finds this to be a conservative assumption, because the examination history of these locations does not indicate that significant cracking is occurring. Additionally, inspections by the licensee at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, for the applicable RPV weld and nozzle components in the years 2032, 2033, and 2034 refueling outage for each unit, respectively, are pre-determined as part of its performance monitoring plan outlined in the approval letter for RA-20-0328. The NRC staff noted that these scheduled inspections at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, addressed within RA-20-0328 are scheduled to occur regardless of the length of the ISI interval. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for this performance monitoring plan in the alternative is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years since the alternative requires deferred 5th Interval reactor vessel exams for Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, to be completed in the 6th Interval no later than 2032, 2033, and 2034, respectively.
Accounting for these factors, as discussed above, the NRC staff concludes that the NRC staff's basis for approving the alternative in RA-20-0328 is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
Based on its review of the licensee's analysis of alternatives in Attachment 3 of the exemption request, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption would not result in any significant reduction in the effectiveness of the ISI and CISI programs implemented by the licensee at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3. Further, based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption would not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
The requested exemption would allow the licensee to implement Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3. The change is administrative in nature, adequately controlled by the ISI Programs criteria and ASME Code requirements and is not related to security issues. The length of these intervals is also not related to security issues. Thus, NRC staff determined that the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption, and, therefore, the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
The regulation under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) states, in part, that “[t]he Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present,” and describes, in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(i)-(vi), the conditions under which special circumstances exist. In the licensee's exemption request submittal Section III, “Basis for Approval of Exemption Request,” item (d), the licensee stated that three of the six special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present:
(ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
(iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.
(vi) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.
The NRC staff performed an independent review of the special circumstances claimed by the licensee.
For the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the licensee stated that the purpose of the July 2024 final rule (89 FR 58039) was to identify ASME Code cases that the NRC determined to be acceptable for use. The licensee noted that NRC's approval of Code Case N-921 includes a condition that, “This code case can only be implemented at the beginning of an ISI interval as part of a routine update of the ISI program.” The licensee provided the following support to the claim that application of the regulation would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule:
• The licensee stated that the exemption would not inhibit the ability of the licensee to comply with the ASME BPV XI examination distribution requirements.
• Table 4 through 6 for Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, of the licensee's submittal described the new inspection period dates and corresponding refueling outages.
• The licensee evaluated all NRC-authorized alternative requests in Attachment 3 of the licensee's submittal, consistent with NRC concerns expressed in the 89 FR 58039 final rule preamble (see NRC staff's independent review in Section III.B above).
• The licensee stated that the site ISI program owners routinely modify the ISI examination schedule during the ISI interval due to various reasons, such as evolving availability of qualified personnel and equipment.
In the 89 FR 58039 final rule preamble, the NRC communicated that order and predictability of licensee ISI programs is a paramount consideration. The careful advance planning required by ASME BPV XI and 10 CFR 50.55a maximizes licensee effectiveness in successfully executing all ISI requirements. The successful execution of ISI requirements, in turn, contributes to nuclear safety by providing a data stream used to continuously evaluate the structural integrity of safety-related components. The NRC staff determined that the licensee provided adequate evidence that, if the NRC staff approves the proposed exemption, the CISI and ISI programs at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3, will be managed in a manner that promotes order and predictability.
In the 89 FR 58039 final rule, the NRC added a new condition requiring that Code Case N-921 be implemented at the start of a new ISI interval. The basis for the condition is that implementation of Code Case N-921 in the middle of an ISI interval creates complications related to existing examination schedules and alternatives that were approved assuming a 10-year ISI interval. As discussed above, the licensee demonstrated that no currently approved alternatives are impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years. Another concern identified by the NRC staff with allowing mid-cycle implementation of Code Case N-921 involves potential complications of reconciling ISI inspection schedules to conform with the three 4-year periods specified in Code Case N-921. As discussed above, the licensee stated that in anticipation of implementing Code Case N-921, it proactively adjusted examination schedules accordingly to maintain compliance with Code Case N-921 periodic distribution requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that application of the regulation would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule because the licensee demonstrated that mid-cycle implementation of Code Case N-921 will have no impact on the CISI and ISI programs at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3. Based on the above, the NRC staff determined that the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present for the requested exemption. Since the regulations require that one of the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) be satisfied before the NRC may grant an exemption, the NRC staff did not evaluate the licensee's additional claims that the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) and (vi) are also applicable.
The NRC staff determined that the exemption discussed herein meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) because (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought are among those identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi), including requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption. The basis for this NRC staff determination is discussed as follows with an evaluation against each of the requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25).
The criteria for determining whether an action involves a significant hazards consideration are found in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The exemption only involves a CISI and ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature. The exemption does not adversely affect plant equipment, operation, or procedures. Therefore, there are no significant hazard considerations, because granting the exemption 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 exemption involves only a CISI and ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature, and does not involve any changes in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.
Since the exemption involves only a CISI and ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature, it does not contribute to any significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Since the exemption involves only a CISI and ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature, it does not involve any construction impact.
The exemption involves only a CISI and ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature and does not impact the potential for or consequences from accidents.
The exemption involves only a CISI and ISI program implementation change regarding examination scheduling requirements and other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature, because it is associated with the marginal extension from a 10-year to 12-year ISI interval.
Based on the above, NRC staff determined that the exemption meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with these exemption requests.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's request for exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the implementation of ASME Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI and fourth CISI intervals at Oconee Units 1, 2 and 3.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated: December 23, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Opportunity to comment and to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18, issued to Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (Constellation, the licensee) for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 (LaSalle). The proposed license amendments would add the requirement to perform a Channel Check in accordance with Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.3.6.1.1 to the Main Steam Line (MSL) Flow-High function (Function 1.c). For this amendment request, the NRC proposes to determine that the request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Submit comments by January 30, 2026. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Requests for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by March 2, 2026.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website.
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Robert Kuntz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3733; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-2095 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
The NRC is considering issuance of amendments to RFOL Nos. NPF-11 and NPF-18 for LaSalle, located in LaSalle County, Illinois. The proposed license amendments would change Technical Specification (TS) Table 3.3.6.1-1, “Primary Containment Isolation Instrumentation,” to add the requirement to perform a Channel Check in accordance with SR 3.3.6.1.1 to the MSL Flow-High function (Function 1.c), as described in the licensee's license amendment request dated December 12, 2025. Before issuance of the proposed license amendments, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and NRC's regulations.
The NRC has made a proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the NRC's regulations in section 50.92 of title 10 of the
1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change to TS Table 3.3.6.1-1 will incorporate into the LaSalle TS wording specified in NUREG-1434. The proposed change will modify TS Table 3.3.6.1-1 to add the requirement to perform a Channel Check in accordance with SR 3.3.6.1.1 for only the MSL Flow-High instrument function. The performance of TS surveillance testing is not a precursor to any accident previously evaluated. A Channel Check is a monitoring activity that does not represent an accident initiator. Thus, the proposed change does not have any effect on the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The function of the instrumentation listed on TS Table 3.3.6.1-1, in combination with other accident mitigation features, is to limit fission product release during and following postulated Design Basis Accidents to within limits. The surveillance testing specified in TS Table 3.3.6.1-1 increases assurance that the instrumentation will perform as designed. Thus, the radiological consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not increased.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The proposed change does not affect the control parameters governing unit operation or the response of plant equipment to transient conditions. The failure modes of the new instrumentation do not give rise to a new or different kind of accident. The proposed change does not introduce any new modes of system operation or failure mechanisms.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The MSL Flow-High detection system at LaSalle uses differential pressure switches that are connected to a flow element on each of the four MSLs, allowing detection of a MSL break and initiating closure of the MSIVs [Main Steam Isolation Valves]. The current flow switches do not have the capability to allow a Channel Check to be performed. Thus, the LaSalle TS took exception to the guidance contained in NUREG-1434 and did not specify on TS Table 3.3.6.1-1 that a SR 3.3.6.1.1 Channel Check be performed on the instrument function.
The replacement differential pressure transmitters provide signals to trip units that contain analog displays that permit the performance of a Channel Check with the Unit in MODES 1, 2 and 3. The replacement transmitters and trip units are scheduled to be installed on Unit 1, during the February 2026 refueling outage and are scheduled to be installed in Unit 2, during the February 2027 refueling outage.
LaSalle is requesting that TS Table 3.3.6.1-1 is modified to specify that a SR 3.3.6.1.1 Channel Check be performed in MODES 1, 2 and 3 for Function 1.c, consistent with the guidance contained in NUREG-1434.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The NRC is seeking public comments on this proposed determination that the license amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 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 the license amendments before expiration of the 60-day notice period provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the 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 prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the 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 10 CFR 2.309. If
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 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
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for license amendment dated December 12, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25346A245).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, or Commission) has issued an exemption in response to a request from Constellation Energy Generation, LLC to allow the completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations for the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 1.
The exemption was issued on December 23, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1141 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tanya Hood, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1387; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
By letter dated October 20, 2023 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML23293A305), as supplemented by letters dated May 13, 2024, and August 1, 2024 (ML24134A179 and ML24214A323, respectively), Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (the licensee), submitted a request for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 1 (Peach Bottom Unit 1) that would allow the completion of decommissioning for Peach Bottom Unit 1 beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations.
The Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station is in York County, PA and is composed of three reactor licenses: Peach Bottom Unit 1 (License No. DPR-12), which is presently in a long-term storage condition for a permanently shut down nuclear power plant, referred to as SAFSTOR and is the subject of this request, along with Peach Bottom Unit 2 (DPR-44) and Peach Bottom Unit 3 (DPR-56), which are actively operating. Peach Bottom Unit 1 is licensed pursuant to Section 104(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the
The regulation at 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) requires power reactor licensees to complete decommissioning within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations. The regulation provides that completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years will be considered by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) only when necessary to protect public health and safety, with site-specific factors considered when reviewing such requests, including the presence of other nuclear facilities at the site.
The licensee requested an alternative to the 60 year decommissioning schedule requirements in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) to decommission Peach Bottom Unit 1 to coincide with the eventual decommissioning of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. The licensee stated its alternative request “meets the evaluation factors in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) due to the potential impact on public health and safety with other nuclear facilities present at the site” and that “[t]his request is to allow [the licensee] to complete the decommissioning of [Peach Bottom], Unit 1, in a time frame more suitable with the decommissioning of [Peach Bottom], Units 2 and 3, in order to reduce the overall risk and increase the margin to public health and safety.”
The licensee is requesting that the decommissioning schedule for Peach
To support its review of the request for an alternative decommissioning schedule, the NRC staff conducted a regulatory audit of the application onsite at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station. The NRC staff issued an audit plan to the licensee on March 28, 2024 (ML24088A318), which provided the scope of the audit.
Under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3), the Commission will approve an alternative that provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations only when necessary to protect public health and safety. In evaluating whether an alternative is necessary, the regulations provide that the NRC will consider factors such as unavailability of waste disposal capacity; or other site-specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning, including presence of other nuclear facilities at the site. Prior to this request for an alternative decommissioning schedule, Peach Bottom, Unit 1, was required to complete decommissioning by October 31, 2034.
The NRC staff's approach in evaluating the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) criteria is documented, in part, in SECY-24-0073, “Site-Specific Considerations for Review of Requests to Complete Power Reactor Decommissioning Beyond 60 Years from Permanent Cessation of Operations,” dated September 3, 2024 (ML24100A760). In conducting the Peach Bottom review, which was the first time the NRC staff applied the approach outlined in the SECY, the NRC staff remained mindful of the approach outlined, and also applied additional risk insights and site-specific considerations, as explained in SECY-25-0095, “Staff's Planned Approval of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station Unit 1 Exemption Request for Alternative Decommissioning Schedule,” dated December 10, 2025 (ML25150A317). The NRC has determined that the licensee has met the “only when necessary to protect public health and safety” criterion because the licensee showed that Peach Bottom Unit 1 decommissioning activities could result in site-specific impacts on public health and safety due to the increased risk to systems and structures supporting the adjacent operating Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3.
The licensee's request for an alternative decommissioning schedule was based on the potential impacts to public health and safety from decommissioning Peach Bottom Unit 1 while there are two other operating nuclear facilities at the site. In support of its exemption request, the licensee noted that many portions of the original Peach Bottom Unit 1 facilities have been refurbished to support ongoing power operations support functions at Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. Specifically, the Peach Bottom Technical Support Center (TSC) and Control Room Simulator support regulatory required functions for the operating units at the site for Emergency Planning and Operations Training, respectively. The licensee also indicated that there are interconnectivity issues between the operational support facilities (
Additionally, the licensee notes other connectivity impacts of decommissioning Peach Bottom Unit 1 while Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 continue to operate. The Peach Bottom Unit 1 footprint that must be decommissioned does not have any systems, structures, or components (SSCs) important to safety that are shared between Peach Bottom Unit 1 and Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. However, the licensee's audit response explains that accessing the systems for removal in the containment structure at Peach Bottom Unit 1 would pose challenges due to the proximity and location of the administration building. In its audit response and with regard to impacts, the licensee explained that, “while the adjacent administrative/training buildings to the east and south are not radiologically controlled or within the scope of decommissioning for license termination, elimination of these interfacing interferences following [Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3] operations would improve the access and ability to perform safe decommissioning of the containment building and internal SSCs. Physical space for an adequate confinement structure and associated engineered controls, including ventilation and radiological monitoring, are critical aspects of performing decommissioning activities related to the graphite components within the reactor vessel of this HTGR.”
Also, the containment building at the Peach Bottom Unit 1 facility contains the radioactive reactor vessel, reactor internals, and graphite, and consists of a 100-foot diameter steel containment vessel reinforced by stiffening rings with a concrete floor. The steel containment vessel is on an approximately 3-foot-thick concrete foundation constructed on bedrock. The containment building is an important component because the containment building performs a safety function in confining radioactive material so that there is no exceedance of the radiation protection requirements outlined in 10 CFR part 20. The licensee's SAFSTOR program will continue for the extended period of decommissioning and the licensee should update its program
In evaluating this information, the NRC staff determined that the licensee presented a reasonable argument that the proximity of Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, and specifically, the support facilities associated with them in relation to the decommissioning facility, is a site-specific factor that affects the licensee's capability to safely carry out decommissioning. The NRC staff agrees that the proximity of the support facilities to Peach Bottom Unit 1 is likely to impact the manner in which the licensee would decommission Peach Bottom Unit 1 such that the overall risk to the public health and safety due to decommissioning would likely be decreased if the decommissioning of Peach Bottom Unit 1 occurred after Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 were no longer operating. Because of this, the NRC staff concludes that the presence of these other nuclear facilities impacts the method in which the licensee could reduce risk during decommissioning. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3), the NRC staff agrees that the interconnectivity of the support structures at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station supports an alternative decommissioning schedule.
The licensee also raised concerns with potential impacts to the electric systems if Peach Bottom Unit 1 were required to decommission on the original 60-year schedule. According to the licensee, the Peach Bottom Unit 1 electrical distribution system, as originally designed, has mostly been abandoned during initial decommissioning activities, including all generation-related and reactor-related SSCs, or has been modified to support current functions. The 220-08 Line was originally the grid connection for Peach Bottom Unit 1 commercial operation. The configuration was an assortment of electromechanical protective relays and a transfer trip system linked to the nearest switchyards on PECO's 220-08 230kV Line. When Peach Bottom Unit 1 ceased operation in 1974, the 220-08 Line remained and became an offsite source for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3.
The licensee's letter dated October 20, 2023, stated that Peach Bottom Unit 1 houses the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) required protective relay scheme SSCs for one of the credited offsite power sources necessary for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3. The licensee indicated that decommissioning Peach Bottom Unit 1 challenges the 220-08 Line offsite power source that is credited for an offsite power source for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, which potentially increases the risk to public health and safety. Additionally, the licensee further stated in its letter dated May 13, 2024, that the 220-08 Line protective scheme affects the reliability of Bulk Electric System, known as the grid. The 220-08 Line protective scheme detects faults on grid components such as lines, buses, transformers, etc., and, therefore, is within the scope of NERC Standard PRC-005-6, “Protection System, Automatic Reclosing, and Sudden Pressure Relaying Maintenance.”
The NRC staff evaluated the applicable NERC standards that pertain to the electrical power system. The NRC staff determined that the applicable 220-08 Protection System components such as the protective relays, communication systems, sensing devices, DC supply and control circuitry are required to meet the maintenance activities required by NERC Standard PRC-005-6. Moreover, the NRC staff identified additional support for the licensee's claim that Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 rely upon the 220-08 Protective System components, which are located at Unit 1, for an offsite power source in the Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) (ML23110A266). The UFSAR states: “Each offsite source can be used to supply the unit auxiliary buses for plant startup and shutdown and the cooling tower equipment. . . . Every 4 kV emergency switchgear bus is energized from one of these two sources at all times during normal operation. . . .”
Because power to Peach Bottom Unit 1 electrical systems and components is provided by onsite standby power supplies as well, the NRC staff evaluated the onsite power systems. The licensee explained, in its letter dated May 13, 2024, that for onsite power, Peach Bottom Unit 1 is currently equipped with a 125V direct current (DC) battery, 10D465, which is the former Peach Bottom Unit 1 station battery, and the licensee performs maintenance and testing in accordance with station procedures and in compliance with NERC Standard PRC-005-6.
Based on this information, the NRC staff agrees that decommissioning of Peach Bottom Unit 1 would impact the capacity and capability of the power systems (offsite and onsite power). Therefore, pursuant to 50.82(a)(3), the capacity and capability of the power systems at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station is a factor that, in combination with other factors discussed above, supports an alternative decommissioning schedule.
The NRC staff has determined that the proposed exemption can be categorically excluded under 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) from NRC requirements to conduct an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. The categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) states that the granting of an exemption from the requirements of any NRC regulation may be categorically excluded as long as the conditions of 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(vi) are met.
In this instance, the NRC staff determined all the conditions of 51.22(c)(25)(i)-(v) have been satisfied. Approving this exemption would not: result in conditions that could significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident; result in a significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; result in increases to public and occupational radiation exposure; result in a significant construction impact; or result in a significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents. Approval in this instance only continues the current status and activities at the facility. During the duration of the decommissioning delay, the licensee will maintain Peach Bottom Unit 1 in SAFSTOR condition in accordance with the technical specifications for Peach Bottom Unit 1, and the licensee will continue ongoing monitoring activities, such as regular radiological surveys, use of monitoring wells, inspections for (and any needed management of) groundwater intrusion into the containment, and inspections of facility conditions.
Finally, the NRC staff has determined that the request satisfies 51.22(c)(25)(vi) because the exemption applies to the following specific activities associated with Peach Bottom Unit 1 that support the continued maintenance of Peach Bottom Unit 1 in SAFSTOR into the period approved in the alternative decommissioning schedule: (A) recordkeeping requirements; (B) reporting requirements; (C) inspection
Based on the above assessment, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the NRC's consideration of this exemption request.
For the reasons described above, the NRC concludes that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3), there are site-specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning at Peach Bottom Unit 1 because of the presence of the operating units at the site such that an alternative decommissioning schedule is necessary to protect public health and safety. The NRC's determination is based on the multiple connections that exist between Peach Bottom Unit 1 and the operating Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 at this site, including the presence of the nuclear facilities (Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 support buildings) located on the Peach Bottom Unit 1 footprint and the need for its continued use by Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3, and the electric power connection at Peach Bottom Unit 1 that is utilized as one of the primary power sources of offsite power for Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3.
Therefore, the NRC grants Constellation Energy Generation, Inc., a one-time exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) to allow the licensee an alternative decommissioning schedule that requires the decommissioning of Peach Bottom Unit 1, 20 years after the permanent cessation of operations of either Peach Bottom Units 2 or 3, whichever is earlier, and in no case beyond 2074. With this approval, the licensee's SAFSTOR program will continue for the extended period of decommissioning and the licensee should update its program accordingly. For the period beyond 60 years, the NRC will continue its inspection of the SAFSTOR program as outlined in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, technical specifications, and licensee procedures, including the material condition of the Peach Bottom Unit 1 buildings, such as the Unit 1 containment.
The exemption will be effective upon issuance.
Dated: this 23rd day of December 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, NRC Form 277, “Request for Visit.”
Submit comments by March 2, 2026. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Heather Dempsey, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0856; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-0051 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 in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a request dated May 8, 2025, as supplemented by letter dated August 21, 2025, from Duke Energy Progress, LLC, to allow the implementation of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth Inservice Inspection (ISI) interval at H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No.2.
The exemption was issued on December 23, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2025-1800 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
John Klos, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5136; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC (Duke Energy, the licensee) is the holder of the Renewed Facility Operating License (RFOL) No. DRP-23 for H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 (H.B. Robinson Unit 2) which is a Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) located in Hartsville, South Carolina. The RFOL provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
On July 17, 2024, NRC issued a final rule incorporating by reference Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.147, Revision 21 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), Accession No. ML23291A003), into Title 10 of the
By application dated May 8, 2025 (ML25128A041), as supplemented by letter dated August 21, 2025, (ML25233A035), the licensee, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” requested an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the use of Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI interval at H.B. Robinson Unit 2, which is not in accordance with Condition 2 on Code Case N-921, as specified in RG 1.147, Revision 21. The sixth ISI interval at H.B. Robinson 2 began on February 19, 2023. The licensee stated that the proposed exemption does not impact the Inservice Testing (IST) program or snubber program, which are implemented under the requirements of the ASME Operation and Maintenance Code.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security and (2) special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), special circumstances are present when at least one of the following six conditions are met:
(i) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances conflicts with other rules or requirements of the Commission; or
(ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or
(iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated; or
(iv) The exemption would result in benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any decrease in safety that may result from the grant of the exemption; or
(v) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation; or
(vi) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.
The exemption would authorize exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the use of Code Case N-921, after the start dates of the sixth ISI interval at H.B. Robinson Unit 2. As stated, 10 CFR 50.12(a) allows the NRC to grant an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, including 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y), when the exemption is authorized by law. An exemption is authorized by law where it is not expressly prohibited by statute or regulation. A proposed exemption is implicitly authorized by law if it will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, is consistent with the common defense and security, and special circumstances are present, and no other provisions in law prohibit, or otherwise restrict, its application. The NRC staff has determined that no provisions in law expressly prohibit or otherwise restrict the application of the requested exemption. The NRC staff has also determined, as explained below, that the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, is consistent with the common defense and security, and special circumstances are present. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption is authorized by law.
This exemption would allow the licensee to implement Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI interval at H.B. Robinson Unit 2. The action does not change the manner in which the plant operates and maintains public health and safety because the exemption does not result in a change to the facility or the current operating license. The licensee stated that extending the ISI interval by two years does not impact the technical basis supporting any of the currently authorized 10 CFR 50.55a alternatives and does not create any particular challenge in reconciling the ISI inspection schedules to conform with the three four-year periods specified in Code Case N-921. Accordingly, the NRC staff reviewed the alternatives listed in Attachment 1 of the licensee's exemption request for ISI interval-related impacts and identified several common themes in these alternatives and evaluated the alternatives as described below.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternative identified by RA-19-0106 is unrelated to the length of the ISI interval. The NRC staff confirmed that this authorized alternative granted by letter dated June 19, 2020 (ML20097F088), was only applicable through the Fall 2024 refueling outage, which had already occurred at the time of the licensee's current submittal for an exemption. Therefore, the NRC staff's basis for approving this alternative is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
The NRC staff noted that the authorized alternatives identified by RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 are based on technical reports, as identified below, which were originally developed based on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals:
• EPRI Technical Report 3002015906, “Technical Bases for Inspection Requirements for PWR Steam Generator Class 1 Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds and Class 1 and Class 2 Vessel Head, Shell, Tubesheet-to-Head, and Tubesheet-to-Shell Welds,” 2019 (ML20225A141).
• EPRI Technical Report 3002014590, “Technical Bases for Inspection Requirements for PWR Steam Generator Feedwater and Main Steam Nozzle-to-Shell Welds and Nozzle Inside Radius Sections,” 2019 (ML19347B107).
• EPRI Technical Report 3002015905, “Technical Bases for Inspection Requirements for PWR Pressurizer Head, Shell-to-Head, and Nozzle-to-Vessel Welds,” 2019 (ML21021A271).
These assessments include flaw tolerance evaluations using probabilistic fracture mechanics and deterministic fracture mechanics, and a survey of inspection results from 74 domestic and international nuclear units. Based on the conclusions of the three reports, the licensee requested an alternative to the ASME Section XI examination requirements for the subject steam generator and pressurizer welds in RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257, respectively.
While the analyses in these technical reports were developed based on the assumption of 10-year ISI intervals in calculating failure probability, the NRC staff noted that there are offsetting factors that account for potential impacts of a 12-year ISI interval. First, these technical reports and the licensee's submittal for the authorized alternatives (see ML23256A088 and ML23264A853) contain generic and plant-specific sensitivity studies that considered a pre-service inspection followed by various scenarios for subsequent inservice inspections as well as a plant-specific limiting scenario, which was not specifically considered in these EPRI technical reports. The NRC staff finds that these sensitivity studies bound the impacts of a 12-year ISI interval, where the examinations may be more spread out in time but not eliminated. In addition, the analyses in these technical reports assume the existence of flaws in the subject welds. This is a conservative assumption, since the examination history of these locations does not indicate that significant cracking is occurring. Additionally, specific inspections to be completed by the licensee at pre-determined years as part of its performance monitoring plan are outlined in the respective approval letters for RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257. The NRC staff noted that these scheduled inspections at the Duke Energy fleet addressed within RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 ensure that no more than 20 years elapses between the performance of an ASME Code, Section XI, examination for the respective weld/component and is scheduled to occur regardless of the length of the ISI
Accounting for these factors, as discussed above, the NRC staff finds that the NRC staff's basis for approving the alternatives in RA-22-0256 and RA-22-0257 is not impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years.
Based on its review of the licensee's analysis of alternatives in Attachment 1 of the exemption request, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption would not result in any significant reduction in the effectiveness of the ISI programs implemented by the licensee at H.B. Robinson Unit 2. Further, based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the exemption would not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
The requested exemption would allow the licensee to implement Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI interval at H.B. Robinson Unit 2. The change is administrative in nature, adequately controlled by the ISI Program criteria and ASME Code requirements and is not related to security issues. The length of the ISI interval is also not related to security issues. Thus, NRC staff determined that the common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption, and, therefore, the exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.
The regulation under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) states, in part, that “[t]he Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present,” and describes, in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(i)-(vi), the conditions under which special circumstances exist. In the licensee's exemption request submittal Section III, “Basis for Approval of Exemption Request,” item (d), the licensee stated that three of the six special circumstances listed in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) are present:
(ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
(iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.
(vi) There is present any other material circumstance not considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.
The NRC staff performed an independent review of the special circumstances claimed by the licensee.
For the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the licensee stated that the purpose of the July 2024 final rule (89 FR 58039) was to identify ASME Code cases that the NRC determined to be acceptable for use. The licensee noted that NRC's approval of Code Case N-921 includes a condition that “This code case can only be implemented at the beginning of an ISI interval as part of a routine update of the ISI program.” The licensee provided the following support to the claim that application of the regulation would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule:
• The licensee stated that the exemption would not inhibit the ability of the licensee to comply with the ASME BPV XI examination distribution requirements.
• Table 2 for H.B. Robinson Unit 2 of the licensee's submittal described the new inspection period dates and corresponding refueling outages.
• The licensee evaluated all NRC-authorized alternative requests in Attachment 1 of the licensee's submittal, consistent with NRC concerns expressed in the 89 FR 58039 final rule preamble (see NRC staff's independent review in Section III.B above).
• The licensee stated that the site ISI program owners routinely modify the ISI examination schedule during the ISI interval due to various reasons, such as evolving availability of qualified personnel and equipment.
In the 89 FR 58039 final rule preamble, the NRC communicated that order and predictability of licensee ISI programs is a paramount consideration. The careful advance planning required by ASME BPV XI and 10 CFR 50.55a maximizes licensee effectiveness in successfully executing all ISI requirements. The successful execution of ISI requirements, in turn, contributes to nuclear safety by providing a data stream used to continuously evaluate the structural integrity of safety-related components. The NRC staff determined that the licensee provided adequate evidence that, if the NRC staff approves the proposed exemption, the ISI programs at H.B. Robinson Unit 2 will be managed in a manner that promotes order and predictability.
In the 89 FR 58039 final rule, the NRC added a new condition requiring that Code Case N-921 be implemented at the start of a new ISI interval. The basis for the condition is that implementation of Code Case N-921 in the middle of an ISI interval creates complications related to existing examination schedules and alternatives that were approved assuming a 10-year ISI interval. As discussed above, the licensee demonstrated that no currently approved alternatives are impacted by extending the length of the ISI interval to 12 years. Another concern identified by the NRC staff with allowing mid-cycle implementation of Code Case N-921 involves potential complications of reconciling ISI inspection schedules to conform with the three 4-year periods specified in Code Case N-921. As discussed above, the licensee stated that in anticipation of implementing Code Case N-921, it proactively adjusted examination schedules accordingly to maintain compliance with Code Case N-921 periodic distribution requirements. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that application of the regulation would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule because the licensee demonstrated that mid-cycle implementation of Code Case N-921 will have no impact on the ISI programs at H.B. Robinson Unit 2. Based on the above, the NRC staff determined that the special circumstances described in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present for the requested exemption. Since the regulations require that one of the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) be satisfied before NRC may grant an exemption, the NRC staff did not evaluate the licensee's additional claims that the special circumstances in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) and (vi) are also applicable.
The NRC staff determined that the exemption discussed herein meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) because (i) there is no significant hazards consideration; (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation exposure; (iv) there is no significant construction impact; (v) there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents; and (vi) the requirements from which an exemption is sought are among those identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25)(vi), including requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need to be prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption. The basis for this NRC staff determination is discussed as follows with an evaluation against each of the requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25).
The criteria for determining whether an action involves a significant hazards consideration are found in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The exemption only involves an ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature. The exemption does not adversely affect plant equipment, operation, or procedures. Therefore, there are no significant hazard considerations, because granting the exemption 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 exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change, which is
Since the exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature, it does not contribute to any significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.
Since the exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature, it does not involve any construction impact.
The exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change, which is administrative in nature and does not impact the potential for or consequences from accidents.
The exemption involves only an ISI program implementation change regarding examination scheduling requirements and other requirements of an administrative, managerial, or organizational nature, because it is associated with the marginal extension from a 10-year to 12-year ISI interval.
Based on the above, NRC staff determined that the exemption meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with this exemption request.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC's request for an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(a)(3)(ii) and 10 CFR 50.55a(y) to allow the implementation of ASME Code Case N-921 after the start dates of the sixth ISI interval at H.B. Robinson Unit 2.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated: December 23, 2025.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The Exchange has designated this proposed rule change as “non-controversial” under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 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 is a participant of the transaction reporting plan
Although IEX's rules relating to listing of securities remain in effect, IEX is currently not acting in the capacity of a “Primary Listing Market”, as defined in the Amended UTP and Amended CTA/CQ Plans with respect to any security, and therefore this proposal provides the Exchange with more limited authority to declare Regulatory Halts than exchanges that operate as a Primary Listing Market.
As part of this proposed rule change, IEX, like other exchanges, is proposing to move its rules relating to Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility (the Market Wide Circuit Breaker or “MWCB”), currently IEX Rules 11.280(a)-(d) and (i)-(k), to Rule 11.271. IEX is also proposing to delete the current text in its current Rule 11.271 (Trading Halts), because those rules are being replaced with the rules in proposed Rule 11.280 (Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts on the Exchange). These changes will better align IEX's MWCB, Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts rules with those of other exchanges for clarity and organizational purposes.
As a Participant in the SIP Plans, the Exchange worked with the other Participants to establish and implement common criteria and procedures for halting and resuming trading in equity securities in the event of regulatory or operational issues. These common standards were designed so that market events which might impact multiple exchanges are handled in a consistent and transparent manner. The Exchange believes that implementation of these common standards will promote the SROs' role in maintaining fair and orderly markets, protecting investors and furthering the public interest. Notwithstanding the development of these common standards, the Exchange will retain discretion in certain instances as to whether and how to handle halts, as discussed below.
Every U.S.-listed equity security has its primary listing on a specific stock exchange that is responsible for a number of regulatory functions.
The exchanges and FINRA are responsible for monitoring activity on the markets over which they have oversight but also must adhere to the regulatory decisions made by the Primary Listing Market with respect to its listed securities. For example, a venue trading a security pursuant to unlisted trading privileges must halt trading in that security during a Regulatory Halt,
The Exchange proposes adding a new definition for “UTP Exchange Traded Products”
The Exchange also proposes to add definitions of “Trust Shares,” “Index Fund Shares,” “Managed Fund Shares,” and “Trust Issued Receipts,” as subcategories to the defined term UTP Exchange Traded Product, and those terms will have the same meanings as those found in the rules of other exchanges, which were adopted in response to the SIP Plan Amendments.
As described above, the Exchange proposes to adopt the definition of “Primary Listing Market” that is found in the SIP Plans.
The Exchange is also proposing to adopt a definition of the term “Extraordinary Market Activity”
a disruption or malfunction of any electronic quotation, communication, reporting, or execution system operated by, or linked to, the Processor or a Trading Center or a member of such Trading Center that has a severe and continuing negative impact on quoting, order, or trading activity or on the availability of market information necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market. For purposes of this definition, a severe and continuing negative impact on quoting, order, or trading activity includes (i) a series of quotes, orders, or transactions at prices substantially unrelated to the current market for the security or securities; (ii) duplicative or erroneous quoting, order, trade reporting, or other related message traffic between one or more Trading Centers or their members; or (iii) the unavailability of quoting, order, transaction information, or regulatory messages for a sustained period.
The third set of new proposed definitions would be specific to events involving the SIP. Specifically, the Exchange is also proposing to adopt the following terms from the SIP Plans: “Operating Committee,” “Operational Halt,” “Processor” or “SIP,” “Regular Trading Hours,” “SIP Halt,” and “SIP Halt Resume Time.”
While the Exchange recognizes that many events involving the SIP would also meet the definition of “Extraordinary Market Activity” (as defined in the SIP Plans), the Exchange believes that the critical role of the SIPs in market infrastructure factors in favor of additional guidance on how such events will be handled. The definitions of “SIP Halt Resume Time” and “SIP Halt” are intended to provide additional guidance to address this subset of potential market issues. In addition, the Exchange is proposing to define terms related to SIP governance needed in order to understand these definitions:
• “Processor” or “SIP”
• “SIP Plan”
• “Operating Committee”
The Exchange is proposing to adopt a category of Regulatory Halt, called a “SIP Halt,”
Fourth, the Exchange proposes to add a definition of “Regulatory Halt,”
a halt declared by the Primary Listing Market in trading in one or more securities on all Trading Centers for regulatory purposes, including for the dissemination of material news, news pending, suspensions, or where otherwise necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market. A Regulatory Halt includes a trading pause triggered by Limit Up Limit Down, a halt based on Extraordinary Market Activity, a trading halt triggered by a Market-Wide Circuit Breaker, and a SIP Halt.
The Exchange proposes to add a definition of “Operational Halt,”
Proposed Rule 11.280(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) includes four situations in which the Exchange must halt trading pursuant to a Regulatory Halt: under the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, pursuant to Extraordinary Market Volatility (Market-Wide Circuit Breakers), when the Primary Listing Market declares a SIP halt, or when the Primary Listing Market declares a trading halt based on Extraordinary Market Activity, as defined in the SIP Plans. Proposed Rule 11.280(b)(1)(A)(i) retains without substantive modification the existing rule with respect to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan (current Rule 11.280(e)). The Exchange, currently acting as a non-Primary Listing Market, does not itself declare trading pauses pursuant to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, but rather implements such pauses declared by Primary Listing Markets. The Exchange proposes to make clear in Rule 11.280(b)(1)(A)(ii) that a trading halt pursuant to Extraordinary Market Volatility (Market-Wide Circuit Breakers), as is described in proposed Rule 11.271, constitutes a Regulatory Halt. The Exchange would also add subsections concerning Regulatory Halts declared by Primary Listing Markets based on a SIP halt or Extraordinary Market Activity in Rule 11.280(b)(1)(A)(iii). As is the case under the current Rule 11.280(e), the Exchange would honor a Regulatory Halt. The Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.280(b)(1)(A)(iv), which states that the Exchange will halt trading for any security traded on the Exchange when the Primary Listing Market declares a Regulatory Halt for any such security. The Exchange also proposes to add Rule 11.280(b)(1)(A)(iv)(a), which makes clear that the start time of a Regulatory Halt is the time the Primary Listing Market declares the Regulatory Halt, regardless of whether communications issues impact the dissemination of notice of the Halt. This provision is consistent with the SIP Plans
The SROs have jointly developed processes to govern the resumption of trading in the event of a Regulatory Halt. While the actual process of re-launching trading will remain unique to each exchange, the proposed rule would harmonize certain common elements of the reopening process that would benefit from consistency across markets. These common elements include the primacy of the Primary Listing Market in resumption decisions, the requirement that the Primary Listing Market make its determination to resume trading in good faith,
Proposed Rule 11.280(b)(2) provides the process to be followed when resuming trading upon the conclusion of a Regulatory Halt. The new rule, which incorporates Sections X(E) and X(F) of the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan and Sections XI(a)(v) and XI(a)(vi), is divided into the following two subsections concerning resumption of trading: (A) after a Regulatory Halt other than a SIP Halt; and (B) after a SIP Halt. Proposed Rule 11.280(b)(2)(A)(i) provides that, for a Regulatory Halt other than a SIP Halt, the Exchange may resume trading subject to the Regulatory Halt after the Exchange receives notification from the Primary Listing Market that the Regulatory Halt has been terminated. The Exchange does not conduct halt crosses and, therefore, the resumption of trading in these securities will occur once notice from the Primary Listing Market is received. Proposed Rule 11.280(b)(2)(B)(i) provides that, for securities subject to a SIP Halt initiated by another exchange that is the Primary Listing Market, during Regular Trading Hours, the Exchange may resume trading after trading has resumed on the Primary Listing Market or notice has been received from the Primary Listing Market that trading may resume. During Regular Trading Hours, if the Primary Listing Market does not open a security within the amount of time specified by the rules of the Primary Listing Market after the SIP Halt Resume Time, the Exchange may resume trading in that security. Outside Regular Trading Hours, the Exchange may resume trading immediately after the SIP Halt Resume Time.
Proposed Rule 11.280(b)(3) retains without substantive modification existing Rule 11.271. Proposed Rule 11.280(b)(3) states that on the occurrence of any Regulatory Halt pursuant to this Rule all outstanding orders in the System will be cancelled, the Exchange will not accept new orders, and at the end of the Regulatory Halt, the Exchange shall re-open the security and again begin accepting orders. Lastly, consistent with Section X(G) of the Nasdaq UTP Plan and Section XI(a)(vii) of the CTA Plan, the Exchange proposes to add Rule 11.280(c), which will more broadly require the Exchange to halt trading of a UTP security if the Primary Listing Market declares a Regulatory Halt in that security, and more specifically, governs trading halts in certain Exchange Traded Products traded on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges during pre-market, regular trading hours, and post-market sessions.
The Exchange proposes in Rule 11.280(d) to address Operational Halts, which are non-regulatory in nature and apply only to the exchange that calls the halt. As described above, the Exchange has always had the capacity to implement operational halts and local trading suspensions in specified circumstances, but such halts are not currently referred to as “operational
• if it is experiencing Extraordinary Market Activity
• when otherwise necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market or in the public interest.
Proposed Rule 11.280(d)(2) provides the process for initiating an Operational Halt. Under the proposed rule, on the occurrence of any Operational Halt all outstanding orders in the System will be cancelled. Further, the Exchange must notify the SIP if it has concerns about its ability to collect and transmit Quotation Information or Transaction Reports, or if it has declared an Operational Halt or suspension of trading in one or more Eligible Securities, pursuant to the procedures adopted by the Operating Committee.
Proposed Rule 11.280(d)(3) will clarify how the Exchange resumes trading after an Operational Halt. Proposed Rule 11.280(d)(3)(A) provides that the Exchange would resume trading after an Operational Halt when it determines that trading may resume in a fair and orderly manner consistent with the Exchange's rules. Proposed Rule 11.280(d)(3)(B) provides that orders entered during the Operational Halt will not be accepted. Proposed Rule 11.280(d)(3)(C) provides that trading in a halted security shall resume at the time specified by the Exchange in a notice. Proposed Rule 11.280(d)(3)(C) also specifies that the Exchange will notify all other Participants and the SIP of such an Operational Halt as well as provide notice that an Operational Halt has been lifted using such protocols and other emergency procedures as may be mutually agreed to between the Operating Committee and the Exchange. If the SIP is unable to disseminate notice of an Operational Halt or the Exchange is not open for trading, the Exchange will take reasonable steps to provide notice of an Operational Halt, which shall include both the type and start time of the Operational Halt. Each Participant shall continuously monitor communication protocols established by the Operating Committee and the Processor during market hours to disseminate notice of an Operational Halt, and the failure of a Participant to do so shall not prevent the Exchange from initiating an Operational Halt.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes moving the Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility (MWCB) rules that are currently in Rule 11.280 to their own separate rule, proposed Rule 11.271. As proposed, MWCB halts, which fall under the category of Regulatory Halts, are cross referenced in proposed Rule 11.280(b)(i)(A)(ii). The text of the proposed Rule 11.271 does not materially differ from what is currently in found in IEX Rules 11.280(a)-(d)
The Exchange proposes to make the following conforming changes to other rules, in addition to any changes described above.
• In Rule 11.230(a)(3) (Order Execution), add “Plan” at the end of the phrase “Limit Up-Limit Down”. IEX proposes this change so that the Rule Book is consistent in how it refers to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
• In Rule 11.231(e) (Regular Market Session Opening Process for Non-IEX-Listed Securities), replace a reference to Rule 11.271 with a reference to Rule 11.280. The reference is to the authority to reject orders submitted during a trading halt, which under this proposal will now be found in Rule 11.280.
• As described above, IEX proposes to rearrange Rules 11.271 (Trading Halts) and Rule 11.280 (Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts), such that the MWCB rules will move from Rule 11.271, and current rule 11.271 will be replaced with the trading halts rules described above in Rule 11.280.
• In Rule 11.350 (Auctions), change references to Rule 11.280(e) (Limit Up-Limit Down Mechanism) and Rule 11.280(h) (Procedure for Initiating and Terminating a Trading Halt) to refer to Rule 11.280 in general, which contains several rules relating to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and corresponding trading halts. Specifically, IEX proposes to make the following changes:
○ In Rule 11.350(a)(1)(E)(i), change the reference to Rule 11.280(e) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(a)(6)(A)(i), change the reference to Rule 11.280(h)(9) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(a)(6)(B), change the reference to Rule 11.280(h)(9) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(a)(7)(A)(i), change the reference to Rule 11.280(h)(9) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(a)(7)(B), change the reference to Rule 11.280(h)(9) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(a)(9)(G), change the reference to Rule 11.280(h)(8) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(a)(9)(H), change the reference to Rule 11.280(h)(8) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(a)(9)(I), change the reference to Rule 11.280(h)(8) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(d)(2)(D), change the two references to Rule 11.280(e) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(e), change the references to Rules 11.280(h)(9) and 11.280(g)(1), (4), or (5) (Authority to Initiate Trading Halts) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(e)(2)(B)(iii), change the reference to Rule 11.280(h)(8)(C) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 11.350(e), change the two references to Rule 11.280(h)(9) and the one reference to Rule 11.280(h)(8) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 11.350(e), change the two references to Rule 11.280(h)(9) and the one reference to Rule 11.280(h)(8) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(f), change the reference to Rule 11.280(e) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(f)(1)(A) change the two references to Rule 11.280(e) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(f)(2)(C)(iii) change the two references to Rule 11.280(e) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(f)(3) change the two references to Rule 11.280(e) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
○ In Rule 11.350(f)(3)(A)(iii) change the two references to Rule 11.280(e) to instead refer to Rule 11.280.
• In Rule 11.350(a)(29)(B), change the reference to Rule 11.280(a)(1)-(3) (talking about Level 1 or Level 2 market declines that trigger the MWCB) to cite to Rule 11.280(a)(1)-(3), which is the new location of the relevant MWCB rules.
• In Rule 16.111 (Trading of Certain Derivative Securities), change the reference to the MWCB in Rule 16.111(i)(5)(B)(ii) that refers to Rule 11.280 to instead refer to Rule 11.271.
• In Rule 16.111(j)(6)(B)(v), add IEX Rule 11.271 to the list of rules under which IEX may halt trading in a security and remove Rule 16.170 from the list. As described below, IEX is proposing to delete Rule 16.170.
• In Rule 16.160 (Derivative Securities Traded under Unlisted Trading Privileges), make the following conforming edits:
○ In the first sentence of the opening paragraph, change the word “security” to “UTP Security (see IEX Rule 1.160(ss),” for clarity.
○ In Rule 16.160(a), change the words “Derivative Security” to read “ `UTP Exchange Traded Product' as defined in IEX Rule 1.160(rr)” for clarity.
○ In Rule 16.160(a)(1), change the two references to “UTP Derivative Security” to read “UTP Exchange Traded Product” for clarity.
○ In Rule 16.160(a)(2), change the one reference to “UTP Derivative Security” to read “UTP Exchange Traded Product” and the eight references to “UTP Derivative Securities” to read “UTP Exchange Traded Products” for clarity.
Also in Rule 16.160(a)(2), IEX proposes to replace the three brackets surrounding text with {braces} to reduce the confusion caused in rule filings by having bracketed text that is not intended to be deleted. The quoted text will now read as follows:
• “A circular describing the terms and characteristics of {the UTP Exchange Traded Products} has been prepared by the {open-ended management investment company name} and is available from your broker. It is recommended that you obtain and review such circular before purchasing {the UTP Exchange Traded Products}.”
○ In Rule 16.160(a)(3), change the reference to “UTP Derivative Securities” to read “UTP Exchange Traded Products” for clarity. Additionally, add IEX Rule 11.271 to the list of rules under which IEX may halt trading in a security and remove Rule 16.170 from the list. As described below, IEX is proposing to delete Rule 16.170.
○ In Rule 16.160(a)(4), change the reference to “UTP Derivative Security” to read “UTP Exchange Traded Product” for clarity.
○ In Rule 16.160(a)(5), change the reference to “UTP Derivative Security” to read “UTP Exchange Traded Product” for clarity.
Finally, as noted above, IEX is proposing to delete Rule 16.170 (Trading Halts for Trading of Certain Derivative Securities Products on IEX Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges). As described above, proposed Rule 11.280 contains a thorough breakdown of the types of Regulatory and Operational Halts that may be called for a derivative security trading on IEX pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The language in Rule 16.170 is therefore rendered obsolete by the introduction of the halt rules in Rule 11.280, and IEX proposes to remove this rule because it no longer accurately reflects the circumstances in which IEX may halt trading in a derivative security trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges and could cause confusion if it remained in the Rule Book.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
As described above, the Exchange and other SROs are seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to halting and resuming trading in U.S.-listed equity securities. The Exchange believes that the proposed rules will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the situations in which trading will be halted and the process through which that halt will be implemented and terminated. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for market participants across U.S. equities exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange further believes that the various provisions of the proposed rules that will apply to all SROs are focused on the type of cross-market event where a consistent approach will assist market participants and reduce confusion during a crisis. Because market participants often trade the same security across multiple venues and trade securities listed on different exchanges as part of a common strategy, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules will lessen the risk that market participants holding a basket of securities will have to deal with divergent outcomes depending on where the securities are listed or traded.
Conversely, the proposed rules would still allow individual SROs to react differently to events that impact various securities or markets in different ways. This avoids the “brittle market” risk where an isolated event at a single market forces all markets trading equities securities to halt trading in all securities where the issue impacted only a subset of securities. By addressing both concerns, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules furthers the Act's goal of maintaining fair and orderly markets.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rules' focus of responsibility on the Primary Listing Market for decisions related to a Regulatory Halt and the resumption of trading is consistent with the Act, which itself imposes obligations on exchanges with respect to issuers with listed securities on those markets. As is currently the
The Exchange believes that the definitions in the proposed rules are also consistent with the Act. The Exchange proposes adding a definitions section to Rule 11.280(a) to consolidate the various definitions that will be used with Regulatory Halts, some of which are taken from the SIP Plans. The Exchange is adopting a modified form of the term “Extraordinary Market Activity” from the SIP Plans, as described above.
In addition, several other definitions have been moved into the proposed definitions section from elsewhere in the pre-existing trading halt rules without changes in the definitions. As noted, certain definitions are consistent with the definitions in the SIP Plans, furthering the Act's goal of promoting fair and orderly markets. For example, the Exchange is proposing to adopt a definition of “SIP Halt,” to explicitly address a situation that may disrupt the markets, and this definition is identical to the definitions in the SIP Plans. In addition to “SIP Halt,” the Exchange is adopting the following terms from the SIP Plans: “Operating Committee,” “Operational Halt,” “Primary Listing Market,” “Processor,” “Regulatory Halt,” “Regular Trading Hours,” and “SIP Halt Resume Time,” as discussed in the Purpose section.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rules, which make halts more consistent across multiple exchanges, are consistent with the Act in that they will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating the equities markets. In particular, the Exchange believes it is important for SROs to coordinate when there is a widespread and significant event, as multiple trading centers are impacted in such an event. Further, while the Exchange recognizes that the proposed rules will not guarantee a consistent result on every market in all situations, the Exchange does believe that it will assist in that outcome. While the proposed rules relating to Regulatory Halts focus primarily on the kinds of cross-market events that would likely impact multiple markets, individual SROs will still retain flexibility to deal with unique products or smaller situations confined to a particular market. Allowing for exchange flexibility in such situations will promote just and equitable principles of trade by protecting investors from harm that is not of their own making. The proposed rules provide guidance on when the Exchange should seek information from the Operating Committee, other SROs and market participants as well as means for dissemination of important information to the market. The Exchange believes these provisions strike the right balance in outlining a process to address unforeseen events without preventing SROs from taking action needed to protect the market.
Also consistent with the Act, and with the SIP Plan Amendments, is the Exchange's proposal in Rule 11.280(d) to address Operational Halts, which are nonregulatory in nature and apply only to the exchange that calls the halt. As noted above, the Exchange presently has the ability to call an Operational Halt. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes that the markets would benefit from greater clarity regarding when an Operational Halt may be appropriate. Proposed Rule 11.280(d) would authorize the Exchange to implement an Operational Halt for any security trading on the Exchange: (i) if it is experiencing Extraordinary Market Activity on the Exchange; or (ii) when otherwise necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market or in the public interest.
The proposed change is designed to cover situations where the impact is limited to a single market. For example, a disruption at the Exchange, such as a technical issue affecting trading in one or more securities, could impact trading on the Exchange so significantly that an Operational Halt is appropriate in one or more securities. In such an instance, it would be in the public interest to institute an Operational Halt to minimize the impact of a disruption that, if trading were allowed to continue, might negatively affect a greater number of market participants. An Operational Halt does not implicate other trading centers. The Exchange believes that the broader language provided by the definition of Extraordinary Market Activity in proposed Rule 11.280(d) will better serve the interests of investors by allowing the Exchange to act where appropriate.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed conforming changes to other rules in this rule filing are consistent with the Act because they are designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the conforming changes that will maintain the clarity and accuracy of its Rule Book will protect investors and the public interest by reducing the potential for confusion.
Finally, as detailed above, the substantive changes in this rule filing are all based upon, and for the most part identical to, rule filings made by several other equities exchanges that were also designed to harmonize all exchanges' rules with respect to Regulatory and Operational Halts.
IEX believes the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
Importantly, the IEX believes the proposed changes will not impose a burden on intermarket competition but will rather alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all SROs to harmonize and improve the process related to the halting and resumption of trading in U.S.-listed equity securities. In this area, the Exchange believes that all SROs should have consistent rules to the extent possible in order to provide additional transparency and certainty to market participants and to avoid inconsistent outcomes that could cause confusion and erode investor confidence. The proposed changes would ensure that all SROs handle the situations covered therein in a consistent manner and ensure that all Trading Centers handle a Regulatory Halt consistently. The Exchange understands that all national securities markets that trade equities securities intend to file proposals that are
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the provisions apply to all Members equally. In addition, the proposals include several provisions related to the declaration and timing of trading halts and the resumption of trading designed to avoid any advantage to those who can react more quickly than other market participants. The proposed rule gives the Exchange the ability to declare the timing of a Regulatory Halt immediately or at a future time to allow for broad dissemination of information. The SROs retain the discretion to cancel trades that occur after the time of the Regulatory Halt. The proposals also allow for the staggered resumption of trading to assist firms of all sizes in reentering the market after a SIP Halt affecting multiple securities. In addition, the proposals encourage early and frequent communication among the SROs, SIPs and market participants to enable the dissemination of timely and accurate information concerning the market to market participants.
Not applicable.
Because the 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 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.
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 requested exemption would permit Applicants to enter into and materially amend subadvisory agreements with subadvisers without shareholder approval and would grant relief from the Disclosure Requirements as they relate to fees paid to the subadvisers.
The RBB Fund Trust and Gladius Capital Management LP.
The application was filed on October 24, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
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' application, dated October 24, 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Lafayette Square USA,Inc.; Lafayette Square Private Fund, LLC; and LS BDC Adviser, LLC.
The application was filed on July 23, 2025, and amended on December 16, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Thomas Ahmadifar, Branch Chief, or Steven Amchan, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' amended application, filed December 16, 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”),
LCH SA is proposing to amend its CDSClear fee grid for 2026 (the “Fee Grid”) by incorporating changes in the CDSClear products and services offered (the “Proposed Rule Change”).
The text of the Proposed Rule Change has been annexed as Exhibit 5 to File No. SR-LCH SA-2025-009.
The implementation of the Proposed Rule Change is expected to be effective from January 1st, 2026 but will be
In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA 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 for LCH SA CDSClear to amend and adapt its Fee Grid for 2026 to the new CDSClear products and services offered.
LCH SA is proposing to amend the CDSClear Fee Grid for 2026 as follows:
The annual fixed fee charged by LCH SA CDSClear under the General Member Unlimited Tariff will increase from €1,700,000 to €1,759,500 to reflect the expanding offering of products, services as described in LCH website
As part of the adjustments made to the Fee Grid, LCH SA is proposing to increase its current onboarding fee from €15,000 to €50,000.
In recognition of the increased onboarding fee, LCH SA is proposing to waive the annual fee for CDSClear Dealer Status due the first year post go-live for Clearing Members on the General Member Variable Tariff and for Select Members that will onboard in 2026. For the avoidance of doubt, the Dealer Status annual fee of €100k will continue to apply thereafter.
The clearing for entities admitted as a Dealer of General Member Unlimited Clearing Members will be included in this “all you can clear” tariff, which allows for unlimited clearing once the annual fixed fee is paid. These members are contributing to the expansion of the clearing activity and value of the CDSClear service through increased US client volumes and USD liquidity. LCH SA is also clarifying that the CDSClear Dealer Status annual fee does not apply to Clearing Members under the General Members Unlimited Tariff who will no longer incur an additional fixed annual fee for entities admitted as a Dealer.
LCH SA is proposing to remove the fixed annual account charge of €100,000 for Affiliated Clients of General Members under the Unlimited Tariff so that General Members will no longer incur this additional fixed annual fee for their Affiliated Clients. Instead, clearing for Affiliated Clients of a Clearing Member will be covered by the General Member Unlimited Tariff.
LCH SA is proposing to apply the full discount of client variable fees to 2026. LCH SA is not proposing any other amendments to this section of the Fee Grid.
LCH SA believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
LCH SA believes the proposed amendments to the Fee Grid are reasonable and equitable for both existing and new Clearing Members and Clients.
The annual fixed fee under the General Member Unlimited Tariff will be reasonably increased by 3.5 percent to €1,759,500 in order to reflect the costs associated with the evolution and further maturity of LCH SA's CDSClear service, including the expansion of the membership and product offerings that General Members will have access to. This has been demonstrated by a significant increase in total notional cleared from members on the General Member Unlimited tariff year to date November 2025 versus previous year to date.
The increase in the onboarding fee is also made to better and equally reflect the costs associated with the onboarding process and membership optionality requiring increased legal and operational resource allocation, engagement, testing and connectivity as well as accommodating third party providers as requested by members, over the length of the onboarding process which on average takes 6-12 months when entities are joining CDSClear service as a General Member, Select Member, CDS Dealer or Affiliated Client.
LCH SA also believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act. In particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
By deciding to (i) waive the annual fee for CDSClear Dealer Status for Clearing Members on the General Member Variable Tariff and Select Members that will onboard in 2026 and (ii) renew for 2026 the full discount on the credit index option client variable fees, LCH SA is clearly continuing to encourage market participants and promote the clearing activity of CDS products which is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).
For all the reasons above, LCH SA believes that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(D)
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
As part of this effort, LCH SA is proposing to further encourage competition by offering certain discounts or a waiver and make clarifying changes on how fees will be applied to each entity joining the CDSClear service.
LCH SA believes the Proposed Rule Change would not burden any Clearing Members or other market participants, given that the proposed amendments to the Fee Grid will apply equally to all CDSClear Clearing Members and Clients, in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Therefore, LCH SA does not believe that the Proposed Rule Change would impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the Proposed Rule Change have not been solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written comments received by LCH SA.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted materials that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-LCH SA-2025-009 and should be submitted on or before January 21, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 23, 2025, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act” or the “Exchange Act”),
As described more fully in the Notice,
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice,
The Commission also seeks comment on the issues raised by commenters.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by [insert date 21 days from publication in the
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 30, 2025, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “Cboe”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to Rule 5.1, the Exchange offers three trading sessions: (i) Regular Trading Hours (“RTH”); (ii) Curb Trading Hours (“Curb”); and (iii) GTH.
As discussed more fully in the Notice, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.1(c) to allow for extended trading sessions of multi-listed equity options that meet certain eligibility criteria—and FLEX Options with the same underlying equity security—during GTH.
Under proposed Rule 5.1(c)(2), the Exchange may designate as eligible for the proposed extended trading sessions during GTH up to 100 actively-traded, multi-listed equity option classes that meet the following minimum criteria: (i) the option has an average daily volume of 150,000 contracts, (ii) the equity security underlying the option has a $50 billion market capitalization, and (iii) the equity security underlying the option has an average daily trading volume of 10 million shares.
In addition, proposed Rule 5.1(c)(2) would permit the Exchange to designate as eligible for the proposed extended trading sessions during GTH any equity option that is traded on another exchange during GTH or any other trading session that is not RTH or Curb.
The Exchange also proposes rule amendments to support the proposed GTH trading for equity options. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.1(e)
The Commission hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization that proposed the rule change.”
The Exchange's proposal is novel in that no national securities exchange currently permits the trading of equity options during the pre-RTH time period countenanced by the proposal or the trading of equity options that are not options on ETFs, ETNs, Index Portfolio Shares, Index Portfolio Receipts, or Trust Issued Receipts during the post-RTH period countenanced by the proposal. The Commission is concerned that the proposal does not provide an adequate basis for the Commission to conclude, at this time, that these proposed extended trading sessions would be consistent with the Act. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Exchange's proposed extended trading sessions for designated equity options would be consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) and 6(b)(8) of the Act.
The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant concerns. Such comments should be submitted by January 21, 2026. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by February 4, 2026. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
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 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees and early withdrawal charges.
Aristotle Pacific Enhanced CLO Income Fund and Aristotle Pacific Capital, LLC.
The application was filed on November 14, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
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' application, dated November 14, 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”)
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “C2”) proposes to establish fees for its market data feeds. The text of the proposed rule change is in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to implement separate fees for its C2 Complex Order Book
The proposed fees for the C2 COB Data Feed include the following, each of which are described in detail below: (i) Distributor
The Exchange will implement these proposed rule change beginning on January 2, 2026.
The Exchange proposes charging Internal Distributors of the C2 COB Data Feed $1500/month, and External Distributors of the COB Data Feed $1,000/month, to access and distribute the C2 COB Data Feed.
Notably, the Distribution fee for the COB Data Feed will no longer be waived for Distributors of C2 Options Top and/or C2 Options Depth. Rather, as proposed, Distributors that subscribe to C2 Options Top and/or C2 Options Depth, will now need to separately subscribe to and pay for the C2 COB Data Feed. To effect this change the Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to remove the following language from its fee schedule: “The Distribution Fee for the C2 COB Feed is waived for Distributors of C2 Options Top and/or C2 Options Depth.
Currently, the Exchange only assesses a Professional User fee. The Exchange now proposes to also establish Non-Professional User fee of $1.00/month per User. The Professional User Fee of $25/month/Device or User ID will remain as-is, and will continue toapply for both “internal” Professional Users (Devices or User IDs of employees of a Distributor) and “external” Professional Users (Devices or user IDs of Professional Users who receive Data from a Distributor and are not employed by the Distributor).
The Exchange also proposes to remove language from its fee schedule to establish Non-Professional User fees. Specifically, the Exchange will amend its fee schedule to remove language indicating that “No User fee is assessed for Non-Professional Users.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its facilities.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that by offering its C2 COB Data Feed for a fee, it is offering the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by deregulating the market in proprietary data—would itself further
By removing “unnecessary regulatory restrictions” on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. The Exchange's C2 COB Data Feed provides investors with new options for receiving market data, which was a primary goal of the market data amendments adopted by Regulation NMS.
The C2 COB Data Feed is designed for firms that are interested in gaining insight into the real time market data for the Exchange's C2 COB Data Feed. The Exchange believes that providing this optional data to interested market participants for a fee is consistent with facilitating transactions in securities, removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest because it provides additional information and insight to Exchange activity to market participants making routing decisions concerning their options order. The C2 COB Data Feed will also enable market participants to make informed decisions for trading on the Exchange's Complex Order Book by using the Exchange's C2 COB Data Feed to assess current market conditions that directly affect such decisions
The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable as the Exchange is offering any market participant access to subscribe to its C2 COBE Data Feed in the subscribing firm's sole discretion and based on their own unique business needs. The C2 COB Data Feed is optional for market participants to subscribe to if they believe it to be helpful and it is not required for Options Members to purchase in order to access the Exchange. Additionally, a subscriber may cancel their usage of the C2 COB Data Feed at any time.
In addition, the proposed fees would not permit unfair discrimination because all of the Exchange's subscribers and market data vendors will be subject to the proposed fees on an equivalent basis. The C2 COB Data Feed is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Firms have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data. Moreover, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers.
The Exchange also believes that its proposal to implement separate fees for its C2 COB Data Feed is reasonable in light of the similar pricing structures utilized by competitor exchanges. Specifically, as discussed further below, Nasdaq MRX, Nasdaq PHLX LLC, and MIAX Options all charge separate distribution and user fees for their comparable simple and complex data feeds.
The Exchange believes that its proposed Distributor fees for its C2 COB Data Feed are reasonable, equitably allocated, and not unreasonably discriminatory. Specifically, the fees for Options Members and non-Options Members are uniform except for reasonable distinctions with respect to Internal Distribution and External Distribution ($1500 per month versus $1,000 per month). While the Exchange proposes to eliminate the Distribution fee waiver for Distributors of C2 Options Top and/or C2 Options Depth, the Exchange believes that charging separate fees for its Complex Book is in-line with market practice. For instance, the Exchange notes that MIAX Options (“MIAX”) offers competing separate data feeds for its simple options book and its complex options book—MIAX Top of Market (“ToM”)
As noted above, the Exchange currently only charges a Professional User fee of $25/month/Device or User ID. At this time, the Exchange does not propose to amend this fee. However, the Exchange is now proposing to also establish Non-Professional User fee of $1.00/month per User. The Exchange believes this fee is fair and a reasonable as it is either inline or less than the use fees charged by competitor exchanges.
Specifically, Nasdaq Options Market charges $1.00 per non-professional user, and $42.10 per professional user.
Additionally, Nasdaq MRX charges Professional Users $25.25 per month and Non-Professional Users $1.00 per month for the Nasdaq MRX Top of Market feed and the Nasdaq MRX Depth of Market Feed.
Overall, each of the above examples of other exchanges' market data fees support the proposition that the Exchange's proposed User fees are comparable to those of other exchanges and therefore reasonable. Furthermore, as evidence by competitor 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. Rather, the Exchange believes that charging for separate access to its C2 COB Data Feed is aligned with how other exchanges offer their comparable data products. In this regard, the proposed fees will enhance competition by providing market participants with a new option for receiving market data. The Exchange's proposed fees for C2 COB Data Feed will also further enhance competition between exchanges as other exchanges also offer market data feeds for their own complex order books. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Market participants are not required to purchase the proposed Exchange's C2 COB Data Feed. Rather, the Exchange is making the C2 COB Data Feed available for a fee, and firms may choose to receive (and pay for) this data based on their own business needs. Potential purchasers may request the data at any time if they believe it to be valuable or may decline to purchase such data.
In addition, the proposed fees are constrained by competition. The existence of alternatives to the Exchange's C2 COB Data Feed further ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect such alternatives. That is, the Exchange competes with other exchanges (and their affiliates) that provide similar market data products. If another exchange (or its affiliate) were to charge less to distribute its similar product than the Exchange charges to distribute its C2 COB Data Feed, prospective Users likely would not subscribe to, or would cease subscribing to this market data product.
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.
On September 29, 2025, each of Boston Stock Exchange Clearing Corporation (“BSECC”) and Stock Exchange Clearing Corporation (“SCCP” and collectively, the “Clearing Agencies”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule changes SR-BSECC-2025-001 and SR-SCCP-2025-01, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The Clearing Agencies propose amendments to the Certificate to exculpate covered officers from monetary liability for breach of fiduciary duty, similar to the existing treatment of directors.
The Clearing Agencies also propose amendments to the following provisions of the By-Laws: Articles III (Meetings of Stockholders);
• Specify the scope of information that may be requested in connection with a stockholder nominee for director to provide that Nasdaq may require any other information to determine whether the proposed nominee is qualified under the Certificate, the By-Laws, and other applicable rules, laws, and regulations.
• Amend the information requirements for notices to Nasdaq from a Proposing Person
• Add a requirement that a Proposing Person's notice must include a representation as to whether the Proposing Person intends, or is part of a group which intends, “to solicit proxies or votes in support of any proposed nominee in accordance with Rule 14a-19
• Limit the number of nominees that a Proposing Person may nominate for election at the annual meeting in certain instances to the number of directors to be elected at such annual meeting.
• Remove a reference to the binding nature of the Board's
• Require that the chairman who presides over stockholder meetings shall be an officer or director of Nasdaq.
• Provide Nasdaq with greater flexibility to include “Issuer Directors” on the Board by removing the current restriction that the Board may not include more than two such directors.
• Amend the Board quorum and voting provisions to clarify how a quorum is calculated and the process for the adjournment of meetings.
• Amend how notice of meetings may be given to, or waived by, directors (
• Specify that Nasdaq is opting into Section 141(c)(2) of the DGCL, which provides Nasdaq greater flexibility with respect to the formation and powers of Board committees, including, for example, allowing greater delegations of authority.
• Remove limitations on the ability of Board committees to take certain
• Remove the one-year limitation on the terms of committee members.
• Remove duplicative language in the By-Laws that specifies that members of the Nominating & Governance Committee may be removed by “majority vote of” the Board, because the By-Laws already separately provide the voting standards for all decisions of the Board.
• Modify the quorum requirement for Board committees to specify that a majority of the members of a committee then serving in office, rather than a majority of total members on the committee, as is currently the case, shall constitute a quorum.
• Delete outdated references to Nasdaq's corporate structure, including references to having one President that is a director, or that has executive authority over the entire company, and add provisions that contemplate more than one president.
• Make the specified list of officers to be elected by the Board permissive rather than mandatory.
• Modify the process and authority for appointing Vice Presidents and providing that each Vice President shall have all powers and duties usually incident to the office of a Vice President, except as specifically limited.
• Modify who may assign powers and duties to Presidents, Vice Presidents, the Secretary, and the Treasurer.
• Clarify that the obligation to pay claims or expenses related to the indemnification of directors, officers, employees, and agents is limited to those claims and expenses not prohibited by applicable law.
• Broaden the scope of officers authorized to sign stock certificates.
• Provide that applicable law will control whether Nasdaq is able to treat stockholders of record as shown on the stock ledgers as owners thereof and as the persons entitled to vote such shares and to receive notices, as well as when Nasdaq is bound to recognize any equitable claim to, or interest in, any shares on the part of any other person.
• Provide that Nasdaq shall be authorized, rather than the Board or an authorized committee thereof, to take certain actions with respect to lost, stolen, or destroyed certificates.
• Replace an existing provision regarding the authority for the execution of contracts and other documents with a provision that more closely reflects Nasdaq's current policies and procedures on signatory authority.
• Replace an existing provision regarding the required form of records with a provision that conforms to updated Delaware law.
• Amend the By-Laws to reflect changes to the emergency by-law provisions of the DGCL.
• Provide a new forum selection provision.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.
After carefully considering the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Clearing Agencies. More specifically, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Sections 17A(b)(3)(A) and (F) of the Exchange Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act
As discussed above, the amendments to the Certificate and By-laws make the Clearing Agencies governance documents consistent with developments in DGCL that enable companies incorporated in Delaware to limit the liability of certain of their officers in narrow circumstances. As discussed in the Notices of Filing, the Clearing Agencies state that such amendments are increasingly common for public companies; that the number of stockholder proposals calling for such amendments have continued to increase since 2012 when the DGCL was amended; and that the majority of these proposals have been approved by wide margins.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(A) and (F) of the Exchange Act.
Rule 17ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act requires that a covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for governance arrangements that, among other things, (1) are clear and transparent, and (2) support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Exchange Act.
As described above, the amendments to the Certificate and By-laws make the Clearing Agencies governance documents consistent with developments in DGCL that enable companies incorporated in Delaware to limit the liability of certain of their officers in narrow circumstances. By aligning the governance arrangements in the By-laws with the amendments in the Certificate made as a result in a change to the DGCL, the Proposed Rule Change should provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent. Additionally, updates to Articles VII-XIII clarify officer roles, indemnification limits, emergency by-law provisions, and record-keeping requirements should further provide clear and transparent governance arrangements that support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of the Exchange Act.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Rule 17ad-22(e)(2) under the Exchange Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Exchange 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.
The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
For similar reasons as discussed above, the Commission finds that Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the requirement that the Clearing Agencies' rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act, and in particular, the requirements of Section 17A of the Exchange Act
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
Regulation SBSR consists of ten rules, Rules 900 to 909 under the Exchange Act. Regulation SBSR provides generally for the reporting of security-based swap information to a registered security-based swap data repository (“registered SDRs”) or to the Commission, and for the public dissemination of security-based swap transaction, volume, and pricing information by registered SDRs. Rule 901 specifies, with respect to each reportable event pertaining to covered transactions, who is required to report, what data must be reported, when it must be reported, where it must be reported, and how it must be reported.
The Commission estimates that a total of approximately 27,000 entities will be impacted by Regulation SBSR, including registered SDRs, registered security-based swap dealers, registered major securities-based swap participants, registered clearing agencies, platforms, and reporting sides and other market participants. The Commission estimates that the total annual hour burden for Regulation SBSR, for all respondents, is approximately 3,173,444 hours per year. In addition, the Commission estimates that the total annual cost burden for Regulation SBSR for all respondents is approximately $51,162,200 per year. A detailed break-down of the burdens applicable to each type of entity is provided in the supporting statement.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees and early withdrawal charges.
RBC BlueBay Enhanced Income Fund and RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.) Inc.
The application was filed on November 7, 2025.
An Order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
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' application, dated November 7, 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 11A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the Amendment from interested persons. Set forth in Sections I and II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Amendment, along with the information required by Rules 608(a) and 601(a) under the Act, as prepared and submitted by the Members. Set forth in Section III is the text of the Amendment marked to show the proposed changes, prepared and submitted by the Members as Addendum 1.
Pursuant to Section 14.1(c) of the CT Plan, the Operating Committee is required to file with the Commission proposed fees charged to Vendors and Subscribers for Transaction Reports and Quotation Information in Eligible Securities.
Beginning in March 2025, the Operating Committee formed the Fees and Policies Subcommittee (the “Subcommittee”) to discuss and develop a fee schedule for the CT Plan for approval by the full Operating Committee. The Subcommittee consisted of representatives of the Members and the Advisory Committee. The Subcommittee generally met on a bi-weekly basis, and as the filing deadline approached, the Subcommittee began meeting more often, first weekly, then two times per week, and then daily.
As part of the process, the Subcommittee utilized the services of an outside consultant to help develop the Proposed Fee Schedule. In June 2025, the Operating Committee engaged Watchdog Data Services, LLC (the “Consultant”). The Consultant was originally engaged to aid in the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) process to select an independent Administrator. The Subcommittee determined that the Consultant's expertise in the market data industry would also be helpful in developing and modeling a proposed fee schedule.
As stated in the Governance Order,
While developing the Proposed Fee Schedule, the Subcommittee instructed the Consultant to conduct two surveys of market data subscribers. The first survey asked respondents about their usage of proprietary data feeds as an alternative to the SIP and focused on the administrative burdens currently experienced by consolidated tape subscribers that they believed need to be addressed. The second survey consisted of a deeper dive into the topics discussed in the first survey as well as obtaining feedback on potential pricing options the Subcommittee was considering.
As a result of the surveys, the Subcommittee developed an understanding that many market participants were shifting their data usage away from the SIP to competing proprietary market data products, or using delayed data to avoid real-time market data fees completely.
Additionally, the Subcommittee was concerned that audit-related burdens and risk might affect the widespread availability of SIP data where, again, market participants shifted their real-time market data usage to proprietary market data products offering simplified fee schedules that reduced such issues. Nearly all survey respondents stated that the CQ/CTA/UTP Plan fee schedules (the “Existing Fee Schedules”) imposed on them an excessive administrative burden and, accordingly, they requested the Subcommittee focus on:
1. Reducing administrative burden associated with Professional versus Non-Professional definitions;
2. Removing outdated terminology (
3. Clarifying definitions to reduce audit risk.
As an example, 25 of 27 respondents in the second survey classified their challenges with SIP data primarily as administration-related rather than fee-related. Concerns regarding audits were the most reported issue. The second survey also showed that market data subscribers have replaced or are considering replacement of SIP usage with proprietary feeds that offer enterprise licenses, particularly because
Following extensive discussions, the Subcommittee developed the Proposed Fee Schedule and referred it to the Operating Committee for approval. The Proposed Fee Schedule was approved by a supermajority of the Members.
Based on the Consultant's surveys, the Operating Committee understands that market usage of the consolidated data feed has decreased in favor of top-of-book proprietary data feeds and/or delayed data. The Operating Committee developed the Proposed Fee Schedule with the aim of recapturing this market and addressing the concerns of those market data subscribers who have shifted their usage away from the consolidated data feed. As one consideration in developing a proposed fee schedule, the Subcommittee analyzed the Existing Fee Schedules under the CQ/CTA Plan and the UTP Plan. The various components of the Existing Fee Schedules were discussed, with the Subcommittee determining which components to carry over into the Proposed Fee Schedule, as well as developing improvements to reduce administrative burden.
Generally, the Proposed Fee Schedule modifies the Existing Fee Schedules in two ways: (1) modifications to reduce administrative burden; and (2) modifications to the actual fees charged. These changes are described below.
As part of the Subcommittee's work, the Operating Committee developed solutions to issues identified in the surveys and issues that, based on prior experience, have led to audit-related risks among market data subscribers. Members of the Advisory Committee, in particular, provided invaluable suggestions in this regard. These solutions are incorporated into the Proposed Fee Schedule and summarized below.
The Operating Committee proposes to modify the approach to labeling users as Professional or Non-Professionals, focusing on the usage of the data, rather than the status of the individual. Currently, a non-professional is defined as a natural person who is neither:
(1) registered or qualified in any capacity with the Commission, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or association or any commodities or futures contract market or association;
(2) engaged as an “investment adviser” as that term is defined in Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); nor
(3) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal or state securities laws to perform functions that would require registration or qualification if such functions were performed for an organization not so exempt.
If a person is not a non-professional, then that person is considered a professional.
As part of the Consultant's first survey, almost all respondents stated that the professional versus non-professional definition creates significant administrative burdens that are time-consuming and expose market data subscribers to substantial audit risk, particularly for individuals registered with regulators who open personal trading accounts.
As a result, in the Proposed Fee Schedule, the Operating Committee proposes simplified, use-based definitions. Professional use would be defined as:
(i) any use of market data by or on behalf of any entity (for example, a corporation, company, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, or association), except trusts not for compensation; or
(ii) use of market data by an individual to provide a service to a third party for compensation.
Usage will be considered non-professional if it does not fall within the above categories. The Operating Committee believes these proposed definitions eliminate the burden on data subscribers of determining whether an individual trading for their own account is a Professional due to regulatory registration.
Further, the Operating Committee is including a safe harbor to further reduce administrative burden and audit risk where any real-time redistributor that relies in good faith on a representation by the user regarding the user's professional usage versus non-professional usage of the data shall be exempt from audit liability based on such representations. Currently, a real-time redistributor could have audit liability where a market data user it distributes to claims they are not a professional but where publicly-available resources (such as FINRA's BrokerCheck database) demonstrate that the individual is in fact a professional. Because there is no such publicly-available source that would demonstrate that a user is or is not engaged in professional use under the proposed definition, the Operating Committee believes it is appropriate to offer a safe harbor where the real-time redistributor has obtained the necessary representations from its user base regarding their data usage. The Operating Committee has included a requirement that the real-time redistributor's reliance be in “good faith”, in order to disincentivize redistributors from instructing their user base to provide false representations.
The Operating Committee proposes simplifying the definitions of Direct and Indirect Access. Currently, the definitions do not align between the CQ/CTA and UTP Plans. For instance, Direct Access is defined in the CQ/CTA Plan as:
[A] direct computer-to-computer linkage with the computer facilities that the Participants make available at the site of the CTA/CQ Plans' Processor, Securities Industry Automation Corporation (“SIAC”) in New York City. Access to data feeds through an extranet service subjects the data feed recipient to direct access charges.
On the other hand, Direct Access is defined in the UTP Plan as:
[A] connection that receives access to any one or more UTP Real-Time Uncontrolled Products by means of a linkage or interface directly with the Plan's Securities Information Processor (SIP) via an extranet or other connection that the SIP has approved. Direct access includes indirect access. Examples: Extranet Connections; Nasdaq Direct (direct circuit connection or point of presence); Nasdaq Co-location that do not further redistribute to downstream connections; and Connections located within any co-location facility.
With respect to Indirect Access, the CQ/CTA Plans define it as:
[A] computer-to-computer linkage with facilities provided by Vendors, rather than by SIAC. For example, parties that receive market data via a Vendor data feed service, and who gain control over the subsequent use and redistribution of the data, are generally viewed as having indirect access.
Indirect Access is defined in the UTP Plan as:
Indirect Access means any other connection to a UTP Real-Time Uncontrolled Product, including Vendors with a Nasdaq Co-location connection that further
The Operating Committee proposes simplifying the definition of Direct Access by defining it as “any connection within any data center in which a Processor is located.” The Indirect Access definition will also be simplified to be “any connection that is not Direct Access.” The Operating Committee believes that these proposed definitions simplify the fee schedule by providing clarity as to when access is considered direct, ensures that the higher fees associated with direct access are correlated to reduced latency, and also prevents gaming. The Operating Committee believes that it is appropriate to differentiate between connections within a data center in which a Processor is located versus connections outside of such data centers, as connections outside such data centers most likely have increased latency and therefore should be subject to lower fees. Further, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed definition helps to prevent gaming as it prevents firms from inserting extranet service providers between the firms and the processors solely to take advantage of the lower indirect access fees while still obtaining the advantage of reduced latency.
Under the Existing Fee Schedules, Derived Data is generally not fee-liable, except single-security Derived Data may be fee-liable at the underlying rate for Tape C. Tape A and Tape B do not contain a corresponding single-security Derived Data fee liability. This policy created line-drawing issues, where the administrator might otherwise be forced to determine at what point a market data element has crossed the threshold and become non-fee liable. The Operating Committee's experience has been that fee liability for single-security derived data still results in line-drawing issues, albeit a different one than originally contemplated. In particular, the administrator and market data subscribers now must determine when Derived Data pertains to a single security versus including other components that bring the derived data product outside the definition of “single-security derived data,” meaning that it is not fee liable. This concern was echoed in responses to the Consultant's second survey.
As a result, the Operating Committee does not believe that the rationale for imposing fee liability for single security derived data solves the line-drawing issue it was originally designed to address, and therefore, the Operating Committee proposes eliminating fee liability for the display of single-security Derived Data, so display of single-security and multiple-security Derived Data is treated the same (
Additionally, the Operating Committee proposes to include in the definition of Non-Display Use the proviso that Non-Display Use will include the creation of derived data. Based on a review of other market data providers, the Operating Committee has found that the industry approach is to have a separate Non-Display Use category solely related to the creation of Derived Data. Rather than taking that approach here, the Operating Committee instead proposes to incorporate creation of Derived Data within existing Non-Display Use categories (internal usage or on behalf of customers). This would eliminate line-drawing issues and lessen impact where firms already pay a one-time Non-Display fee. Firms that will be affected are those not previously paying Non-Display fees (
In reviewing the Existing Fee Schedules and combining the fee schedules into a single fee proposal under the CT Plan, the Operating Committee has adopted definitions and approaches to Non-Billable Services that are substantively similar to the same definitions and non-billable services under the Existing Fee Schedules, with alterations to make them easier to understand and implement. In many instances, this involved choosing a definition or approach that currently exists under the CQ/CTA Plan or UTP Plan, and potentially further refining it or adding clarity to reduce confusion regarding the Proposed Fee Schedule's applicability. In general, in selecting between competing definitions in the Existing Fee Schedules, the Operating Committee selected the definition deemed to offer greater ease of administration. The relevant definitions and selected approach are described below:
The relevant non-billable services and selected approach are described below:
In setting fees for the Proposed Fee Schedule, the Operating Committee focused on two objectives: (1) incentivizing the continued and potentially expanded dissemination of the consolidated feed; and (2) making inflation-related adjustments for certain components of the Existing Fee Schedules that have remained stagnant for ten years or more. These objectives led to a Proposed Fee Schedule that (1) leaves display-related fees largely unchanged or potentially reduced to incentivize display to both Professional and Non-Professional use; and (2) adjusts certain discrete fees for inflation based on a widely-accepted metric.
These changes are discussed below.
As part of the Proposed Fee Schedule, the Operating Committee proposes a Professional fee for Tape A that collapses the four existing Tape A tiers into a single flat fee, which aligns with the fee structure applied to Tapes B and C. Under the Existing Fee Schedules, Tape A employs tiered per-device pricing ($45 for one to two devices; $27 for three to 999 devices; $23 for 1,000 to 9,999 devices; and $19 for 10,000 or more devices), while Tape B and Tape C each apply a flat per-device rate of $23 and $24, respectively. The proposal simplifies the Tape A fee structure by establishing a flat per-device professional rate of $26 for Tape A, while maintaining the existing $23 rate for Tape B and $24 rate for Tape C. The Operating Committee calculated the $26 per Professional fee for Tape A by reviewing the current distribution of fee tiers across market data subscribers and selecting a fee that resulted in fee neutrality across the entire universe of subscribers. An overwhelming majority of users are currently paying either $45 or $27 for their device fee, and therefore, most users will see a decrease in their Tape A Professional fee as a result of this change. While larger users may experience a slight increase in their fees, the Operating Committee believes that the new fee is reasonable as it is in line with the fees charged for Tape B and Tape C.
The Operating Committee also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because the proposed Professional fees for each Tape are comparable to similar fees offered by the largest exchange families. While the consolidated feeds provide more data than the exchange families' top-of-book proprietary data feeds, the Operating Committee believes that these products are helpful benchmarks in determining whether the fees proposed here are fair and reasonable. The largest exchange families offer consolidated products that cost $18.00 per professional user, $10.00 per professional user, and $27.30 per professional user. As a result, the Professional fees for each Tape in the Proposed Fee Schedule are within the range of fees offered by these exchange families for their top-of-book feeds.
While the Operating Committee has proposed increasing certain fees to account for inflation since the fee schedule was last changed, the Operating Committee has not applied an inflation adjustment to the Professional fee. Because the Professional fee is charged on a per-user basis, the Operating Committee believes that it is more sensitive to price changes, and increases could lead to market data subscribers limiting their use of the consolidated feed. Consequently, to prevent attrition and ensure the continued widespread availability of the consolidated feed to Professionals, the Operating Committee has determined not to apply the inflation adjustment to such Professional fees.
Under the Existing Fee Schedules, non-professionals are charged $1 on each of Tapes A, B, and C. The Proposed Fee Schedule introduces the following sliding scale per Tape based on the reported number of individuals engaged in Non-Professional Use:
The sliding scale operates in a manner similar to tax brackets, where a market data subscriber will pay the per Non-Professional fee for the portion of their Non-Professional customer base falling within each tier before moving to the next tier. For example, for the first 2,000 Non-Professionals, a market data subscriber will be charged $0.90 per Non-Professional. For the next tier (between 2,001 and 50,000 Non-Professionals), a market data subscriber will be charged $0.75 per Non-Professional. The remaining tiers follow a similar pattern.
Before arriving at the sliding scale proposed above, the Operating Committee considered a number of alternative fee structures for Non-Professional Fees, including a flat Non-Professional usage fee and a tiered flat-fee approach where firms would be charged a flat fee based on the number of reported Non-Professionals.
The Operating Committee ultimately decided on proposing the sliding scale described above, which it believes will incentivize firms to increase their dissemination to Non-Professionals and meet the goals of the Governance Order to ensure the widespread availability of
The Operating Committee also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because the Non-Professional fees for each Tape are comparable to similar fees offered by the largest exchange families. While the consolidated feeds provide more data than the exchange families' top-of-book proprietary data feeds, the Operating Committee believes that these products are helpful benchmarks in determining whether the proposed fees are fair and reasonable. The largest exchange families offer consolidated products that cost $1.00 per non-professional user, $1.00 per non-professional user, and $0.25 per non-professional user. As a result, the Non-Professional fees for each Tape in the Proposed Fee Schedule are within the range of fees offered by these exchange families for their top-of-book feeds.
Under the Existing Fee Schedules, Tape A, Tape B, and Tape C offer enterprise caps of $686,400, $520,000, and $648,000, respectively. For Tape A and Tape B, the enterprise cap includes both Professional and Non-Professional usage while Tape C includes only Non-Professional usage. The Proposed Fee Schedule maintains a cap, but aligns the Tape A and Tape B caps with the Tape C cap by eliminating Professionals from inclusion in the cap. Because of the removal of Professionals from the cap, the Operating Committee proposes reducing the Tape A cap from $686,400 to $648,000 in order to align with the Tape C cap. Because the Tape C cap already excludes Professionals, the Operating Committee believes the Tape C cap is the appropriate level at which to set the Tape A cap. Additionally, while the Tape B cap was at a lower level in the Existing Fee Schedules than that of Tape A and Tape C, the Operating Committee proposes reducing the Tape B cap by the same percentage that the Tape A cap is reduced, such that the new Tape B cap for Non-Professional usage will be $490,000.
The Operating Committee determined it was appropriate to maintain a cap on Non-Professionals in order to incentivize continued widespread availability of consolidated data to the same number of Non-Professionals. The Operating Committee was concerned that, if a cap was removed, the firms taking advantage of the cap today would decrease their usage to ensure that their overall market data spend remained the same. This would have resulted in decreased availability of the consolidated data to Non-Professionals. This concern was supported by the results of the Consultant's surveys.
The Operating Committee also decided to remove Professionals from the cap because the Operating Committee believes their prior inclusion created an unequal competitive landscape between large and small firms. The Operating Committee does not believe that the largest firms should effectively receive a benefit from decreased or eliminated Professional fees simply because of their large Non-Professional client base. Further, unlike a cap on Non-Professional usage, the Operating Committee does not believe that including Professional usage under the cap would have a material effect on incentivizing the dissemination of consolidated volume to more Professional users. Based on comparisons between Tape A (which does include Professionals in the cap) and Tape C (which does not include Professionals in the cap), the Operating Committee found that dissemination to Professionals within firms taking advantage of the current Enterprise Caps is relatively equal between Tape A and Tape C. In other words, it appears that including Professionals under the cap has not caused a one-sided increase in dissemination under just Tape A as opposed to Tape C, and therefore, the Operating Committee believes that the inclusion of Professionals in the cap simply confers an unfair advantage with no public interest being served.
Further, the Operating Committee believes that reducing the caps for Tape A and Tape B will help to offset increases in fees as a result of removing Professional usage from the cap. In particular, with an approximately $40,000 decrease in the Tape A cap and $30,000 decrease in the Tape B cap, those firms effected by the proposed change would have additional funds available to pay for new Professional usage fees before seeing an increase in their combined Professional and Non-Professional usage fees.
The Operating Committee proposes an inflation-related adjustment to certain of its fees for subscribing to the consolidated feed. The fees include: (1) Non-Display Fees; (2) Access Fees; and (3) Redistribution Fee. Under the Existing Fee Schedules, these fees are as follows:
The Operating Committee proposes setting these fees to the following levels:
Of these fees,
The fee increases the Operating Committee proposes in this section are based on an industry-specific Producer Price Index (“PPI”), which is a tailored measure of inflation.
For purposes of this proposal, the relevant industry-specific PPI is the Data Processing and Related Services PPI (“Data PPI”), which is an industry net-output PPI that measures the average change in selling prices received by companies that provide data processing services. The Data PPI was introduced in January 2002 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”) as part of an ongoing effort to expand Producer Price Index coverage of the services sector of the U.S. economy and is identified as NAICS—518210 in the North American Industry Classification System.
The Operating Committee believes the Data PPI is an appropriate measure to be considered in the context of the proposal to modify the fees described in this section because the Members use their “own computer systems” and “proprietary software,”
For purposes of the Proposed Fee Schedule, the Operating Committee examined the Data PPI value for the period from January 2015 to May 2025.
The Operating Committee further believes the Data PPI is an appropriate measure for purposes of the proposed rule change on the basis that it is a stable metric with limited volatility, unlike other consumer-side inflation metrics. In fact, the Data PPI has not experienced a greater than 2.16% increase for any one calendar year period since Data PPI was introduced into the PPI in January 2002.
The Operating Committee also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because the Non-Display fees for each Tape are comparable to similar fees offered by the largest exchange families. While the consolidated feeds provide more data than the exchange families' top-of-book proprietary data feeds, the Operating Committee believes that these products are helpful benchmarks in determining whether the proposed fees are fair and reasonable.
For instance, with respect to the Non-Display fees, various exchanges offer a proprietary data feed with non-display use that costs between $1,000 to $5,000. As a result, the Non-Display fees for each Tape in the Proposed Fee Schedule are within the range of fees offered by exchanges. The same is true for Access fees. For instance, the largest exchange families charge $6,250, $1,600, and $1,500. As a result, the Access fees for each Tape in the Proposed Fee Schedule are within the range of fees offered by exchange families for their top-of-book feeds. Finally, the Real-Time Redistributor fee is lower than comparable fees for proprietary top-of-book data. For instance, the largest exchange families charge $2,500, $2,080, and $5,000 for real-time redistributor fees. The Operating Committee therefore believes that the proposed Non-Display fees, Access fees, and Redistributor fees are fair and reasonable because such fees are within or below the range of fees charged for comparable proprietary top-of-book data.
As part of reconciling the fee schedules across Tapes A, B, and C, the Operating Committee identified certain fees that were charged as part of one fee schedule but not the other. With respect to these fees, the Operating Committee reviewed the fees, determined their purpose, and decided whether to align the fee across all three Tapes or to eliminate the fee from the fee schedule.
For instance, Tapes A and B charge a Multiple Feed Charge, while Tape C does not have a corresponding charge. The fee is currently assessed for each data feed that a data recipient receives in excess of the data recipient's receipt of one primary data feed and one backup data feed. Due to the additional administrative burden associated with maintaining additional feeds, the Operating Committee believes it is appropriate to maintain this fee in the combined fee schedule and expand the fee to apply to Tape C.
Additionally, Tapes A and B charge a Late/Clearly Erroneous Reporting Charge, which is assessed for each month in which there is a failure to provide a network's required data-usage report to the administrator. Tape C does not contain a similar charge. The Operating Committee believes that this fee is appropriate to incentivize data recipients to correctly report their usage to the administrator and to offset the additional costs associated with incorrect reporting.
Finally, Tapes A and B charge a Non-Compliance Fee where market data recipients display consolidated volume (not subject to a charge), where such display appears on the same screen as bid-asked quotes or last-sale prices that are not consolidated quotes or prices under the CTA Plan or CQ Plan, and the market data recipient fails to conspicuously display a clarifying statement (the “Display Statement”) that reads “Realtime quote and/or trade prices are not sourced from all markets.” The Operating Committee believes that the Display Statement ensures that subscribers are not confused when the consolidated volume is from all markets while the real-time quote and/or trade prices are not a consolidated view. The Non-Compliance Fee ensures that market data recipients are incentivized to properly include the Display Statement in order to reduce market confusion.
Additionally, as part of the reconciliation process, the Operating Committee proposes eliminating certain fees that were previously charged by the CQ/CTA Plans or UTP Plan. For example, Tape C has a delayed Redistributor fee of $250, while Tape A and Tape B do not have a similar charge. The Operating Committee proposes removing this fee for Tape C. Additionally, Tape C charges a Delayed Data Access Fee of $250 per year, while Tape A and Tape B do not have a similar charge. The Operating Committee proposes removing this fee for Tape C. Finally, Tape C has a per voice response port fee of $21.25 per port, while Tape A and Tape B do not have a similar charge. The Operating Committee proposes removing this fee for Tape C.
Not applicable.
The amendments proposed herein would be implemented following Commission approval and to coincide with the transition from the CQ/CTA/UTP Plans to the CT Plan.
Not applicable.
The Operating Committee believes that the proposed fee schedule is fair and reasonable. First, in the two surveys conducted by the Consultant, market participants repeatedly stated that they were looking for the Operating Committee to reduce their administrative burdens and lessen their audit risk. From the surveys, the top three suggestions from market participants were to (1) address the professional versus non-professional definitions, (2) remove references to outdated terminology, and (3) add clarity to definitions to reduce potential audit risk. The Operating Committee believes that the Proposed Fee Schedule addresses each of these concerns. In particular, as described above, the Operating Committee made the following changes to reduce administrative burdens:
1. Modifying the Professional and Non-Professional definitions and adding a safe harbor to reduce audit risk;
2. Modifying the Direct and Indirect Access definitions;
3. Eliminating fee liability for Single Security Derived Data and incorporating the creation of Derived Data into Non-Display Use; and
4. Aligning definitions and non-billable services between Tapes A, B, and C.
The Operating Committee believes that these changes will reduce unnecessary burdens on competition and simplify the fee schedule, thereby reducing potential audit risk of market data subscribers.
With respect to the level of fees proposed herein, the Operating Committee believes that the Proposed Fee Schedule is fair and reasonable based for three reasons: (1) the current fees do not properly reflect the quality of the services and products, as fees for
As noted above, the fees being increased in this proposal have not been set or increased since 2014, potentially much earlier. However, in the years following the last change, the Members have made significant investments in upgrades to their own and the SIPs' systems, enhancing the quality of its services. Between 2015 and 2025, the cumulative inflation rate of Data PPI was 15.95%. The Operating Committee believes the Data PPI is a reasonable metric to base fee increases on because it is targeted to producer-side increases in the data processing industry, which based on the definition adopted by BLS would include the consolidated data feed. Notwithstanding inflation, as noted above, the market data fees at issue have not increased for over ten years.
Additionally, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the consolidated feed. The only exception to this general rule is that the Operating Committee does offer a sliding scale for Non-Professional usage as well as a cap on Non-Professional usage. The Operating Committee believes that the sliding scale is appropriate in order to incentivize the dissemination of the consolidated feed to Non-Professionals, where deeper discounts are provided as dissemination increases. Additionally, the Operating Committee believes that the cap is appropriate in order to prevent decreased dissemination by those firms currently taking advantage of the Enterprise Cap. Based on survey results, the Operating Committee was concerned that the firms taking advantage of the Enterprise Cap would decrease their dissemination of the consolidated feed to Non-Professionals in order to maintain current spending levels. Maintaining a cap potentially prevents that decrease. The Operating Committee proposes to remove Professionals from inclusion in the caps because the Operating Committee believes that such inclusion would be unfairly discriminatory; it was unclear why larger firms should pay decreased or no Professional Usage fees simply because those same firms had a significant Non-Professional customer base.
Finally, as detailed above, the Proposed Fee Schedule is set at levels that are competitive with alternative proprietary data products. The fees associated with each tape are within ranges set by proprietary data top-of-book products offered by the largest exchange families. The Operating Committee believes that comparing the Proposed Fee Schedule to alternative, top-of-book proprietary data products is appropriate for determining the reasonableness of the fees. In its guidance on SRO Rule Filings Relating to Fees, the Staff of the Division of Trading and Markets stated that it would analyze the reasonableness of fees by determining whether the SRO making the proposal is subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal.
As a result of the surveys conducted by the Consultant, the Operating Committee believes that the fees proposed herein are constrained by significant competitive forces. The survey respondents indicated that they were replacing or considering replacement of the SIP as well as utilizing delayed data where possible. Specifically, the survey results indicated that over 70% were replacing the SIP with proprietary data products in at least some use cases. Additionally, Fintech respondents indicated that they were taking advantage of enterprise licenses offered by proprietary data products as opposed to utilizing the SIP. The Proposed Fee Schedule is designed to address the concerns raised by respondents in explaining their shift from the consolidated feed to proprietary data products, and therefore increase the competitiveness of the consolidated feed vis-à-vis the proprietary top-of-book data products.
Not applicable.
See Item 3 above.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed Amendment is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend Rule 4.7 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”)
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 this proposed rule change is to amend Rule 4.7 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 Securities and Exchange Commission (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 subparagraph (G) to Rule 4.7(a)(2), which would require each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the following:
For the original receipt or origination of an order to sell an equity security, whether the order is for a short sale effected by a market maker in connection with bona fide market making activities in the security for which the exception in Rule 203(b)(2)(iii) of Regulation SHO is claimed.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
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.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-MEMX-2025-34 and should be submitted on or before January 21, 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 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
OCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
This proposed rule change would implement a change in the maximum contingent Operational Loss Fee listed in OCC's schedule of fees in accordance with OCC's Capital Management Policy. OCC included proposed changes to its schedule of fees in Exhibit 5 [sic] to File No. SR-OCC-2025-020. Material proposed to be added to OCC's schedule of fees as currently in effect is underlined and material proposed to be deleted is marked in strikethrough text. All capitalized terms not defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to revise OCC's schedule of fees to update the maximum aggregate Operational Loss Fee that OCC would charge Clearing Members in equal shares in the unlikely event that OCC's Liquid Net Assets Funded by Equity (“LNAFBE”)
The proposed fee change is designed to enable OCC to replenish capital to comply with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15) under the Exchange Act, which requires OCC, in pertinent part, to hold LNAFBE “to the greater of either (x) six months . . . current operating expenses, or (y) the amount determined by the board of directors to be sufficient to ensure a recovery or orderly wind-down of critical operations and services”
OCC's Capital Management Policy includes OCC's replenishment plan. Pursuant to the Capital Management Policy, OCC would charge an Operational Loss Fee in equal shares to Clearing Members to raise additional capital should OCC's LNAFBE fall below certain defined thresholds relative to OCC's Target Capital Requirement (
In the unlikely event those thresholds are breached, OCC would charge an Operational Loss Fee in an amount to raise LNAFBE to 110% of OCC's Target Capital Requirement, up to the maximum Operational Loss Fee identified in OCC's schedule of fees less the amount of any Operational Loss Fees previously charged and not refunded.
The RWD Amount and, in turn, the Adjusted RWD Amount are determined annually based on OCC's corporate budget, the assumptions articulated in the RWD Plan, and OCC's projected effective tax rate.
Since the allocation of the Operational Loss Fee is a function of the number of Clearing Members at the time of the charge, the maximum Operational Loss Fee per Clearing Member is subject to fluctuation during the course of the year. However, if the proposed Operational Loss Fee were charged to 106 Clearing Members, the number of Clearing Members as of November 20, 2025, for example, the maximum Operational Loss Fee per Clearing Member would be approximately $2.07 million.
OCC would also update the schedule of fees to reflect the levels of LNAFBE at which OCC would charge the Operational Loss Fee according to the thresholds defined in the Capital Management Policy, as well as the level of LNAFBE at which OCC would limit the Operational Loss Fee charged, based on OCC's current Target Capital Requirement.
OCC proposes the fee change to be effective immediately upon filing, because the Board approved the Adjusted RWD Amount upon which the Operational Loss Fee is based for 2026. Notwithstanding the immediate effectiveness, OCC would not make the fee change operative until after the time required to self-certify the proposed change with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”).
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act
OCC also believes that the proposed Operational Loss Fee would result in an equitable allocation of fees among its participants because it would be equally applicable to all Clearing Members. As the Commission has recognized, OCC's designation as a SIFMU and its role as the sole covered clearing agency for all listed options contracts in the U.S. makes it an integral part of the national system for clearance and settlement, through which “Clearing Members, their customers, investors, and the markets as a whole derive significant benefit . . . regardless of their specific utilization of that system.”
In addition, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(iii), which requires that OCC establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage OCC's general business risk, including by maintaining a viable plan, approved by the Board and updated at least annually, for raising additional equity should its equity fall close to or below the amount required under Rule 17Ad-22(e)(15)(ii).
OCC also believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 19(g)(1) of the Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-OCC-2025-020 and should be submitted on or before January 21, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 26, 2025, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
On November 3, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 4, Section 3, Criteria for Underlying Securities, to adopt a [sic] listing criteria for options on a Commodity-Based Trust that holds multiple crypto assets. This Amendment No. 1 supersedes the original filing in its entirety and proposes to amend the rule text of current Options 3, Section 3(h)(vi) and (3) in lieu of adopting a new Options 3, Section (h)(vi) and (4), and amends Options 4, Section 4(g) to add a continued listing requirement specific to Exchange-Traded Fund Shares listed pursuant to Options 3, Section (h)(vi).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its listing rules at ISE Options 4, Section 3, Criteria for Underlying Securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the criteria for listing options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares (“ETFs”) at Options 4, Section 3(h).
On October 24, 2025, ISE's proposal to adopt Options 5, Section 3(h)(vi) was deemed approved.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi) to permit the listing and trading of options on a Commodity-Based Trust that holds multiple crypto assets in addition to a Commodity-Based Trust that holds a single crypto asset. As amended, Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi) would state,
Securities deemed appropriate for options trading shall include shares or other securities (“Exchange-Traded Fund Shares”) that are traded on a national securities exchange and are defined as an “NMS” stock under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, and that . . . (vi) represent interests in a Commodity-Based Trust that meets the generic criteria of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Rule 5711(d), except that the Commodity-Based Trust holds a single crypto asset or multiple crypto assets as defined in subparagraph (3) below, provided that:
Further, the Exchange proposes to amend Options 4, Section 3(h)(3) to state,
Additionally, with respect to a Commodity-Based Trust that meets the requirements of Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi), the following requirements are satisfied: (A) the total global supply of each underlying crypto asset(s) held by the Commodity-Based Trust has an average daily market value of at least $700 million over the last 12 months; and (B) each crypto asset held by the Commodity-Based Trust underlies a derivatives contract that trades on a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, whether directly or through common membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group. For purposes of this rule the term “crypto asset” means an asset that is generated, issued and/or transferred using a blockchain or similar distributive ledger technology network, including but not limited to, assets known as “tokens,” “digital assets,” “virtual currencies,” and “coins” and that relies on cryptographic protocols.
With the addition of multiple crypto assets, the criteria would require each underlying crypto asset to meet the total global supply figure and to underlie a derivative contract that trades on a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. The market value for each underlying crypto asset held by a Commodity-Based Trust will be calculated by taking the total global supply of the particular crypto asset multiplied by the token price of that asset.
As a result of this amendment, the proposed listing criteria would permit a Commodity-Based Trust that is generically listed on Nasdaq pursuant to Rule 5711(d) and holds multiple crypto assets to qualify for the listing of options on that ETF, provided Options 4, Section 3(h)(3) has also been met, as well as the listing criteria in Options 4, Section 3(a) and (b) or Options 4, Section 3(h)(1)(ii).
Similar to options on any ETF, an option on a Commodity-Based Trust that meets the requirements of Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi) would also be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards for options on ETFs set forth in Options 4, Section 4(g). Currently, pursuant to Options 4, Section 4(g), ETFs approved for options trading pursuant to Options 4, Section 3(h) will not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering such ETFs if the ETFs are delisted from trading as provided in subparagraph (b)(5) of Options 4, Section 4
Consistent with current Options 4, Section 5, which governs the opening of options series on a specific underlying security (including ETFs), the Exchange would open at least one expiration month
Pursuant to Options 4, Section 5(d), which governs strike prices of series of options on ETFs, the interval between strike prices of series of options on an ETF, including ETFs listed pursuant to proposed Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi), would be $1 or greater when the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater when the strike price is greater than $200.
Further, options on Commodity-Based Trusts that are approved subject to Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi) would trade in the same manner as options on other ETFs on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all options on ETFs on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, position and exercise limits, margin requirements, customer accounts and trading halt procedures would apply to the listing and trading of options on Commodity-Based Trusts that are approved subject to Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi) in the same manner.
Position and exercise limits for options on Commodity-Based Trusts that are approved subject to Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi) would be determined pursuant to Options 9, Sections 13 and 15, respectively, as is the case for other options on other ETFs. Position and exercise limits for options on ETFs vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volumes of the underlying ETF over the past six months, where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded ETFs have an option position and exercise limit of 250,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market; and smaller capitalization ETFs have position and exercise limits of 200,000, 75,000, 50,000 or 25,000 contracts (with adjustments for splits, re-capitalizations, etc.) on the same side of the market. Further, Options 6C, Section 3, which governs margin requirements and is applicable to the trading of all options on the Exchange including options on ETFs, will also apply to the trading of options on Commodity-Based Trusts listed pursuant to proposed Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi).
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to all other options on other ETFs currently listed and traded on the Exchange will apply to the trading of options on Commodity-Based Trusts that are approved subject to Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi). The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new option series. The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might potentially arise from listing and trading options on ETFs, including the listing of options on Commodity-Based Trusts that are approved subject to Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi). Also, the Exchange may obtain information from designated contract markets that are members of the ISG related to a financial instrument that is based, in whole or in part, upon an interest in or performance of a crypto asset, as applicable. The Exchange has specified in proposed Options 4, Section 3(h)(3) that each crypto asset held by the Commodity-Based Trust must underlie a derivatives contract that trades on a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, whether directly or through common membership in ISG.
Additionally, the Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority or “OPRA” have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series of ETFs, including the trading of options on Commodity-Based Trusts that are approved subject to Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi), up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Exchange Rules.
Finally, today, the Exchange lists and trades options on ETFs that would qualify for listing as an option on a Commodity-Based Trust under proposed Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi),
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that its proposal to permit Commodity-Based Trust Shares that hold multiple crypto assets to be listed and traded without the need for additional approvals, will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because it would allow the Exchange to immediately list and trade qualifying options on Commodity-Based Trusts, provided the initial listing criteria has been met, without any additional approvals from the Commission.
Specifically, the Exchange's proposal to amend Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi) to allow the listing and trading of options on units that represent interests in Commodity-Based Trusts that meet the generic criteria of Nasdaq Rule 5711(d),
Also, this proposal would permit options on certain Commodity-Based Trusts to be listed on the Exchange in the same manner as options on ETFs that are subject to the current listing criteria in Options 4, Section 3(h). The Exchange notes that the majority of ETFs are able to list and trade options once the initial listing criteria have been met without the need for additional approvals. The proposed rule change would allow the Exchange to likewise list options on certain Commodity-Based Trusts that meet the proposed listing criteria without the need for additional approvals.
As proposed, the Exchange would list options on a Commodity-Based Trust that met the generic criteria of Nasdaq Rule 5711(d), provided the Commodity-Based Trust held multiple crypto assets. Further, each crypto asset held by the Commodity-Based Trust would also be required to satisfy the conditions in proposed Options 4, Section 3(h)(3), which requires that (A) the total global supply of each underlying crypto asset held by the Commodity-Based Trust must have an average daily market value of at least $700 million over the last 12 months; and (B) each crypto asset held by the Commodity-Based Trust must underlie a derivatives contract that trades on a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, whether directly or through common membership in the ISG.
These requirements are consistent with the Act and the protection of investors as they should ensure that each crypto asset held by the underlying ETF has sufficient liquidity prior to listing options, which will serve to prevent disruption in the underlying market. The Exchange believes that market supply serves as a good measure of liquidity to permit options trading in options on Commodity-Based Trusts that holds multiple crypto assets. Requiring each underlying crypto asset to have a requisite amount of deliverable supply, in addition to all the other criteria the ETF is required to have under Nasdaq Rule 5711, should ensure adequate liquidity prior to listing. Further, ensuring each crypto asset held by the Commodity-Based Trust underlies a derivatives contract that trades on a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, whether directly or through common membership in the ISG, will provide the Exchange with information to adequately surveil options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts. Today, the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement in place with both the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) and Coinbase Derivatives through its common membership in ISG. This facilitates the sharing of information that is available to the CME and Coinbase Derivatives through their surveillance of their respective markets, including their surveillance of their respective digital asset futures markets.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it is consistent with current Exchange Rules, previously filed with the Commission. Options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts must satisfy
Further, the proposal adopts new subparagraph (3) to Options 4, Section 4(g) which will require each crypto asset held by a Commodity-Based Trust to continue to meet the requirement of Options 4, Section 3(h)(3)(A) on a monthly basis and for the criteria in Options 4, Section 3(h)(3)(B) to be met on a continuous basis. Accordingly, each crypto asset held by a Commodity-Based Trust must continue to have a total global supply with an average daily market value of at least $700 million over the last 12 months, and also must continue to underlie a derivatives contract that trades on a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, whether directly or through common membership in the ISG. The Exchange believes that this continued listing standard, in addition to requirements of Options 4, Section 3(h) would protect investors and the public interest by ensuring that the crypto assets held by the Commodity-Based Trust continue to remain liquid. The Exchange believes that requiring the criteria in Options 4, Section 4(h)(3)(A) to be met on a monthly basis is consistent with the Act and the protection of investors given that the Exchange believes that it is unlikely that a crypto asset with an average daily market value of at least $700 million over the previous twelve months would fail to meet that standard as a resulting [sic] of trading over a relatively short period of time. By way of example, if a crypto asset has a market capitalization of $900 million and traded at that market capitalization for 15 days in a 20-day trading month, the crypto asset could lose a substantial amount of its value (up to 88%) and still meet the criteria. Similarly, a crypto asset with a market capitalization of $500 million for 15 days in a 20-day trading month, would have to achieve a market capitalization of $1.3 billion (a 160% increase) in the last 5 days to meet the criteria. Given the unlikelihood that there would be a huge movement over a month's period of time and considering the work that would be required to calculate the criteria on a daily basis as compared to each month, the Exchange believes that the proposed continued listing obligation for the average daily market value criteria is sufficient. Further, options on Commodity-Based Trusts that are approved subject to Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi) would continue to be subject to Options 4, Section 4(g)(5), as renumbered, which states that the Exchange may consider suspending open transactions in options on an ETF if, “such other event occurs or condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.” The Exchange may determine at any point to delist an option on a Commodity-Based Trust that may not have sufficient liquidity or market demand.
Options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts would trade in the same manner as any other ETF options—the same Exchange Rules that currently govern the listing and trading of all ETF options, including permissible expirations, strike prices and minimum increments, and applicable position and exercise limits and margin requirements, will govern the listing and trading of options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the listing and trading of options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts. The Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading of these options on Commodity-Based Trust, particularly in light of the additional requirement that each crypto asset held by the Commodity-Based Trust underlies a derivatives contract that trades on a market with which the Exchange has a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement, whether directly or through common membership in ISG.
Finally, today, the Exchange lists and trades options on ETFs that would qualify for listing as an option on a Commodity-Based Trust under proposed Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to amend the listing criteria at Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi), with respect to ETFs, to adopt new criteria to permit the listing and trading of options on certain Commodity-Based Trusts that hold multiple crypto assets and that were listed pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5711(d), without the need for additional approvals, will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All Members will be able to trade options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts that hold multiple crypto assets in the same manner. Further, the proposed rules would apply in an equal manner to options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts that contain multiple crypto assets. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios in a timely manner.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to amend the listing criteria at Options 4, Section 3(h)(vi), with respect to ETFs, to adopt new criteria to permit the listing and trading of options on certain Commodity-Based Trusts that hold multiple crypto assets and that were listed pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5711(d), without the need for additional approvals, will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on Commodity-Based Trusts that hold multiple crypto assets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed initial and continued listing requirements are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect investors and the public interest, or whether the proposal raises any new or novel concerns not previously contemplated by the Commission.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by January 21, 2026. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by February 4, 2026.
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-2025-30. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (
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” or “Exchange Act”),
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 6830 (Industry Member Data Reporting) of FINRA'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 on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this proposed rule change is to amend FINRA Rule 6830 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, FINRA proposes to amend its CAT Compliance Rule to reflect this additional CAT reporting requirement. Specifically, FINRA proposes to add subparagraph (G) to FINRA Rule 6830(a)(2), which would require each Industry Member to record and report to the Central Repository the following:
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change immediately.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that this proposed rule change 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 FINRA and 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.”
FINRA 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 Act. FINRA 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 FINRA in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. FINRA 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.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On September 30, 2025, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
On November 3, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
As described more fully in the Notice,
The Exchange states that it has analyzed its system capacity and represents that the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic
The Exchange states that the proposal would permit MBTX options to trade at the same level of granularity as options on the iShares Bitcoin Trust (“IBIT”). The Exchange states that IBIT is a component of the MBTX and that IBIT options are the primary competitive product for MBTX options.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the self-regulatory organization that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by January 21, 2026. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by February 4, 2026.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 11.23(d)(2)(B) (Extending the Quote-Only Period for Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) Auctions) to: (1) delineate between BZX-listed corporate securities and exchange-traded product (“ETP”) IPO Securities; and (2) expand the circumstances under which the Exchange may extend the Quote-Only Period for IPO Auctions in an ETP IPO Security.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.23(d)(2)(B) (Extending the Quote-Only Period
Exchange Rule 11.23(d) governs IPO and halt auctions on the Exchange. Under Rule 11.23(d)(1)(A), the Quote-Only Period for ETP IPO Auctions commences at 8:00 a.m.
Exchange Rule 11.23(d)(2)(B) currently provides five circumstances under which the Exchange may extend the Quote-Only Period for IPO Auctions. These circumstances apply to both BZX-listed corporate securities and ETP IPO Securities:
(i) there are unmatched market orders on the Auction Book associated with the auction;
(ii) the underwriter requests an extension;
(iii) the Indicative Price moves the greater of 10% or fifty (50) cents in the fifteen (15) seconds prior to the auction;
(iv) in the event of a technical or systems issue at the Exchange that may impair the ability of Users to participate in the IPO Auction or of the Exchange to complete the IPO Auction;
(v) a Derivative Security fails to meet the Exchange's listing qualification requirements as set forth in Rule 14.11; or
(vi) there is a security that is the subject of an initial pricing on the Exchange of a security that has not been listed on a national securities exchange immediately prior to the initial pricing.
The duration of each Quote-Only Period extension depends on the triggering circumstance. Provisions (ii), (iv), (v), and (vi) are manual extensions without fixed durations. Provisions (i) and (iii) are automatic extensions: provision (i) extends the Quote-Only Period for as long as unmatched market orders remain on the Auction Book, while provision (iii) extends the Quote-Only Period for five minutes.
The Exchange now proposes to separately delineate the circumstances under which it may extend the Quote-Only Period for IPO Auctions applicable to BZX-listed corporate securities and ETP IPO Securities under proposed Rules 11.23(d)(2)(B) and (C), respectively. The Exchange also proposes to adopt an additional extension provision applicable to ETP IPO Securities.
The Exchange proposes to modify the circumstances under which the
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C), which would govern extensions of the Quote-Only Period for IPO Auctions in ETP IPO Securities and set forth those circumstances under proposed Rules 11.23(d)(2)(C)(i) through (vi). The Exchange also proposes to use the term “ETP IPO Security” throughout proposed Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C) rather than “Derivative Security.”
Proposed Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C)(i) is identical to existing Rule 11.23(d)(2)(B)(i). The Exchange does not propose to include existing Rule 11.23(d)(2)(B)(ii) that allows the Quote-Only Period to be extended upon underwriter request in proposed Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C). ETP IPO Securities do not have underwriters, making this provision inapplicable.
Proposed Rules 11.23(d)(2)(C)(ii), (iii), (iv), and (v) are substantively identical to Rules 11.23(d)(2)(B)(iii), (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively, except that the proposed rules refer specifically to an ETP IPO Security rather than a Derivative Security.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C)(vi), which would establish a new circumstance under which the Exchange may extend the Quote-Only Period for IPO Auctions in ETP IPO Securities.
Starting at 8:00 a.m. with the commencement of the Quote-Only Period, the System will determine and display the live Indicative Price of the IPO Auction to the lead market maker (“LMM”) through a tool accessible via the Exchange's web portal. The LMM may approve or re-approve an Indicative Price via the tool as often as necessary prior to 9:45 a.m. The last approved Indicative Price becomes the “Expected Price.”
The distinction between these terms is important: the Indicative Price is a live price that changes continuously during the Quote-Only Period as market participants enter and cancel orders, while the Expected Price is an Indicative Price that the LMM has locked in (
At any time prior to 9:45 a.m., the LMM may select price bands for the purpose of applying the price validation test.
The price bands available for selection shall be in such increments and at such price points as may be established from time to time by the Exchange. The available price bands shall include $0 but shall not exceed $0.50. Initially, available price bands will range from $0 to $0.50 in increments of $0.01. Thus, the LMM may select price bands of $0 (
The Exchange reserves the right to stipulate wider increments (such as $0.05) or price bands that include certain price points but exclude others (for example, increments of $0.01 up to $0.10, and increments of $0.05 thereafter). However, the Exchange will not, absent a proposed rule change, allow price bands wider than $0.50. The Exchange will notify Members and the public of changes to available price bands or increments through a notice widely disseminated at least one week in advance of the change. In selecting available price bands and increments, the Exchange will consider input from LMMs and other market participants, as well as the results of past usage, to adopt price bands and increments that promote efficient initiation of trading and protect investors and the public interest.
An ETP IPO Security does not pass the price validation test if the Indicative Price differs from the Expected Price by an amount moves in excess of the price bands set around the Expected Price or the LMM does not provide an Expected Price. For example, assume that the Indicative Price for the IPO Auction is displayed to the LMM at $32.00 per share, and the LMM approves that Indicative Price, thereby establishing an Expected Price of $32.00 per share. If the LMM selects an upper price band of $0.10 and a lower price band of $0.05, the Indicative Price calculated by the System for the IPO Auction could not be higher than $32.10 nor lower than $31.95. If the LMM does not select price bands, the Exchange will apply the default price bands of $0.10, and the Indicative Price could not be higher than $32.10 nor lower than $31.90.
Similar to existing Rules 11.23(d)(2)(B)(i) through (vi), if the price validation test fails during the IPO Auction process, the Quote-Only Period will automatically extend, but in five-second increments. The Quote-Only Period would continue seamlessly, with Members able to continue entering or canceling orders. The ETP IPO Security would then repeat the price validation test until the conditions of proposed Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C)(i) through (vi) are no
If the ETP IPO Security does not pass the price validation test, the LMM may, but is not required to, select different price bands or approve a new Expected Price before recommencing the iterative process. The System would automatically run the price validation checks by comparing the Expected Price to the Indicative Price to ensure that the Indicative Price falls within the price bands set around the Expected Price.
This process can continue until 9:45 a.m., at which point the IPO Auction would occur unless the conditions provided in proposed Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C)(i) through (v) are met. If an LMM does not approve an Indicative Price (
The LMM would be able, but not required, to select different price bands or approve a new Indicative Price (
In addition, the LMM may step in and begin providing markets in an ETP IPO Security on its first day of trading, which could further promote price stability. The Exchange may also determine at any point during the Quote-Only Period to postpone and reschedule the IPO Auction.
Proposed Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C)(vi) would generally extend the Quote-Only Period unless an issuer opts out of the price validation test or the Indicative Price falls within the price bands at 9:30 a.m. If an LMM does not approve an Indicative Price (
If an issuer opts out of the price validation test, the Quote-Only Period will generally only be extended for price volatility if the Indicative Price moves the greater of 10% or fifty cents in the fifteen seconds prior to the auction, as provided in existing Rule 11.23(d)(2)(B)(iii) and proposed Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C)(ii).
The Exchange notes that the LMM's involvement in timing the commencement of trading in an IPO Auction for an ETP IPO Security is consistent with an underwriter's involvement in the existing IPO Auction process for BZX-listed corporate securities. Similar to an underwriter in a corporate IPO, the LMM, with market knowledge of the order book and an understanding of the security, is well positioned to provide an Expected Price and applicable price bands that facilitate the price validation check.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is in the best interest of the market to give LMMs input into the timing of the IPO Auction to help ensure the fair and orderly launch of trading in an ETP IPO Security. The Exchange believes that additional time for price formation in the IPO Auction will benefit investors by helping to ensure the IPO Auction occurs at a price that generally aligns with the LMM's expectations. Furthermore, delaying an IPO Auction in an ETP is not novel, as Nasdaq currently begins its IPO auction process at 9:40 a.m.
Last, the Exchange proposes to re-letter existing Rules 11.23(d)(1)(C) through (F) as (D) through (G), respectively, and to update cross-references to Rule 11.23 throughout the rule to account for the re-lettered provisions.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to offer optional functionality to permit ETP issuers the ability to utilize a price validation test during the Quote-Only Period would maximize the chances of more efficient price discovery and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because the initial sale price would be based on market interest and the matching of buy and sell orders in an auction that would be open to all market participants. Today, an ETP IPO Security would open for trading during the IPO Auction at an initial price that is based on market interest at that time. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed process would provide safeguards for the opening price of the ETP that is based on additional market information, thereby protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed price validation test will benefit investors by providing additional time for price formation in the IPO Auction for ETP IPO Securities and will benefit investors by helping to ensure the IPO Auction occurs at a price
The proposed language allowing the LMM to select price bands and approve the Expected Price is designed to allow flexibility to promote efficient price discovery while protecting against unexpected volatility. The Exchange believes that limiting price bands to a maximum of $0.50 is reasonable and appropriate to balance the need for price stability with the need to allow the market to discover the appropriate opening price. The Exchange will notify Members and the public of any changes to available price bands or increments at least one week in advance of the change, ensuring transparency and allowing market participants to adjust their strategies accordingly.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that requiring the IPO Auction in an ETP IPO Security to generally occur by 9:45 a.m. at the latest is reasonable and appropriate because by that time, the LMM would be expected to step in and respond to any excess demand, and any excess volatility in the ETP would be protected through the proposed validation checks. However, the IPO Auction may be delayed past 9:45 a.m. if the criteria in proposed Rules 11.23(d)(2)(C)(i) through (v) are met. This timing is also consistent with market practice, as Nasdaq currently begins its IPO auction process at 9:40 a.m. for ETPs.
The Exchange also believes that making this functionality optional promotes just and equitable principles of trade and does not unfairly discriminate between issuers. ETP issuers, in consultation with the LMM, are best situated to determine whether to utilize the price validation test based on their understanding of the ETP and market conditions. Each price discovery process, whether the current process or the new proposed process, is designed to arrive at an IPO opening price that will benefit investors by helping to ensure the IPO Auction occurs at a price that generally aligns with the LMM's expectations.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to delineate between BZX-listed corporate securities and ETP IPO Securities promote clarity and transparency in the Exchange's rules. The proposed changes recognize the unique characteristics of ETPs, including the absence of an underwriter, and tailor the Quote-Only Period extension provisions accordingly. This promotes just and equitable principles of trade by ensuring that the rules applicable to each security type are appropriate for that security's characteristics. Additionally, the proposed re-lettering of existing Rule 11.23(d)(1)(C) through (F) to (D) through (G), and the corresponding updates to cross-references throughout Rule 11.23, enhance the organizational structure and usability of the rulebook, further promoting clarity and reducing the potential for confusion.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition as it is designed to provide an optional price validation test for ETP issuers and their LMMs to utilize during the IPO Auction process. The functionality is entirely optional and ETP issuers may elect to use the existing price volatility protections under Rule 11.23(d)(2)(B)(iii) (and proposed Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C)(ii)) or the new proposed price validation test under Rule 11.23(d)(2)(C)(vi). Each price discovery process is designed to arrive at an opening price that generally aligns with the LMM's expectations.
The Exchange believes that making this functionality optional promotes just and equitable principles of trade and does not unfairly discriminate between issuers or market participants. ETP issuers, in consultation with the LMM, are best situated to determine whether to utilize the price validation test based on their understanding of the ETP and market conditions. The proposed rule changes do not advantage or disadvantage any particular category of market participant. All market participants may participate in the IPO Auction process on equal terms regardless of whether the issuer elects to use the price validation test. Market participants will continue to have the ability to enter orders during the Quote-Only Period and participate in the IPO Auction under the same terms as they do today.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes the proposed price validation test leverages the LMM's market knowledge and role in the opening process. The LMM's involvement in selecting price bands and approving the Indicative Price (
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition. The proposed rule change is designed to enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange's ETP listing and trading services by providing an additional optional tool for price discovery on launch day. This functionality is similar to processes offered by another exchange
The proposed rule change does not impose restrictions on trading or order routing that would disadvantage market participants on other exchanges. To the extent the proposed functionality makes the Exchange a more attractive venue for ETP listings or trading, this reflects legitimate competition among exchanges to offer superior services and functionality. Market participants on other exchanges are welcome to become Members and trade on BZX if they determine that this proposed rule change has made BZX more attractive or favorable. Similarly, other exchanges remain free to propose similar or alternative functionality for their own ETP listings.
The Exchange notes that Nasdaq currently offers similar functionality for ETP IPO openings, beginning its IPO auction process at 9:40 a.m. Both the Exchange's proposal and the Nasdaq functionality introduce optional functionality for ETP IPO auctions that allows issuers to utilize a price validation test during the IPO opening process. The key similarities include the optional nature of the functionality, whereby ETP issuers may elect to opt into the price validation process. Both proposals provide that the LMM (on BZX) or DLP (on Nasdaq) may select upper and lower price bands for purposes of the price validation test, with a maximum price band of $0.50. Under both functionalities, the LMM/DLP must approve an Expected Price before the validation test is applied, and if the security does not pass the price validation test, the LMM/DLP may (but is not required to) select different price bands before recommencing the process. Both exchanges will notify members and the public of any changes to available price bands or increments at least one week in advance. Additionally, both functionalities require that the IPO auction occur by 9:45 a.m. ET at the latest under the price validation test. Both proposals also delineate between corporate IPO securities and ETP IPO Securities, recognizing the unique characteristics of ETPs, including the absence of an underwriter.
The Exchange's proposal differs from the Nasdaq Proposal in several respects. First, the Exchange specifies default price bands of $0.10 if the LMM does not select price bands, whereas the Nasdaq functionality does not specify default bands and leaves the matter to DLP discretion. Second, the Exchange integrates the ETP IPO Auction provisions into its existing Rule 11.23 governing auctions and uses its existing Quote-Only Period terminology and structure, whereas Nasdaq created a new halt category under Rule 4120(a)(15) and introduced new terminology including a “Display Only Period” followed by a “Pre-Launch Period.” Third, the Exchange's rule text is more concise and streamlined, reflecting the Exchange's approach of adapting its existing auction framework for ETP IPO Securities rather than creating an entirely new process. Fourth, while both proposals establish similar timing requirements (auction by 9:45 a.m. ET). The Exchange believes these differences reflect variations in existing rule structures, terminology, and organizational approaches between the exchanges, but do not represent material differences in the functionality or investor protections provided. Both proposals are designed to facilitate orderly price discovery for ETP IPO Securities by providing optional price validation mechanisms that leverage the expertise of the LMM or DLP while maintaining flexibility for issuers and protecting against unexpected volatility.
The proposed rule change is designed to provide comparable functionality to promote competitive equality among exchanges in the ETP listing market. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will promote competition among exchanges while protecting investors through enhanced price discovery mechanisms.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
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 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2025-149 and should be submitted on or before January 21, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4897-DR), dated December 19, 2025.
Issued on December 19, 2025.
Jennifer Talarico, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 12/19/2025, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 213886 and for economic injury is 213890.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
Pursuant to the authority under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), as delegated by the President, the Office of the United States Trade Representative is providing notice of the determination to modify the allocations of in-quota quantity under the annual beef tariff-rate quota (TRQ) to: (1) set the “other countries or areas” TRQ allocation at 52,005 metric tons (mt) effective January 1, 2026; and (2) establish an annual United Kingdom (UK) country-specific quota (CSQ) of 13,000 mt effective January 1, 2026.
This notice is applicable on January 1, 2026.
Sarah Elizabeth Fasano, Office of Agricultural Affairs, (202) 395-9491 or
Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 3 to Chapter 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), the United States maintains TRQs for imports of beef. Section 404(d)(3) of the URAA (19 U.S.C. 3601(d)(3)) authorizes the President to allocate the in-quota quantity of a TRQ for any agricultural product among supplying countries or customs areas and modify any allocation as determined appropriate by him. The President delegated this authority to the U.S. Trade Representative under Presidential Proclamation 6763 of December 23, 1994 (60 FR 1007).
The U.S. Trade Representative has determined to modify the existing allocations under the U.S. beef TRQ as a result of trade negotiations with the UK. On May 8, 2025, the United States and the UK announced the General Terms for the U.S.-UK Economic Prosperity Deal (General Terms). In the General Terms, the UK agreed to establish a CSQ of 13,000 mt for U.S. beef. In return, the United States agreed to reallocate 13,000 mt from the existing volume of the “other countries and areas” TRQ allocation to a CSQ for the UK. As required in the General Terms, on June 30, 2025, the UK amended its customs laws to establish the U.S. beef CSQ.
The attached Annex provides the modifications to the HTSUS necessary to (1) set the “other countries or areas” TRQ allocation at 52,005 mt effective January 1, 2026; and (2) establish an annual UK CSQ of 13,000 mt effective January 1, 2026.
Effective with respect to goods entered for consumption, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern time on January 1, 2026, additional U.S. note 3 to chapter 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is modified:
1. By deleting the quantity “65,005” and by inserting the quantity “52,005” in lieu thereof; and
2. By inserting the following in the table of countries and quota quantities below “Uruguay 20,000”:
“United Kingdom 13,000”.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice; extension of comment period.
The FAA, in cooperation with the National Park Service (NPS), announces the extension of the public comment period on the proposed Voluntary Agreement for Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, Point Reyes National Seashore, and Muir Woods National Monument from January 2, 2026, to January 9, 2026. On December 2, 2025, the agencies announced a comment period ending January 2, 2026. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted.
The comment period for the notice published at 90 FR 55328 on December 2, 2025, is extended. Comments must be received by 10:59 p.m. PST January 9, 2026.
Comments will be received on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment System (PEPC) website. The PEPC website address is:
Sandi Fox, telephone: (202) 267-0928, email:
The FAA is issuing this notice pursuant to the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-181 (
As an alternative to an ATMP, the FAA and the NPS may enter into a voluntary agreement with a commercial air tour operator who has applied to conduct commercial air tour operations over a national park including an operator that has interim operating authority for the park or a new entrant commercial air tour operator. Voluntary agreements must address the management issues necessary to protect the resources and visitor use of the park without compromising aviation safety or the air traffic control system. A voluntary agreement may also include conditions for the conduct of air tour operations and provisions to ensure stability of and compliance with the voluntary agreement. Each voluntary agreement reflects the provisions and conditions appropriate for the national park to which the agreement applies.
The San Francisco Bay Area Parks ATMP was finalized on January 11, 2023. A subsequent lawsuit led to a court order that the ATMP be vacated (
Individual voluntary agreements will be established with each operator for the Park. Part 135 operators who have been granted interim operating authority for the Parks are included in this voluntary agreement and operators who have applied for authority to conduct tours of the Park are also included.
Written comments on the proposed voluntary agreement can be submitted via PEPC. Comments will not be accepted by fax, email, or any other way than as specified above. All written comments become part of the official record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption to the Massachusetts Department of State Police allowing the State to waive specific portions of the commercial driver's license (CDL) skills test for CDL applicants who take the skills test on the island of Martha's Vineyard and issue those drivers a restricted CDL. The Agency grants this exemption because the island of Martha's Vineyard does not have the highway infrastructure to support a demonstration of certain on-road safe driving skills required by the CDL skills test requirements. FMCSA concludes that granting the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, is likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be achieved absent the exemption.
The exemption is effective from December 31, 2025 and expires December 31, 2027.
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; 771 216-2436;
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
Under 49 CFR 383.113(c)(2) and (4), CDL applicants must demonstrate, respectively, the ability to signal appropriately when changing direction in traffic and to choose a safe gap for changing lanes, passing other vehicles, and crossing or entering traffic. As prescribed in 49 CFR 383.153(a)(10)(ix), a State has the discretion to impose
The Massachusetts Department of State Police's application for exemption was described in detail in a
The Agency received five comments, all in support of granting the exemption. All of the submitted comments emphasized the lack of infrastructure on Martha's Vineyard. Martha's Vineyard Public Schools said, “The Martha's Vineyard community does not have the infrastructure for applicant drivers to demonstrate the two sets of lane changes required by the CDL skills test.” Island Energy, Inc., said, “The island has many rural roads that are narrow with posted low speed zones. There are no four lane roads anywhere on Martha's Vineyard but it is a challenging area to operate trucking.”
Some of the commenters mentioned the cost burden of transporting commercial motor vehicles between Martha's Vineyard and the mainland of Massachusetts. The Martha's Vineyard Transit Authority (VTA) said, “The VTA, as well as other public and private operators of CDL vehicles, would be significantly impacted if we have to travel off island to complete the CDL test. It would cost manpower as well as tie up equipment to go off island. The impact of not being able to road test CDL applicants on Martha's Vineyard is an extremely expensive and a logistical nightmare.” Carroll's MVRT commented, “We have a lot of interest from individuals wanting to obtain their CDL but are unable to because of the long commute time, expense and amount of effort.”
FMCSA has evaluated the Massachusetts Department of State Police's application for an exemption and exhibits, and the public comments. Based on its analysis, FMCSA has determined that granting the exemption will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, and grants the Massachusetts Department of State Police an exemption to use an alternative route to administer the part of the CDL skills test that requires a demonstration of two sets of lane changes for applicants taking the CDL skills test on Martha's Vineyard. The State of Massachusetts must issue those drivers restricted CDLs limiting the drivers to operating a CMV on Martha's Vineyard. Allowing the Massachusetts Department of State Police to use an alternative route to administer portions of the safe on-road driving skills test and to issue restricted CDLs will address the infrastructure barriers while establishing safeguards to achieve an equivalent level of safety.
This exemption is applicable to the Massachusetts Department of State Police when conducting the CDL skills test on the island of Martha's Vineyard.
The Massachusetts Department of State Police and drivers operating under this exemption are subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. The Massachusetts Department of State Police may waive only the following portions of the CDL skills test, as set forth in 49 CFR 383.113(c), that cannot be performed due to infrastructure limitations on Martha's Vineyard:
a. ability to signal appropriately when changing direction in traffic (49 CFR 383.113(c)(2)); and
b. ability to choose a safe gap for changing lanes, passing other vehicles, and for crossing or entering traffic (49 CFR 383.113(c)(4)).
2. The Massachusetts Department of State Police must comply with 49 CFR 383.133(b) and 383.135(a) of the knowledge tests standards for testing procedures and methods set forth in 49 CFR part 383, subpart H, and must continue to administer knowledge tests that fulfill the content requirements of subpart G.
3. Drivers applying for a CDL under this exemption must take the CDL skills test on the island of Martha's Vineyard.
4. Drivers issued a restricted CDL under this exemption may operate a CMV only on the island of Martha's Vineyard.
5. The Massachusetts Department of State Police must establish a new State CDL restriction, “R—Restriction,” with the following description printed on the back of the license “Restricted to Martha's Vineyard.” These restricted CDLs will not be valid for use anywhere other than on the island of Martha's Vineyard.
6. The drivers must comply with all other applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR part 350-399).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
The Massachusetts Department of State Police must provide to FMCSA, upon request, a list of all drivers issued restricted CDLs under this exemption.
FMCSA does not believe that drivers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record. The Agency will, however, rescind the exemption if: (1) the Massachusetts Department of State Police or drivers operating under the exemption fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objective of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Maritime Administration (MARAD), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
Pursuant to a delegation of authority from the Secretary of Transportation, the Maritime Administrator is authorized to issue Aquaculture Support Operations Waivers to U.S. documented vessels with registry endorsements or foreign flag vessels in operations that treat aquaculture fish or protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health upon a
Submit comments on or before
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2025-1224 by any of the following methods:
•
•
William Castillo, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-463, Washington, DC 20590. Email:
Pursuant to 46 CFR 106.115, vessel owners, operators, or charterers of U.S. documented vessels with registry endorsements or foreign flag vessels are required to provide prior notification to the United States Coast Guard (USCG) of aquaculture support operations in U.S. waters. The notification, in part, must include a copy of a MARAD-issued Aquaculture Support Operations Waiver. Pursuant to 46 U.S.C. 12102(d), the Secretary of Transportation has the authority to issue Aquaculture Support Operations Waivers to U.S. documented vessels with registry endorsements or foreign flag vessels engaged in operations that treat aquaculture fish or protect aquaculture fish from disease, parasitic infestation, or other threats to their health after a finding that suitable vessels of the United States are not available that could perform those operations. The Secretary has delegated this authority to the Maritime Administrator.
MARAD has received an Aquaculture Support Operations Waiver request from Cooke Aquaculture USA, Inc. (Cooke) for the operations of the Canadian-flag vessels COLBY PERCE, RONJA CARRIER, SADIE JANE, MISS MILDRED 1, and KC COMMANDER. Cooke proposes, in part, “to use highly specialized foreign-flag vessels referred to as a ‘wellboat’ (or “live fish carrier”) to treat Cooke's swimming inventory of farmed Atlantic salmon in the company's salt-water grow-out pens off Maine's North Atlantic Coast. This treatment prevents against parasitic infestation by sea lice that is highly destructive to the salmon's health.” Cooke proposes to operate the vessels off Maine's North Atlantic Coast from January 1 to December 31, 2026. Further details of Cooke's proposed operations may be found in the waiver request posted in the docket.
The public may submit comments providing detailed information relating to the availability of U.S.-flag vessels to perform the proposed aquaculture support operations set forth in Cooke's waiver request. Comments should reference the docket number of this notice, the vessel names, the commenter's interest in the application, and address whether there are suitable. U.S. vessels available to conduct the proposed aquaculture support operations.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), MARAD solicits comments from the public to inform its decision determining the availability of suitable U.S.-flag vessels to conduct the aquaculture support operations proposed in this notice. All timely comments will be considered; however, to facilitate comment tracking, commenters should provide their name or the name of their organization. If comments contain proprietary or confidential information, commenters may contact the agency for alternate submission instructions. Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). For information on DOT's compliance with the Privacy Act, please visit
By order of the Maritime Administration.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on December 11, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On December 11, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. CAMPO FLORES, Efrain Antonio, Caracas, Venezuela; DOB 25 Aug 1986; POB Valencia, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 18330183 (Venezuela); Passport 081303148 (Venezuela) expires 28 Nov 2018 (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” (E.O. 14059) for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
2. CARRETERO NAPOLITANO, Ramon, Panama City, Panama; DOB 08 May 1965; POB Colon, Panama; nationality Panama; Gender Male; Cedula No. 388114 (Panama); Passport 1874513 (Panama) expires 28 Mar 2017 (individual) [VENEZUELA-EO13850].
Designated pursuant to section l(a)(i) of Executive Order 13850 of November 1, 2018, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela” (E.O. 13850), for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy.
3. FLORES DE FREITAS, Franqui Francisco, Caracas, Venezuela; DOB 14 Aug 1985; POB Caracas, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 17751244 (Venezuela); Passport 066981222 (Venezuela) expires 24 Jan 2018 (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.
4. MALPICA FLORES, Carlos Erik, Naguanagua, Carabobo, Venezuela; DOB 17 Sep 1972; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Cedula No. 11810943 (Venezuela) (individual) [VENEZUELA].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13692 of March 8, 2015, “Blocking Property and Suspending Entry of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Venezuela,” for being a current or former official of the Government of Venezuela.
5. ARCTIC VOYAGER INCORPORATED (a.k.a. ARCTIC VOYAGER INC), Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Majuro, Ajeltake Island 96960, Marshall Islands; Organization Established Date 08 Nov 2024; Identification Number IMO 0109600; Business Registration Number 128742 (Marshall Islands) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: KIARA M).
Designated pursuant to section l(a)(i) of E.O. 13850, for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy.
6. FULL HAPPY LIMITED, Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Majuro, Ajeltake Island 96960, Marshall Islands; Organization Established Date 03 Mar 2023; Identification Number IMO 6405624; Business Registration Number 118736 (Marshall Islands) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: MONIQUE).
Designated pursuant to section l(a)(i) of E.O. 13850, for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy.
7. MYRA MARINE LIMITED, Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Majuro, Ajeltake Island 96960, Marshall Islands; Organization Established Date 24 Sep 2024; Identification Number IMO 0088934; Business Registration Number 128049 (Marshall Islands) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: WHITE CRANE).
Designated pursuant to section l(a)(i) of E.O. 13850, for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy.
8. POWEROY INVESTMENT LIMITED (a.k.a. POWEROY INVESTMENT LTD), Virgin Islands, British; Identification Number IMO 6438512 [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: H. CONSTANCE).
Designated pursuant to section l(a)(i) of E.O. 13850, for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy.
9. READY GREAT LIMITED, Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Majuro, Ajeltake Island 96960, Marshall Islands; Organization Established Date 06 Jul 2023; Identification Number IMO 0017035; Business Registration Number 120806 (Marshall Islands) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: LATTAFA).
Designated pursuant to section l(a)(i) of E.O. 13850, for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy.
10. SINO MARINE SERVICES LIMITED (a.k.a. SINO MARINE SERVICES LTD), 14, Wells View Drive, Bromley, Kent BR2 9UL, United Kingdom; Organization Established Date 01 Jan 2016; Identification Number IMO 5967460; Company Number 10214578 (United Kingdom) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: TAMIA).
Designated pursuant to section l(a)(i) of E.O. 13850, for operating in the oil sector of the Venezuelan economy.
On December 12, 2025, OFAC also identified the following vessels as property in which a blocked person has an interest under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. H. CONSTANCE (3E2177) Crude Oil Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Year of Build 2002; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9237773; MMSI 352002009 (vessel) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: POWEROY INVESTMENT LIMITED).
Identified as property in which POWEROY INVESTMENT LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13850, has an interest.
2. KIARA M (3E2278) Crude Oil Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Year of Build 2004; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9285823; MMSI 352002348 (vessel) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: ARCTIC VOYAGER INCORPORATED).
Identified as property in which ARCTIC VOYAGER INCORPORATED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13850, has an interest.
3. LATTAFA (3E2298) Crude Oil Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Year of Build 2003; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9245794 (vessel) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: READY GREAT LIMITED).
Identified as property in which READY GREAT LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13850, has an interest.
4. MONIQUE (E5U5122) Crude Oil Tanker Cook Islands flag; Vessel Year of Build 2005; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9311270; MMSI 518999141 (vessel) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: FULL HAPPY LIMITED).
Identified as property in which FULL HAPPY LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13850, has an interest.
TAMIA (VRXC8) Crude Oil Tanker Hong Kong flag; Other Vessel Flag China; Vessel Year of Build 2006; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9315642; MMSI 477186300 (vessel) [VENEZUELA-EO13850] (Linked To: SINO MARINE SERVICES LIMITED).
Identified as property in which SINO MARINE SERVICES LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13850, has an interest.
5. WHITE CRANE (HOA6213) Crude Oil Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Year of Build 2007; Vessel Registration
Identified as property in which MYRA MARINE LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13850, has an interest.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS is inviting comments on the information collection request outlined in this notice.
Written comments should be received on or before March 2, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
View the latest drafts of the tax forms related to the information collection listed in this notice at
The IRS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the IRS assess the impact and minimize the burden of its information collection requirements. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record, and viewable on relevant websites. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
Request for nominations and applications.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is requesting applications from individuals with experience in such areas as state tax administration, cybersecurity and information security, tax software development, tax preparation, payroll and tax financial product processing, systems management and improvement, implementation of customer service initiatives, public administration, and consumer advocacy to be considered for selection as members of the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC).
Applications must be received on or before January 31, 2026.
Applications may be submitted via electronic fax to 855-811-8021 or via email to
Anna Millikan at (202) 317-6564 or send an email to
The IRS strongly encourages representatives from consumer groups with an interest in tax issues to apply.
Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's qualifications for ETAAC membership, including the applicant's knowledge of regulations and the applicant's past or current affiliations and involvement with the particular tax segment or segments of the community that the applicant wishes to represent on the committee. Applications will be accepted for current vacancies from qualified individuals and from professional and public interest groups that wish to have representation on ETAAC. Submissions must include an application and resume.
ETAAC provides continuing input into the development and implementation of the IRS organizational strategy for electronic tax administration. The ETAAC provides an organized public forum for discussion of electronic tax administration issues—such as prevention of identity theft-related refund fraud—in support of the overriding goal that paperless filing should be the preferred and most convenient method of filing tax and information returns. ETAAC members work closely with the Security Summit, a joint effort of the IRS, state tax administrators and the nation's tax industry, to fight identity theft and refund fraud. ETAAC members convey the public's perceptions of IRS
This is a volunteer position. Members will serve three-year terms on the ETAAC to allow for a rotation in membership and ensure different perspectives are represented. Travel expenses within government guidelines will be reimbursed. In accordance with Department of Treasury Directive 21-03, a clearance process including fingerprints, tax checks, a Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal check and a practitioner check with the Office of Professional Responsibility will be conducted.
The establishment and operation of the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC) is required by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98), title II, section 2001(b)(2). ETAAC follows a charter in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014 . The ETAAC provides continued input into the development and implementation of the IRS's strategy for electronic tax administration. The ETAAC will research, analyze, consider, and make recommendations on a wide range of electronic tax administration issues and will provide input into the development of the strategic plan for electronic tax administration. Members will provide an annual report to Congress by June 30.
Applicants must complete the application form, which includes describing and documenting the applicant's qualifications for ETAAC membership. Applicants must submit a short one or two-page statement including recent examples of specific skills and qualifications as they relate to: cybersecurity and information security, tax software development, tax preparation, payroll and tax financial product processing, systems management and improvement, implementation of customer service initiatives, consumer advocacy and public administration. Examples of critical thinking, strategic planning and oral and written communication are desirable.
An acknowledgement of receipt will be sent to all applicants.
Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the ETAAC in accordance with Department of Treasury and IRS policies.
On December 18, 2025, the Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC (“CAT LLC”), on behalf of the following parties to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”):
Set forth in this Section II is the description of the proposed 2025 Cost Savings Amendment, along with information required by Rule 608(a) under the Exchange Act,
CAT LLC strongly supports meaningful reductions in CAT costs while preserving the system's core regulatory functionality. To this end, CAT LLC and the Plan Processor have continuously pursued cost savings measures within their control and have achieved meaningful cost reductions within the significant regulatory restraints of the CAT NMS Plan.
The CAT operating budget initially approved by the Operating Committee for 2025 was approximately $249 million.
Based on current estimates, CAT LLC anticipates that this 2025 Cost Savings Amendment may reduce CAT costs (currently operating with an approximate $188 million annual budget) by approximately $55 to $73 million per year, without compromising the regulatory purposes of the CAT.
In developing this 2025 Cost Savings Amendment, CAT LLC, with the Plan Processor, thoroughly considered a range of alternatives and variations to the proposals described in this amendment, balancing the potential costs and benefits of each, including regulatory impact. In particular, and as discussed below, CAT LLC prepared an initial proposal (“Original CAT LLC Proposal”) that was then presented to certain Industry Members for feedback. Based on feedback from the Advisory Committee and others in the industry, CAT LLC determined to amend the Original CAT LLC Proposal and to propose this 2025 Cost Savings Amendment instead. As a result, the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment is the product of ongoing discussions among the SEC staff, Participants, the Plan Processor, the Advisory Committee and Industry Members to identify changes to the CAT that would allow the CAT to operate more efficiently while preserving its regulatory benefits. It is an ongoing priority for the CAT to operate in a cost-effective manner, and CAT LLC will continue to explore cost savings opportunities that do not compromise the regulatory goals of the CAT.
As described below, the Original CAT LLC Proposal calls for the full elimination of the CAT Customer & Account Information System (“CAIS”) and the CAT Customer ID (“CCID”). As noted above, the current 2025 CAT budget of $188 million includes an estimated $122 million in cloud hosting services and $54 million in total Plan Processor fees.
The Original CAT LLC Proposal includes the following eight components:
• CAT LLC is proposing the Reference Data Amendment (as described below) instead of the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID component of the Original CAT LLC Proposal. With this change, potential cost savings in annual cloud hosting costs would be reduced from approximately $6.5 to $9 million to approximately $4 to $6 million.
• CAT LLC has determined not to include the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component of the Original CAT LLC Proposal in the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment.
With this change, potential cost savings in annual cloud hosting costs would be reduced by approximately $6 to $8 million.
In addition to the reduction in cost savings for cloud hosting services, by changing these two components of the Original CAT LLC Proposal, cost savings related to reduced Plan Processor operating fees would be reduced by approximately $8 million.
Additionally, as described below, CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to adopt a spending cap provision that is designed to safeguard against future requests or interpretations that would expand the then-existing functionality or system operations of the CAT without a clear assessment of whether the costs outweigh any associated benefits.
The proposed changes to the CAT NMS Plan to implement the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment are set forth in
The timing of when these cost savings will be realized will depend on the timing of Commission action on this 2025 Cost Savings Amendment. As described in further detail below, the Plan Processor has proposed one-time implementation costs and timelines for each component of the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment, if approved by the Commission, as follows.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
To this end, CAT LLC urges the Commission to request comment and quantitative data from Industry Members on the relative cost and benefits of the Original CAT LLC Proposal versus this 2025 Cost Savings Amendment. In particular, the Commission should request comment regarding whether Industry Members support the continued existence of the CCID (under the Reference Data Amendment or otherwise) or would support its full elimination, and the costs and benefits that could result from either approach. Based on discussions with Industry Members, CAT LLC understands that while many Industry Members support the continued existence of the CCID, some believe that regulators should not have the ability to identify a market participant's trading activity across multiple CAT Reporters and would support its full elimination. In addition, the Commission should request comment regarding whether Industry Members support a reduction of the linkage processing timeline from four days to two days as discussed in the Original CAT LLC Proposal, and the costs and benefits that could result from either approach. Based on discussions with Industry Members, CAT LLC understands that while many Industry Members support the existing timeline, some believe a reduction may be possible if it would not have an adverse effect on firm processing and compliance statistics.
The following table summarizes the differences in estimated cost savings between the Original CAT LLC Proposal versus the proposal as modified based on industry feedback (reflected in this 2025 Cost Savings Amendment), based on the November 2025 budget.
CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to provide for delivery of an interim CAT-Order-ID on an “as requested by the SEC” basis, rather than on a daily basis (the “Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment”).
The Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment is consistent with and would codify the exemptive relief related to the interim CAT-Order-ID as set forth in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.
Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan states that “Noon Eastern Time T+1 (transaction date + one day)” is the deadline for “initial data validation, lifecycle linkages and communication of errors to CAT Reporters.” The CAT NMS Plan further explains that the Plan Processor must “link and create the order lifecycle” using a “daisy chain approach,” in which “a series of unique order identifiers, assigned to all order events handled by CAT Reporters are linked together by the Central Repository and assigned a single CAT-generated CAT-Order-ID that is associated with each individual order event and used to create the complete lifecycle of an order.”
But the CAT NMS Plan does expressly require the creation of lifecycle linkages by noon Eastern Time on T+1. And the obligation to assign CAT Order IDs—the mechanism by which the Plan Processor creates lifecycle linkages—by noon Eastern Time on T+1 necessarily follows from that requirement.
In its November 2023 Exemptive Order, the Commission granted exemptive relief from the requirement to assign an interim CAT-Order-ID by T+1 at noon ET, subject to certain conditions. One condition is the requirement for the Plan Processor to maintain or improve the existing performance of functionality providing lifecycle linkages for all order events by T+1 at 9 p.m. ET, except an interim CAT-Order-ID was not required for Options Market Maker quotes in Listed Options (“OMM Quotes”).
Accordingly, pursuant to the current CAT NMS Plan and the November 2023 Exemptive Order, the Plan Processor currently assigns an interim CAT-Order-ID by T+1 at 9 p.m. ET, rather than by T+1 at noon ET,
In its 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief to allow the Participants to further relax requirements related to the provision of the Interim CAT-Order-ID.
• The Plan Processor must provide lifecycle linkages with a final CAT-Order-ID for all order events by T+5 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, except that lifecycle linkages will not be required for OMM Quotes consistent with the provisions approved by the 2024 Cost Savings Amendment.
• Upon requests made by authorized regulatory users from the Participants or the Commission, the Plan Processor shall create interim CAT-Order-IDs for a specified trade date or dates and thereby provide linked lifecycles to regulators before T+5 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time.
The conditional exemptive relief granted in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order supersedes the conditional exemptive relief set forth in the November 2023 Exemptive Order with respect to lifecycle linkage timeframes.
CAT LLC proposes to amend the Plan to state that the Plan does not require assignment of interim CAT-Order-IDs on a regular ongoing basis; rather, interim CAT-Order-IDs shall be provided only on an “as requested by the SEC” basis. To implement this change, CAT LLC proposes the following changes to the CAT NMS Plan.
CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate the requirement to provide an interim CAT-Order-ID on a regular ongoing basis. Specifically, CAT LLC proposes to delete the phrase “lifecycle linkages” from the following bullet in Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan: “Noon Eastern Time T+1 (transaction date + one day)−Initial data validation, lifecycle linkages and communication of errors to CAT Reporters.” Similarly, CAT LLC proposes to delete the phrase “Life Cycle Linkage” from the second box in Figure A in Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, which currently states: “12:00 p.m. ET T+1 Initial Validation, Life Cycle Linkage, Communication of Errors.”
CAT LLC also proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to require CAT LLC to provide an interim CAT-Order-ID on an “as requested by the SEC” basis. Specifically, CAT LLC proposes to add the following provision to Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan:
Upon request of a senior officer of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, the SEC's Division of Enforcement, or the SEC's Division of Examinations to CAT LLC, the Plan Processor shall be directed to create an interim CAT-Order-ID and make it available to regulators. The timing and cost of ad hoc runs of the interim CAT-Order-ID would be based on the number of trade dates and the data volumes to be processed in the request, but generally would be anticipated to be processed by T+2 at 9 p.m. ET if the request is received prior to T+2 at 4 a.m. ET, or within 14 hours of receiving the request if such request was received after T+2 at 4 a.m. ET.
As indicated in the draft language, such ad hoc requests for an interim CAT-Order-ID may be made by the designated representatives of the SEC, not the Participants. The Participants rely on the final CAT-Order-ID and do not require an interim CAT-Order-ID.
CAT LLC also proposes to revise Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to clarify that the data made available to Participant regulatory staff and the SEC on T+5 must not only be corrected but also linked. Specifically, CAT LLC proposes to revise the following bullet in Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan: “8:00 a.m. Eastern Time T+5 (transaction date + five days)−Corrected data available to Participant regulatory staff and the SEC” by adding the phrase “and linked.” With this change, this bullet would read “8:00 a.m. Eastern Time T+5 (transaction date + five days)−Corrected and linked data available to Participant regulatory staff and the SEC.”
Based on current data volumes, delivery of an interim CAT-Order-ID on an “as requested by the SEC” basis, rather than on a regular ongoing basis, is estimated to result in approximately $2 to $3 million in annual savings for cloud hosting services.
CAT LLC would add a separate line item to its budget to reflect costs related to any SEC requests to generate an interim CAT-Order-ID. The estimated cost of an ad hoc interim CAT-Order-ID delivery could range from approximately $8,000 to $12,000, but ultimately would depend on various unknowns including the then-current availability of compute resources and the size of the data volumes to be processed in the request.
To implement the proposal, the Plan Processor has proposed a one-time change request fee of approximately $225,000. The Plan Processor estimates it would take approximately 6 to 8 weeks to fully implement the changes for the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment. One-time implementation costs will generally consist of Plan Processor labor costs associated with coding and software development, as well as any related cloud fees associated with the development, testing, and load testing of the proposed changes for the proposed amendment. Even accounting for this one-time implementation cost, the proposal would allow CAT LLC to achieve substantial cost savings in the first year.
CAT LLC further believes the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment would have limited regulatory impact. CAT LLC has determined that eliminating the automatic regular assignment of the interim CAT-Order-ID, while maintaining the option of assigning an interim CAT-Order-ID on an ad hoc basis, would not adversely affect the regulatory objectives of the CAT, including market oversight.
First, as regulators, the Participants rely on the final CAT-Order-ID and do not require an interim CAT-Order-ID. The interim CAT-Order-ID is currently provided on T+1 at 9 p.m. ET, and the final CAT-Order-ID, which replaces the interim CAT-Order-ID, is currently provided four days later at T+5 at 8 a.m. ET. As the SEC noted in its 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, making the final CAT-Order-ID available by T+5 “should generally continue to be faster than was possible before the CAT existed.”
Second, as the SEC noted in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, regulators will be able to access and analyze raw unprocessed data prior to T+5 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, “which functionality should continue to enable regulatory users to effectively and expeditiously review data in the case of a major market event, albeit slightly slower than is currently possible.”
Third, for those limited instances in which an interim CAT-Order-ID is necessary for regulatory purposes, CAT LLC will make the interim CAT-Order-ID available upon request of a senior officer of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets, the SEC's Division of Enforcement, or the SEC's Division of Examinations to CAT LLC. CAT LLC proposes limiting this ability to a senior officer (as opposed to any regulatory user of the SEC) to limit the frequency of such requests given the significant number of SEC regulatory users and to ensure that the costs associated with processing such requests (which could range from approximately $8,000 to $12,000, or more, per request) are closely aligned with the Commission's priorities. This would preserve the SEC's ability to obtain an interim CAT-Order-ID on an as-needed basis (for example, in the case of a major market event), while avoiding the substantial cost of delivering an interim CAT-Order-ID on a regular ongoing basis.
The Participants believe the availability of such data, combined with the ability of the senior officers of the SEC to request an interim CAT-Order-ID on an ad hoc basis and the delivery of the final CAT-Order-ID, is sufficient for regulatory purposes. Because the CAT is a historical regulatory audit trail rather than a real-time system, the de minimis benefit that may result from producing an interim CAT-Order-ID slightly earlier than a final CAT-Order-ID would not justify the significant cost.
CAT LLC also believes the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact without adversely impacting Industry Members. The interim CAT-Order-ID is an internal function within CAT, and, therefore, does not directly affect the requirements applicable to CAT Reporters. Accordingly, CAT LLC does not anticipate that the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment would have an adverse impact on Industry Members or their costs.
CAT LLC also believes the Interim CAT-Order-ID Amendment would enhance the efficiency of the securities markets. As discussed above, the Interim-CAT-Order-ID Amendment would provide significant annual cost savings for CAT LLC. Such cost savings would not only benefit CAT LLC, but would also provide cost savings for any Participants and Industry Members that are required to fund the CAT in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan. Ultimately, such cost savings would benefit investors and the U.S. markets as a whole, thereby facilitating the goals of the Exchange Act.
CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to permit the Plan Processor to delete (i) all CAT Data older than three years (other than CAT Data with a shorter retention period as described below); (ii) OMM Quotes older than six months; (iii) Interim Operational Data older than 15 days; and (iv) quote and NBBO data included in the SIP Data
As discussed further below, the Data Storage Amendment expands upon the substance of the exemptive relief related to data storage and retention granted by the Commission in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order and further increases the anticipated cost savings related to data storage and retention by approximately $6.5 to $9 million. Specifically, the Data Storage Amendment expands upon the exemptive relief related to data storage and retention as set forth in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order by:
• Deleting all CAT Data older than three years, rather than older than five years;
• Deleting OMM Quotes older than six months, rather than older than one year; and
• Deleting Options SIP Data older than six months, rather than older than five years.
Both the Data Storage Amendment and the exemptive relief provided in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order would allow for the deletion of Interim Operational Data older than 15 days. The following compares the estimated annual cost savings related to data storage and retention relief granted in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order
Section 6.1(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Plan Processor to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of SEC Rule 613(e)(8). In turn, SEC Rule 613(e)(8) requires that the Central Repository retain information collected pursuant to SEC Rule 613(c)(7) and (e)(7) in a convenient and usable standard electronic data format that is directly available and searchable electronically without any manual intervention for a period of not less than five years.
Section 6.5(d) of the CAT NMS Plan provides: “Consistent with Appendix D, Data Retention Requirements, the Central Repository shall retain the information collected pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7) and (e)(7) of SEC Rule 613 in a convenient and usable standard electronic data format that is directly available and searchable electronically without any manual intervention by the Plan Processor for a period of not less than six (6) years, subject to the exceptions in Section 6.3 of Appendix D.”
Section 1.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he Plan Processor must develop a formal record retention policy and program for the CAT, to be approved by the Operating Committee, which will, at a minimum . . . [m]ake data directly available and searchable electronically without manual intervention for at least six years, subject to the exceptions in Section 6.3 of Appendix D.”
Section 3.4 of Appendix D (Requirements for Options Market Maker Quotes in Listed Options) governs the processing and storage of OMM Quotes.
Section 6.3 of Appendix D (Exceptions to Data Availability Requirements) provides that “Raw Unprocessed Data” older than 15 days, “Interim Operational Data” older than 15 days, and all submission and feedback files older than 15 days may be retained in an archive storage tier, and that such archived data “is not directly available and searchable electronically without manual intervention and will not be subject to any query tool performance requirements until it is restored to an accessible storage tier.” Pursuant to Section 6.3 of Appendix D, “[t]he Plan Processor will restore archived data to an accessible storage tier upon request to the CAT Help Desk by an authorized regulatory user from the Participants or a senior officer from the SEC.”
In its 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief from SEC Rule 17a-1, SEC Rule 613(e)(8), Sections 6.1(d)(i) and 6.5(b) of the CAT NMS Plan, and Sections 1.4 and 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, to the extent necessary to allow the Participants to:
• Delete all CAT Data older than five years.
• Move CAT Data older than three years to a more cost-effective storage tier (
• Delete OMM Quotes data after one year from the CAT System.
• Delete Interim Operational Data older than 15 days.
In granting this exemptive relief, the Commission stated it “does not believe the reduced data storage and shorter data retention periods permitted by the conditional exemptive relief granted herein would unduly impact regulators' ability to oversee the markets.”
With the Data Storage Amendment, CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to permit the Plan Processor to delete (i) all CAT Data older than three years; (ii) OMM Quotes older than six months; (iii) Interim Operational Data older than 15 days; and (iv) Options SIP Data older than six months. The Data Storage Amendment expands upon the exemptive relief related to data storage and retention as set forth in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order by:
• Deleting all CAT Data older than three years, rather than older than five years;
• Deleting OMM Quotes older than six months, rather than older than one year; and
• Deleting Options SIP Data older than six months, rather than older than five years.
Both the Data Storage Amendment and the exemptive relief provided in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order would allow for the deletion of Interim Operational Data older than 15 days. The Data Storage Amendment would reduce CAT costs for cloud hosting services by approximately $23.5-$32 million annually. The following chart indicates the estimated cost savings for cloud hosting services with regard to each of the four components of the Data Storage Amendment.
To implement the Data Storage Amendment, CAT LLC proposes to make the following changes to the CAT NMS Plan.
Section 6.1(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan states, in relevant part, that “[t]he Plan Processor shall . . . comply with . . . the recordkeeping requirements of SEC Rule 613(e)(8).” CAT LLC proposes to replace the requirement to comply with “the recordkeeping requirements of SEC Rule 613(e)(8)” with a requirement to comply with “the recordkeeping requirements of Section 6.5 and Appendix D.”
CAT LLC proposes to amend Section 6.5(b)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan to permit the Plan Processor to delete CAT Data older than three years. Section 6.5(b)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan currently states:
Consistent with Appendix D, Data Retention Requirements, the Central Repository shall retain the information collected pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7) and (e)(7) of SEC Rule 613 in a convenient and usable standard electronic data format that is directly available and searchable electronically without any manual intervention by the Plan Processor for a period of not less than six (6) years, subject to the exceptions in Section 6.3 of Appendix D. Such data when available to the Participant regulatory staff and the SEC shall be linked.
First, CAT LLC proposes to amend this provision to state that CAT Data will be retained for a period of not less than three years, and in a convenient and usable standard electronic data format that is directly available and searchable electronically without any manual intervention by the Plan Processor.
Second, CAT LLC proposes to simplify this provision by replacing the references to “the information collected pursuant to paragraphs (c)(7) and (e)(7) of SEC Rule 613” with “CAT Data.” CAT Data is defined in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan to mean “data derived from Participant Data, Industry Member Data, SIP Data, and such other data as the Operating Committee may designate as `CAT Data' from time to time.” Participant Data, as defined in Section 6.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan, and Industry Member Data, as defined in Section 6.4(d)(ii) of the CAT NMS Plan, collectively, correspond to the information set forth in paragraph (c)(7) of SEC Rule 613, subject to certain changes approved by the Commission. A comparison of the Plan provisions and the corresponding provisions in SEC Rule 613 is set forth in Chart 1 in
Third, CAT LLC proposes to add a reference to Section 3.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, which governs the storage of OMM Quotes, and a reference to proposed Section 6.4, which describes the reduced retention period for Interim Operational Data and Options SIP Data (as discussed below).
With these proposed changes, Section 6.5(b)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan would read as follows:
Consistent with Appendix D, Data Retention Requirements, the Central Repository shall retain CAT Data for a period of not less than three (3) years, and in a convenient and usable standard electronic data format that is directly available and searchable electronically without any manual intervention by the Plan Processor, subject to the exceptions in Section 3.4, Section 6.3 and Section 6.4 of Appendix D. Such data when available to the Participant regulatory staff and the SEC shall be linked.
Correspondingly, CAT LLC proposes to amend Section 1.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to replace the
CAT LLC proposes to amend Section 3.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to add the following sentence: “Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan, this Appendix D, or Exchange Act Rule 17a-1, Options Market Maker quotes in Listed Options older than six months may be deleted by the Plan Processor.”
The Plan Participant Technical Specifications currently define three types of events used to report Options Market Maker Quotes: Option Quote (OQ), Option Quote Cancel (OQC) and Option Complex Quote (OCQ) events.
CAT LLC proposes to amend Section 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to remove the references to archiving of Interim Operational Data older than 15 days. Instead, CAT LLC proposes to delete Interim Operational Data older than 15 days. As a result, CAT LLC proposes to delete the following from Section 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan:
• Interim Operational Data older than 15 days. “Interim Operational Data” means all processed, validated and unlinked data made available to regulators by T+1 at 12:00 p.m. ET and all iterations of processed data made available to regulators between T+1 and T+5, but excludes the final version of corrected data that is made available at T+5 at 8:00 a.m. ET. For the avoidance of doubt, “Interim Operational Data” does not include processed data relating to Options Market Maker quotes in Listed Options made available to regulators by T+1 at 12:00 p.m. ET.
CAT LLC proposes to address the retention period of Interim Operational Data in new Section 6.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, as discussed below.
CAT LLC proposes to add a new Section 6.4 to Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to describe the reduced retention periods for Interim Operational Data and Options SIP Data. Specifically, proposed Section 6.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan would state the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan, this Appendix D, or Exchange Act Rule 17a-1, the following may be deleted from the CAT by the Plan Processor:
• Interim Operational Data older than 15 days. “Interim Operational Data” means all processed, validated and unlinked data made available to regulators by T+2 at 8:00 a.m. ET and all iterations of processed data made available to regulators between T+2 and T+6, but excludes the final version of corrected data that is made available by T+6 at 8:00 a.m. ET. For the avoidance of doubt, “Interim Operational Data” does not include processed data relating to Options Market Maker quotes in Listed Options made available to regulators by T+2 at 8:00 a.m. ET.
• Options SIP Data older than six months. “Options SIP Data” means quote and NBBO data included in the SIP Data from the OPRA Plan or any successor SIP for Listed Options.
The benefits of the Data Storage Amendment significantly outweigh its costs. This proposal would allow CAT LLC to achieve an estimated $23.5-$32 million in annual cost savings for cloud hosting services, materially advancing CAT LLC's ongoing efforts to reduce CAT operating costs. Moreover, the Data Storage Amendment would not adversely affect the core regulatory purposes of the CAT.
CAT LLC, after consultation with the Plan Processor, has determined the Data Storage Amendment would allow CAT LLC to achieve approximately $23.5-$32 million in annual cost savings for cloud hosting services.
When the CAT NMS Plan was adopted in 2016, it was “expected that the Central Repository will grow to more than 29 petabytes of raw, uncompressed data.”
One major driver of storage costs to date is the requirement that CAT Data must be “directly available and searchable electronically without any manual intervention by the Plan Processor for a period of not less than six (6) years,” subject to narrow exceptions approved as part of the 2024 Cost Savings Amendment.
Another major driver of storage costs is OMM Quotes. OMM Quotes (the vast majority of which result in a cancellation) are the single largest data source for the CAT, comprising approximately 98% of all Options Exchange events and approximately 44% of all transaction volume.
Relatedly, the CAT is required to maintain copies of Options SIP Data for six years under the CAT NMS Plan (or five years under the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order). However, such data is voluminous and imposes significant costs on the CAT. Options SIP Data currently represents 25% of storage costs. Accordingly, like with OMM Quotes, CAT proposes to delete Options SIP Data older than six months.
Furthermore, the CAT is required to maintain all copies of Interim Operational Data.
To implement the Data Storage Amendment, the Plan Processor has proposed a one-time change request setting forth an implementation fee of approximately $165,000-$265,000. The Plan Processor estimates that it would take approximately three to four months to fully implement the changes for the Data Storage Amendment. One-time implementation costs will generally consist of Plan Processor labor costs associated with coding and software development, as well as any related cloud fees associated with the development, testing, and load testing of the proposed changes for the proposed amendment. Even accounting for this one-time implementation cost, the proposal would allow CAT LLC to achieve substantial cost savings in the first year.
CAT LLC believes the cost savings associated with the Data Storage Amendment are readily justified given the minimal impact on the regulatory purposes of the CAT.
First, with regard to the proposed three-year retention period for CAT Data, based on their regulatory experiences to date, the Participants do not anticipate generally needing CAT Data older than three years to support their regulatory programs. In addition, as the SEC noted with regard to its own use of the CAT, the first three years of CAT Data “will be more frequently accessed and needed by regulatory users based on its experience in using the CAT.”
Second, the vast majority of OMM Quote lifecycles do not involve any execution or allocation and Participant regulatory users very rarely access such data. The SEC recognized that the costs of retaining older OMM Quotes exceed their regulatory benefit, stating in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order that “based on Commission experience in using the CAT and CAT Data, the Commission expects that regulators are less likely to access OMM Quotes data after a period of one year and thus the costs of maintaining older OMM Quotes data in the CAT are not sufficiently justified by its regulatory benefits.”
Third, the Participants also do not believe that the cost of retaining Options SIP Data for more than six months is justified by regulatory need. Based on their regulatory experiences to date, the Participants generally do not anticipate needing Options SIP Data older than six months to support their regulatory programs.
Fourth, as noted above, Interim Operational Data generally does not provide any regulatory value after the final corrected version of CAT Data is delivered by T+5 at 8 a.m. ET. Regulators generally access the latest, corrected version of CAT Data, and after five years of operation, the Participants have not made use of the Interim Operational Data for regulatory purposes. Under the 2024 Cost Savings Amendment, Interim Operational Data may be retained in a low-cost archive storage tier, but the costs associated with storing this data even in an archive storage tier continue to outweigh any regulatory benefit. The SEC agreed with this conclusion when it stated that “deleting Interim Operational Data older
Finally, to the extent any Participant or the SEC determined a need for CAT Data that would be deleted pursuant to these proposed revisions, the data could be copied and stored separately within its own environment for its own use. In addition, the underlying Participant and Industry Member data would continue to be available to the SEC for the full retention periods mandated by SEC Rule 17a-1 and SEC Rule 17a-4.
CAT LLC also believes the Data Storage Amendment would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact without having an adverse impact on Industry Members. Data storage and retention is an internal function within CAT and facilitates access to CAT Data by regulatory users of CAT, and, therefore, does not directly affect the reporting and other requirements applicable to Industry Members. Accordingly, CAT LLC does not anticipate that the Data Storage Amendment would have an adverse impact on Industry Members or their costs.
CAT LLC also believes the Data Storage Amendment would enhance the efficiency of the securities markets because it would significantly reduce costs with limited regulatory impact. Importantly, the amount of data reported to CAT and that must be stored by CAT LLC is orders of magnitude in excess of that expected at the time that the Plan was approved. As noted above, when the CAT NMS Plan was adopted in 2016, it was “expected that the Central Repository will grow to more than 29 petabytes of raw, uncompressed data.”
CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to discontinue re-processing for late or corrected data received after T+4 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time
As discussed further below, the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment would expand upon the substance of the exemptive relief related to late data re-processing granted by the Commission in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order and increases the anticipated cost savings related to late data re-processing exemptive relief.
The CAT NMS Plan requires that “[a]ll CAT Data reported to the Central Repository must be processed and assembled to create the complete lifecycle of each Reportable Event.”
In November 2023, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief from the re-processing requirements for corrected data received after T+5 that are set forth in Section 3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan and Section 6.2 of the CAT NMS Plan.
The vast majority of lifecycles are complete as of T+5, and the vast majority of Late Reported Data does not impact lifecycle linkages.
The Plan Processor must maintain its implementation of functionality related to late data lifecycle association that was approved by the Operating Committee on January 14, 2022 (the “Late to the Lifecycle process”) and on September 20, 2022 (the “Targeted Replay process”) (collectively, the “Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process”). Under the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process, all late records (
The Commission further required, as a condition to the November 2023 exemptive relief, that the Participants implement so-called “Full Replay” functionality. “Full Replay” presents post-T+5 data in a manner substantially similar to how such data would have been represented if it had been reported prior to T+5, including by replicating and replaying records with enrichments impacted by post-T+5 submissions, creating updated enrichments, and persisting the replicated records within the underlying data. Specifically, the exemptive relief provided the following:
• The following functionality must be fully implemented and made available to regulatory users:
○ Functionality that creates a lifecycle mapping which indicates all lifecycle associations made during the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process;
○ Functionality that presents to regulatory users post-T+5 data in a manner substantially similar to how such data would have been represented if it had been reported prior to T+5, including by replicating and replaying records with enrichments impacted by post-T+5 submissions, creating updated enrichments, and persisting the replicated records within the underlying data (the “Full Replay process”); and
○ Functionality that enhances the OTQT, including the ability to include or exclude any records that were created or replaced as a result of the Full Replay process.
Such functionality must be fully implemented and made available to regulatory users within twelve months of the change order's approval by the Participants.
• The Plan Processor must schedule the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process and the Full Replay process to run weekly, such that late reported data received through Friday of the prior week are available for regulatory users on the following business day at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, absent extraordinary circumstances, for data within the prior 18 months. For data outside of this 18-month window, the Participants must schedule the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process and the Full Replay process to run no less frequently than quarterly.
The cost of implementing the “Full Replay” functionality required by the Commission included $1.76 million in one-time costs, $360,000 in recurring annual Plan Processor operating fees. In addition, the functionality has led to millions of dollars each year in ongoing cloud hosting services fees. For example, in the six months following implementation of the “Full Replay” process required by the Commission, total production costs associated with late data processing were $7.16 million, reaching a high monthly cost of $1.6 million in May 2025—more than 18% of the overall cloud costs for May 2025. Since the start of 2025, only 1% of the overall linkable volume processed by the Central Repository required re-processing. Accordingly, the millions of dollars in costs associated with re-processing a relatively small percentage of overall CAT Data are disproportionately significant and continue to far outweigh the regulatory benefit.
Recognizing that “these relaxed requirements were extremely costly to implement even for a relatively limited amount of CAT Data,”
• The Plan Processor must maintain its implementation of the above-described Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process for late records from trade dates within the prior 3 years. For data outside of this 3-year window, no re-processing is required.
• For all late records, the Plan Processor must run the above-described
• The Plan Processor must maintain the above-described functionality that creates a lifecycle mapping which indicates all lifecycle associations made during the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process.
• Upon requests made by authorized regulatory users from the Participants or the Commission, the Plan Processor must perform the Full Replay process on specified data, such that late records received through Friday of the prior week are available for regulatory users on the following business day at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, absent extraordinary circumstances.
• For late records received after T+5 at 8 a.m. Eastern Time, the Plan Processor must continue to notify regulatory users how re-processing will be completed.
This conditional exemptive relief is intended to supersede the conditional exemptive relief set forth in the November 2023 Exemptive Order with respect to re-processing of data received after T+5.
The Commission stated the following in support of its exemptive relief:
The Commission understands from communications with the Participants that most order event lifecycles would be unaffected by the conditional exemptive relief granted herein—the vast majority of order event lifecycles are currently completed on time, and the vast majority of late-reported data does not impact lifecycle linkages. For the less than 1% of late-reported data that does require additional re-processing to construct an order event lifecycle, requiring the Participants to run the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process quarterly for trade dates within the prior 3 years should still provide regulatory users with the ability to quickly and reliably identify and link all relevant lifecycles associated with the late-reported data that is most frequently needed and accessed by regulatory users. Although this approach requires some manual intervention by regulatory users, the Commission believes this is a reasonable trade-off for the millions of dollars of cost savings the Commission expects will likely flow from significantly reducing the usage of the Full Replay process and any additional costs savings that may be realized from requiring the Plan Processor to perform the Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle process quarterly instead of weekly. Moreover, under the conditional exemptive relief granted herein, regulatory users will be able to request that the Plan Processor perform the Full Replay process on specified data, which should continue to enable regulatory users to react to major market events in an effective and expeditious way.
With the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment, Late Reported Data would not be subject to any re-processing and would be added to the audit trail without any lifecycle enrichments. Specifically, CAT LLC proposes to discontinue all Enhanced Late to the Lifecycle and all Full Replay re-processing.
If corrections are received after T+5, Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC must be notified and informed as to how re-processing will be completed. The Operating Committee will be involved with decisions on how to re-process the data; however, this does not relieve the Plan Processor of notifying the Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC.
CAT LLC proposes to amend Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to modify the re-processing requirements for data received after T+5. CAT LLC proposes to revise Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to state that “[n]otwithstanding any other requirements of the CAT NMS Plan, or the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder, records received after T+4 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time will not be subject to any re-processing and will be added to the audit trail without any lifecycle enrichments.” This change also clarifies that the cut-off time is T+4 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time, rather than T+5. Correspondingly, CAT LLC proposes to remove the requirement that, “[i]f corrections are received after T+5, Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC must be notified and informed as to how re-processing will be completed.” In addition, CAT LLC proposes to remove from Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan the statement that “[t]he Operating Committee will be involved with decisions on how to re-process the data; however, this does not relieve the Plan Processor of notifying the Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC.”
As revised, the relevant portion of Section 6.2 of Appendix D would read as follows:
Notwithstanding any other requirements of the CAT NMS Plan, or the Exchange Act or the rules and regulations thereunder, records received after T+4 at 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time will not be subject to any re-processing and will be added to the audit trail without any lifecycle enrichments.
With this proposed change, the Plan Processor will continue to provide data regarding late submissions to CAT Reporters and regulators. The Plan Processor will continue to make available summary statistics on late submission through its report card program.
CAT LLC believes that the anticipated savings associated with the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment would substantially outweigh the limited regulatory impact on the CAT. The Late Data Re-Processing Amendment would allow CAT LLC to achieve an estimated $14-$19 million in annual cost savings for cloud hosting services, which would materially advance CAT LLC's ongoing efforts to reduce CAT operating costs. Moreover, these cost reductions would not adversely affect the regulatory purposes of the CAT.
CAT LLC, after consultation with the Plan Processor, has determined that eliminating Late Data Re-Processing would allow CAT LLC to achieve
To implement the proposal, the Plan Processor has proposed a one-time change request implementation fee of approximately $250,000 to $500,000. The Plan Processor estimates that it would take approximately two to four months to fully implement the changes for the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment. One-time implementation costs will generally consist of Plan Processor labor costs associated with coding and software development, as well as any related cloud fees associated with the development, testing, and load testing of the proposed changes for the proposed amendment. Even accounting for this one-time implementation cost, the proposal would allow CAT LLC to achieve substantial cost savings in the first year.
Although only a small portion of CAT Data is Late Reported Data, the costs of the re-processing of such data are disproportionately significant. CAT LLC does not believe that the significant costs of linking such a small percentage of the overall CAT Data are justified.
CAT LLC further believes that the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment would have limited regulatory impact. All Participants believe that this approach would be sufficient for their regulatory purposes and is vastly preferable to routinely incurring the current, significant costs of regular, automated re-processing.
CAT LLC has had substantial experience with the reporting of CAT Data for several years now. Based on such experience, CAT LLC has seen substantial compliance with the CAT reporting timelines.
The chart demonstrates that the vast majority of first-time “late” data (99.72%) is reported by T+4 8 a.m. When firms submit repairs and corrections, most of the corrections and repairs (94.2%) are submitted beyond T+60. This data indicates that changes to feedback timing would not dramatically impact how regulators perceive CAT Data when measured in the aggregate.
Moreover, Late Reported Data would continue to be ingested by the CAT, and, therefore, it would continue to be available to regulators if necessary.
CAT LLC also believes that the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact without having an adverse impact on Industry Members. Late data re-processing is an internal function within CAT, and, therefore, does not directly affect the reporting and other requirements applicable to Industry Members. Industry Members are currently subject to regulatory requirements to report CAT Data in a timely manner.
Furthermore, based on discussions with the Participants, CAT LLC does not believe that the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment would lead to material increases in Electronic Blue Sheet or other follow-up requests to confirm the data for investigations or enforcement actions.
CAT LLC also believes that the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment would enhance the efficiency of the securities markets. Late data re-processing is an internal function within CAT, and, therefore, does not directly affect the requirements applicable to CAT Reporters. As discussed above, however, the Late Data Re-Processing Amendment would provide significant cost savings for CAT LLC. Such cost savings would not only benefit CAT LLC, but they would also benefit any Participants and Industry Members that are required to fund the CAT in accordance with the
CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate the requirement to provide an online targeted query tool (“OTQT”) (the “OTQT Amendment”). The OTQT Amendment would reduce CAT cloud hosting services costs by approximately $2.5-$3.5 million annually.
The OTQT Amendment is consistent with and would codify the exemptive relief related to the OTQT as set forth in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.”
Section 6.10(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Plan Processor to provide the Participants and the Commission with access to processed CAT Data through an OTQT. Section 6.10(c)(i)(A) of the CAT NMS Plan provides: “The online targeted query tool will provide authorized users with the ability to retrieve CAT Data via an online query screen that includes the ability to choose from a variety of pre-defined selection criteria. Targeted queries must include date(s) and/or time range(s), as well as one or more of a variety of fields.” Section 8.1, including Sections 8.1.1-8.1.3, of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan sets forth certain performance requirements for the OTQT, including timeframes by which results must be returned for various types of queries.
In connection with the settlement of litigation brought by the Participants, in November 2023, the Commission granted conditional relief from the OTQT performance requirements, subject to the OTQT satisfying the performance requirements set forth in the November 2023 Exemptive Order.
In its 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief from the requirements for DIVER, ARLE, OLA Viewer, and MIRS volume concentration and market replay tools. Specifically, for these tools, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief from the above-described provisions in the CAT NMS Plan directing the Participants to maintain an OTQT and setting forth performance requirements for the OTQT, subject to certain conditions. The conditional exemptive relief granted in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order supersedes the conditional exemptive relief set forth in the November 2023 Exemptive Order with respect to OTQT performance standards. In providing this exemptive relief, the Commission stated that it “understands, based on communications with the Participants, that elimination of the OTQT will generate meaningful cost savings, and the Commission does not believe that elimination of the OTQT functionality would unduly impact regulators' oversight of the markets.”
With the OTQT Amendment, CAT LLC would propose to amend the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate the requirement to provide the OTQT.
CAT LLC proposes to amend Section 6.10(c) of the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate the requirement to provide access to CAT Data via the OTQT. The introductory paragraph in Section 6.10(c) of the CAT NMS Plan states:
Consistent with Appendix D, Functionality of the CAT System, the Plan Processor shall provide Participants and the SEC with access to all CAT Data stored in the Central Repository. Regulators will have access to processed CAT Data through two different methods; an online targeted query tool, and user-defined direct queries and bulk extracts.
CAT LLC proposes to delete from this provision the reference to “two different methods” and the reference to “an online targeted query tool.”
In addition, CAT LLC proposes to delete paragraph (A) of Section 6.10(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan and replace it with a “Reserved” designation. Paragraph (A) currently states:
The online targeted query tool will provide authorized users with the ability to retrieve CAT Data via an online query screen that includes the ability to choose from a variety of pre-defined selection criteria. Targeted queries must include date(s) and/or time range(s), as well as one or more of a variety of fields.
CAT LLC also proposes deleting certain sections of Appendix D of the
CAT LLC proposes to delete Section 8.1.1 of Appendix D (“Online Targeted Query Tool”) and Section 8.1.2 of Appendix D (“Online Targeted Query Tool Performance Requirements”) in their entirety and to redesignate these sections as “Reserved.”
CAT LLC proposes to revise the title of Section 8.1.3 of Appendix D, which reads “Online Targeted Query Tool Access and Administration” to delete the reference to the “Online Targeted Query Tool Access,” and clarify the reference to Administration by revising the title to read “Administration of Regulatory Access.” In addition, CAT LLC proposes to delete the following sentence including the reference to the OTQT: “PII data must not be available via the online targeted query tool or the user-defined direct query interface.”
CAT LLC proposes to revise Section 8.2 of Appendix D to remove the sentence that currently states that “[t]he CAT System must contain the same level of control, monitoring, logging and reporting as the online targeted query tool.” The deletion of this sentence does not affect the comparable requirements related to user-defined direct queries or bulk extracts, as the requirement being deleted is repetitive of requirements regarding control, monitoring, logging and reporting set forth in Section 8.2.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan.
Finally, CAT LLC also proposes to delete other remaining references to the OTQT from Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, including from Sections 3.4, 8.1, and 8.4. These amendments are set forth in
CAT LLC, after consultation with the Plan Processor, has determined that eliminating the OTQT, as permitted pursuant to the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order and as described in this OTQT Amendment, would allow CAT LLC to achieve a total of approximately $2.5-$3.5 million in annual cost savings for cloud hosting services. These cost savings estimates are based on certain assumptions and the current scope of the CAT, and may vary based on, among other things, the details of the requirements in any final amendment approved by the Commission.
To implement the proposal, the Plan Processor has proposed a one-time change request implementation fee of approximately $135,000. The Plan Processor estimates that it would take approximately eight to ten weeks to fully implement the changes for the OTQT Amendment. One-time implementation costs will generally consist of Plan Processor labor costs associated with coding and software development, as well as any related cloud fees associated with the development, testing, and load testing of the proposed changes for the proposed amendment. Even accounting for this one-time implementation cost, the proposal would allow CAT LLC to achieve substantial cost savings in the first full year.
CAT LLC further believes that this OTQT Amendment would have limited regulatory impact. Based on the current regulatory use of the OTQT, CAT LLC has determined that the elimination of the OTQT would not adversely affect market oversight.
First, as the SEC noted in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, “[t]he elimination of OTQT functionality would not in any way impact the underlying CAT Data that is made available to regulators.”
Second, the Participants and the Commission agree that their regulatory programs would not be impaired by the loss of the OTQT functionality. Section 6.10(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Plan Processor to provide Participants and the SEC with access to CAT Data through two different methods in addition to the OTQT: (1) user-defined direct queries; and (2) bulk extracts. Currently, the user-defined query tool is “BDSQL,” and the bulk extract tool is “Direct Read.” The “BDSQL” and “Direct Read” interfaces represent significantly more sophisticated and cost-efficient methods of providing access to CAT Data than the OTQT. The Participants unanimously agree that each of their regulatory groups would be able to conduct their regulatory programs using only BDSQL and Direct Read, and could otherwise adjust by creating and operating, or continuing to operate, their own internal tools to replicate the queries they would otherwise run on the OTQT.
In the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order, the Commission stated that “[t]he Commission likewise believes that its own regulatory program would not be impaired by the loss of certain OTQT functionality.”
CAT LLC also believes that the OTQT Amendment would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact without having an adverse impact on Industry Members. The OTQT is an internal function within CAT and a tool available for use by regulatory users of CAT, and, therefore, does not directly affect the reporting and other requirements applicable to Industry Members. Accordingly, CAT LLC does not anticipate that the OTQT Amendment would have an adverse impact on Industry Members or their costs.
CAT LLC also believes that the OTQT Amendment would enhance the efficiency of the securities markets because it would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact. As discussed above, the OTQT Amendment would provide significant annual cost savings for CAT LLC. Such cost savings would not only benefit CAT LLC, but also would provide cost savings for any Participants and Industry Members that are required to fund the CAT in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan. Ultimately, such cost savings would benefit investors and the U.S. markets as
In addition, CAT LLC does not believe that the OTQT Amendment would adversely affect market efficiency because it understands that the Participants have already built their own tools to use in place of the OTQT, or rely on other Participants that have done so. Accordingly, the OTQT Amendment would only enhance efficiency by removing redundant regulatory systems from the market. In addition, reliance on tools that are tailored to the needs of the various regulators also would enhance efficiency, rather than relying on one uniform tool for all regulators. Moreover, the OTQT Amendment does not propose to change the other means provided by the CAT for accessing CAT Data (
CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate the requirement for Participants to report rejected order messages (the “Rejected Message Amendment”). The Rejected Message Amendment would reduce CAT costs for cloud hosting services by approximately $500,000 annually.
The 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order did not address rejected messages. Accordingly, the estimated cost savings of approximately $500,000 annually are over and above the cost savings allowed via the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.
Section 6.3(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan requires Participants to “record and electronically report to the Central Repository” certain information for “each order and each Reportable Event,” including “for original receipt or origination of an order.” The CAT NMS Plan specifies that “order” has “the meaning set forth in Rule 613(j)(8),”
These provisions require the Participants to report all orders that are “received,” not just those orders that are “received and successfully processed by the matching engine,” those orders that are “received and accepted,” and/or those orders that are “received and assigned an order ID”; the reporting requirement is not conditioned on how a Participant acts on an order that is received. For example, if a Participant receives a message that contains all of the terms necessary for an order to be executed, that message still constitutes a “received” order that must be reported pursuant to the provisions of Section 6.3(d) of the CAT NMS Plan regardless of whether it is subsequently rejected. Moreover, as “CAT Data,” rejected orders must also be “processed and assembled to create the complete lifecycle of each Reportable Event” under Appendix D, Section 3 of the CAT NMS Plan.
The Commission recognized that “the Participants continue to disagree with its interpretation of these requirements and challenge the feasibility of strict compliance with that interpretation.”
In connection with the settlement of litigation brought by the Participants, in November 2023, the Commission granted conditional exemptive relief from the requirements set forth in Rule 613(c)(7), Section 6.3(d)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan, and Appendix D, Section 3 of the CAT NMS Plan relating to Participant reporting of rejected orders and subsequent linkage of such orders, subject to the below conditions.
• The Participants must maintain or improve their existing reporting of orders that are received and subsequently rejected, including maintenance by Participants of any existing reporting or linkage of the keys necessary for the linkage processing specified below. The Plan Processor must maintain its existing validations of such orders.
• The Participants must approve a change order to adopt the below-described functionality no later than 60 days following the effective date of this Order:
○ Functionality that will attempt “forward lifecycle linkage” processing, including all enrichments currently provided for other order events, of Industry Member MEOR, MOOR, and MEMR Order Route events containing a routeRejectedFlag populated as “true” with their corresponding Participant Reject Message events described in the Participant Technical Specifications in instances where the keys necessary for such linkage are available (
The Participant Technical Specifications reflect the exemptive relief provided in the 2023 November 2023 Exemptive Order.
With the Rejected Message Amendment, CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate the requirement for Participants to report rejected order messages to the CAT. The Rejected Message Amendment would reduce CAT cloud hosting services costs by approximately $500,000 annually. To implement the Rejected Message Amendment, CAT LLC proposes to add paragraph (h) to Section 6.3 of the CAT NMS Plan, which would state the following:
Rejected Messages. Notwithstanding any provision of the CAT NMS Plan (including Appendix D) or the Exchange Act, no Participant shall be required to record and electronically report to the Central Repository any order rejected by the Participant nor any Reportable Events related to such rejected order. For the avoidance of doubt, an order that is received by the Participant but not accepted by the Participant is an order rejected by the Participant for purposes of this paragraph.
CAT LLC, after consultation with the Plan Processor, has determined that eliminating the requirement for Participants to report rejected order messages would allow CAT LLC to achieve approximately $500,000 in cost savings for cloud services annually. This cost savings estimate is based on certain assumptions and the current scope of the CAT, and may vary based on, among other things, the details of the requirements in any final amendment approved by the Commission.
To implement the proposal, the Plan Processor has proposed a one-time change request setting forth an implementation fee of approximately $75,000 to $150,000. The Plan Processor estimates that it would take approximately two to four months to fully implement the changes for the Rejected Message Amendment. One-time implementation costs will generally consist of Plan Processor labor costs associated with coding and software development, as well as any related cloud fees associated with the development, testing, and load testing of the proposed changes for the proposed amendment. Even accounting for this one-time implementation cost, the proposal would allow CAT LLC to achieve substantial cost savings in the first year.
CAT LLC believes that the Rejected Message Amendment would have limited regulatory impact. Based on the current regulatory use of the CAT, CAT LLC has determined that the elimination of the reporting of rejected messages would not adversely affect market oversight. CAT LLC understands that the Participants have not used rejected message data reported for regulatory purposes to date. Accordingly, the data collected with respect to such messages may be of little beneficial use to regulators.
CAT LLC also believes that the Rejected Message Amendment would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact without having an adverse impact on Industry Members. The requirement to report rejected order messages applies to Participants, not Industry Members, and, therefore, does not directly affect the reporting and other requirements applicable to Industry Members. Accordingly, CAT LLC does not believe that the Rejected Message Amendment would have an adverse impact on Industry Members or their costs.
CAT LLC also believes that the Rejected Message Amendment would enhance the efficiency of the securities markets because it would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact. As discussed above, the Rejected Message Amendment would provide significant annual cost savings for CAT LLC. It also would reduce costs of Participants required to report rejected messages. Such cost savings would not only benefit CAT LLC, but also would provide cost savings for any Participants and Industry Members that are required to fund the CAT in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan. Ultimately, such cost savings would benefit investors and the U.S. markets as a whole, thereby facilitating the goals of the Exchange Act.
CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to adopt a more cost-effective data availability timeline (the “Data Availability Amendment”). The Data Availability Amendment would (1) extend the time by which raw unprocessed data must be made available to Participants' regulatory staff and SEC from 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1 to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+2, and (2) extend the time by which final data must be ready for regulators from 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+5 to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+6. The Data Availability Amendment would reduce CAT costs for cloud hosting services by approximately $1.5-$2 million annually. Extending the timelines permits flexibility in the deployment of compute resources, permitting cost reduction through optimization.
The 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order did not address the timeline changes included in the Data Availability Amendment. Accordingly, the estimated cost savings of approximately $1.5-$2 million annually are over and above the cost savings allowed via the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.
Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan (Data Processing) sets forth the following timeframes (also reflected in Figure A of Section 6.1) regarding data availability:
• Noon Eastern Time T+1 (transaction date + one day)—Initial data validation, lifecycle linkages and communication of errors to CAT Reporters;
• 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time T+5 (transaction date + five days)—Corrected data available to Participant regulatory staff and the SEC.
Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan (Data Availability Requirements) provides that “[p]rior to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1, raw unprocessed data that has been ingested by the Plan Processor must be available to Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC,” and that “[b]etween 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1 and T+5, access to all iterations of processed data must be available to Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC.”
Section 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan (Exceptions to Data Availability Requirements) describes “Raw Unprocessed Data” to mean “data that has been ingested by the Plan Processor and made available to regulators prior to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1,” and describes “Interim Operational Data” to mean “all processed, validated and unlinked data made available to regulators by T+1 at 12:00 p.m. ET and all iterations of processed data made available to regulators between T+1 and T+5, but excludes the final version of corrected data that is made available at T+5 at 8:00 a.m. ET.”
CAT LLC proposes to revise references in Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the proposed revised timeline.
With regard
CAT LLC also proposes the following changes to Section 6.2 of Appendix D:
• CAT LLC proposes to replace the reference to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1 with a reference to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+2 in the following sentence in Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan: “Prior to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1, raw unprocessed data that has been ingested by the Plan Processor must be available to Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC.”
• CAT LLC proposes to replace the reference to 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1 with a reference to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+2, and the reference to T+5 with T+6 in the following sentence in Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan: “Between 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1 and T+5, access to all iterations of processed data must be available to Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC.”
• CAT LLC proposes to revise the third paragraph of Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to change the reference to a five-day process to a “six-day process,” and to change the reference to T+5 to T+6.
In addition, CAT LLC proposes to revise the timeline for providing raw unprocessed data to regulators by replacing the reference to “12:00 p.m. Eastern Time on T+1” with the reference to “8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+2.” As a result, this statement would read as follows: “Raw Unprocessed Data older than 15 days. `Raw Unprocessed Data' means data that has been ingested by the Plan Processor and made available to regulators prior to 8:00 a.m. Eastern Time on T+2.”
CAT LLC, after consultation with the Plan Processor, has determined that adopting the more cost-efficient data availability deadlines as set forth in this Data Availability Amendment would allow CAT LLC to achieve approximately $1.5-$2 million in annual cost savings in cloud hosting services. Extending the timelines permits flexibility in the deployment of compute resources, permitting cost reduction through optimization. These cost savings estimates are based on certain assumptions and the current scope of the CAT, and may vary based on, among other things, the details of the requirements in any final amendment approved by the Commission.
To implement the proposal, the Plan Processor has proposed a one-time change request setting forth an implementation fee of approximately $200,000-$400,000. The Plan Processor estimates that it would take approximately three to six months to fully implement the changes for the Data Availability Amendment. One-time implementation costs will generally consist of Plan Processor labor costs associated with coding and software development, as well as any related cloud fees associated with the development, testing, and load testing of the proposed changes for the proposed amendment. Even accounting for this one-time implementation cost, the proposal would allow CAT LLC to achieve substantial cost savings in the first year.
The CAT is not a real-time system. As a result, CAT LLC believes that this Data Availability Amendment would have limited regulatory impact. The Participants unanimously agree that obtaining a final lifecycle by T+6, in lieu of T+5, is sufficient to conduct their regulatory programs, and that the cost savings associated with modifying the current processing timelines substantially outweigh any limited delay associated with this shift to T+6, particularly given that regulators will continue to have access to raw unprocessed data ingested by the Plan Processor prior to T+2 at 8:00 a.m. ET and will continue to have access to all processed data between T+2 at 8:00 a.m. ET and T+6 at 8:00 a.m. ET. Accordingly, CAT LLC has determined that the modified data availability timeline proposed herein would not adversely affect market oversight.
CAT LLC also believes that the Data Availability Amendment would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact without having an adverse impact on Industry Members. Changing the timelines for providing data to the regulators would not directly affect the reporting and other requirements applicable to Industry Members. Accordingly, CAT LLC does not anticipate that the Data Availability Amendment would have an adverse impact on Industry Members' reporting or their costs.
CAT LLC also believes that this Data Availability Amendment would enhance the efficiency of the securities markets. For many years, CAT LLC has received extensive feedback from the Plan Processor regarding various technical and operational issues
In addition, as discussed above, the Data Availability Amendment would provide significant annual cost savings for CAT LLC. Such cost savings would not only benefit CAT LLC, but it would also provide cost savings for any Participants and Industry Members that are required to fund the CAT in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan. Ultimately, such cost savings would benefit investors and the U.S. markets as a whole, thereby facilitating the goals of the Exchange Act.
CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate both the requirement to report Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information to the CAT and to eliminate CAIS from the CAT, and to adopt a new more, focused approach for the CCID that would allow for the generation of a CCID while minimizing the data needed for its creation. This “Reference Data Amendment” would reduce CAT costs for cloud hosting services by approximately $4-$6 million annually, as well as provide for potential reductions in the operating fees for the Plan Processor.
The 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order did not address the proposed changes to CAIS. Accordingly, the estimated cost savings related to the elimination of CAIS and its replacement by the Reference Data Amendment are separate and apart from the cost savings described in the 2025 Cost Savings Exemptive Order.
As previously noted, the current 2025 CAT budget of $188 million includes an estimated $122 million in cloud hosting services and $54 million in total Plan Processor fees.
The CAT NMS Plan originally adopted the Customer Information Approach, which is “a reporting model that requires broker-dealers to provide detailed account and Customer information to the Central Repository, including the specific identities of all Customers associated with each account, and have the Central Repository correlate the Customer information across broker-dealers, assign a unique customer identifier to each Customer (
The Customer Information Approach requires each Industry Member to assign a unique Firm Designated ID or FDID
Under the CAT NMS Plan, for each new order submitted to the transaction database of the CAT Central Repository, broker-dealers are required to report the FDID for such new order, and the Plan Processor must associate specific Customers and their CAT-Customer-IDs with individual order events based on the reported FDIDs. Within the Central Repository, each Customer would be uniquely identified by identifiers or a combination of identifiers such as an ITIN/SSN, date of birth, and, as applicable, LEI and LTID. The Plan Processor is required to use these unique identifiers to map orders to specific Customers across all broker-dealers.
Under the Customer Information Approach, the Plan Processor must maintain information of sufficient detail to uniquely and consistently identify each Customer across all CAT Reporters, and associated accounts from each CAT Reporter, and must document and publish, with the approval of the Operating Committee, the minimum list of attributes to be captured to maintain this association.
Customer Identifying Information is defined in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan to mean:
Customer Account Information is defined in Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan to include, but not be limited to:
On March 17, 2020, the Commission granted exemptive relief related to the reporting of SSNs/ITINs, dates of birth, and account numbers to the CAT (“2020 CCID Alternative Exemptive Order”).
On February 10, 2025, the Commission published an order (the “2025 CAIS Exemptive Order”)
First, CAT LLC and the Participants understand that the 2025 CAIS Exemptive Order is permissive at the discretion of Industry Members (meaning that Industry Members may choose to take advantage of the exemptive relief or choose to continue reporting names, addresses, and years of birth for natural persons reported with transformed SSNs or ITINs to CAIS) and only applies to natural persons reported with transformed SSNs or ITINs, and not to natural persons reported without transformed SSNs/ITINs, including foreign nationals, or to legal entities. As a result, the Plan Processor must maintain all software that is required to continue to accept such Customer information for those Industry Members who choose to continue reporting it, as well as to support regulatory queries of names, addresses, and years of birth for non-exempted persons. Consequently, the 2025 CAIS Exemptive Order will not result in any cost savings.
Second, in granting its 2025 CAIS Exemptive Order, the SEC cited security considerations, concluding that the benefits of reporting names, addresses, and years of birth for natural persons reported with transformed SSNs or ITINs no longer justify the potential risks.
In light of these issues, on March 7, 2025, CAT LLC filed with the SEC a proposed amendment to the CAT NMS Plan relating to the CAIS.
With this Reference Data Amendment, CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to adopt the Reference Data
Under the Reference Data Approach, Industry Members would be required to report to the CAT a smaller subset of the data than they are currently required to report to the CAT. The following describes the data that Industry Members would be required to submit to the CAT under the Reference Data Approach.
Industry Members would be required to collect and record certain identification information for their Customers (such as SSNs, ITINs, Employer Identification Numbers (“EINs”) or foreign identifiers). However, Industry Members would not provide such Customer identification information to the CAT. Instead, for each Customer other than foreign Customers, each Industry Member would submit to the Reference Database of the CAT (the information system of the CAT that would contain Reference Data) (1) the hashed version of each Customer's identification information, which would be referred to as the Transformed Identifier or TID, as well as (2) the type of identifier used to create the Transformed Identifier (
In addition, Industry Members would be required to submit to the Reference Database the following “CCID Transaction Enrichment Data” for each account and Customer, as applicable:
• Firm Designated ID;
• Date FDID Opened, which means the date the account was opened (or the Account Effective Date);
• Date FDID Closed, which means the date the account was closed (or relationship or entity identifier was ended) at the Industry Member;
• Customer Role Start Date, which means the date the Customer became associated with the account; and
• Customer Role End Date, which means the date the Customer is no longer associated with the account.
Furthermore, Industry Members would be required to report to the Reference Database the following data types: account type, clearing broker, branch office, registered representative, and individual's role in the account. Industry Members would be required to report this data to the Reference Database, not to CAIS. This data, along with CCID Generation Data and CCID Transaction Enrichment Data would be referred to as Reference Data. These five categories of data would assist regulatory surveillance programs and would help to reduce Electronic Blue Sheet requests and other inquiries from the Participants and the SEC. CAT LLC requests comment on the inclusion of these five categories of data as Reference Data.
In addition, the definition of Reference Data would not include the Large Trader ID (“LTID”).
Under the Reference Data Approach, Industry Members would no longer report Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information to CAIS, and CAIS would be eliminated. Instead, the Reference Data, which includes CCID Generation Data, CCID Transaction Enrichment Data, and account type, clearing broker, branch office, registered representative, and individual's role in the account, would be reported to and collected in the Reference Database. Correspondingly, the regulatory and other features related to CAIS and the collection of Customer information (
The process for generating the CCID under the Reference Data Approach is materially the same as the current process. Using a combination of the TID and the TID Type (or, for foreign Customers, a combination of TID, TID Type, Foreign TID Type and Foreign TID Country Code), the Plan Processor would create a CCID for each Customer. The CCID is a globally unique identifier generated for each combination of TID and TID Type (or, for foreign Customers, a combination of TID, TID Type, Foreign TID Type and Foreign TID Country Code). Each time any Industry Member submits the same combination of these two field values (or these four field values for foreign customers), the same CCID would be generated within the CAT such that each unique Customer would only be assigned a single CCID.
The Plan Processor would enrich Reportable Events for an order with the CCID for the relevant Customer using the FDID as the key. The output of this enrichment process would be a mapping of CCIDs to FDIDs that would allow regulators to associate a Customer with transaction data. The Plan Processor would use the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data reported by Industry Members to the Reference Database (
The Plan Processor will continue to create a CCID:FDID mapping table, which allows regulators to connect accounts with customers. However, under the Reference Data Approach, the mapping table will be expanded to include the additional Reference Data elements. In addition, relevant historical CCID, FDID and Reference Data will be migrated to the updated mapping table; with such migration, such relevant historical data would not be eliminated.
With the elimination of CAIS, the CAIS regulatory portal also would be eliminated. With the Reference Data Approach, regulators would access the FDID, CCID and Reference Data via the FDID:CCID mapping table. The mapping table with the FDID, CCID and Reference Data would be made available to regulators via the CAT query tools (
To incorporate the Reference Data Approach in the CAT NMS Plan, CAT LLC proposes the following revisions to CAT NMS Plan.
CAT LLC proposes adding certain new defined terms to Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, and deleting terms that would be obsolete with the adoption of the Reference Data Approach. Specifically, CAT LLC would add the following new defined terms and their definitions:
• “CCID Transaction Enrichment Data” shall mean Firm Designated ID, Date FDID Opened, Date FDID Closed, Customer Role Start Date, and Customer Role End Date.
• “CCID Generation Data” shall mean the Transformed Identifier and Transformed Identifier Type.
• “Customer Role Start Date” means the date the Customer became associated with the relevant account for the order.
• “Customer Role End Date” means the date the Customer is no longer associated with the relevant account for the order.
• “Date FDID Closed” means the date the relevant account for the order was closed (or relationship or entity identifier was ended) at the Industry Member.
• “Date FDID Opened” means the date the relevant account for the order was opened; except, however, that (a) in those circumstances in which an Industry Member has established a trading relationship with an institution but has not established an account with that institution, the Industry Member will provide the Account Effective Date in lieu of the “Date FDID Opened;” and (b) in those circumstances in which the relevant account was established prior to the implementation date of the CAT NMS Plan applicable to the relevant CAT Reporter (as set forth in Rule 613(a)(3)(v) and (vi)), and no “date account opened” is available for the account, the Industry Member will provide the Account Effective Date in the following circumstances: (i) where an Industry Member changes back office providers or clearing firms and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the new back office/clearing firm system; (ii) where an Industry Member acquires another Industry Member and the date account opened is changed to the date the account was opened on the post-merger back office/clearing firm system; (iii) where there are multiple dates associated with an account in an Industry Member's system, and the parameters of each date are determined by the individual Industry Member; and (iv) where the relevant account is an Industry Member proprietary account.
• “Foreign TID Country Code” means the country that issued the foreign identifier used to create the Transformed Identifier.
• “Foreign TID Type” means, for foreign customers, the type of foreign identifier used to create the Transformed Identifier (
• “Reference Data” means CCID Generation Data, CCID Transaction Enrichment Data, account type, clearing broker, branch office, registered representative, and individual's role in the account.
• “Reference Database” means the information system of the CAT containing Reference Data.
• “Transformed Identifier Type” or “TID Type” means the type of identifier used to create the Transformed Identifier (
• “Transformed Identifier” or “TID” means the transformed version of the input used to identify unique Customers, where such inputs may include, but are not limited to, individual tax payer identification number (“ITIN”) or social security number (“SSN”), Employer Identification Number (EIN, including QI-EIN, WP-EIN, and WT-EIN), or certain foreign identifiers.
CAT LLC would also add the phrase “or `CAT-Customer-ID' or `CCID' ” to the current definition of “Customer-ID.” The revised definition would read as follows “ `Customer-ID' or `CAT-Customer-ID' or `CCID' has the same meaning provided in SEC Rule 613(j)(5).”
Finally, CAT LLC proposes to eliminate the terms “Customer Account Information” and “Customer Identifying Information” and “PII”
CAT LLC proposes to revise Section 6.4 of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the Reference Data Approach. Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) of the CAT NMS Plan requires each Participant, via its CAT Compliance Rule, to require its Industry Members to record and report to the Central Repository the following: “for the original receipt or origination of an order, the Firm Designated ID for the relevant Customer, and in accordance with Section 6.4(d)(iv), Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for the relevant Customer.” CAT LLC proposes to revise this provision to indicate that, under the Reference Data Approach, Industry Members are required to provide the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data for the relevant account for the order and the CCID Generation Data for the relevant Customer for the order, not the Customer Account Information or Customer Identifying Information. Accordingly, CAT LLC proposes to revise Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) of the CAT NMS Plan to require Industry Members to provide the following: “with respect to the original receipt or origination of an order, the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data for the relevant account for the order, and the CCID Generation Data for the relevant Customer for the order, in accordance with Section 6.4(d)(iv).”
In addition, CAT LLC proposes to revise Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the Reference Data Approach as well. Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan currently states the following:
Each Industry Member must submit an initial set of the Customer information
CAT LLC proposes to replace the references to Customer information with “Reference Data,” which includes CCID Generation Data, CCID Transaction Enrichment Data and additional data elements, in the first two sentences. As a result, Industry Members would be required to submit Reference Data for each Customer with an Active Account, not Customer information or Active Accounts, to the CAT.
In addition, CAT LLC proposes to eliminate the periodic refresh of data, and therefore proposes to delete the following sentence from Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan: “In addition, on a periodic basis as designated by the Plan Processor and approved by the Operating Committee, each Industry Member will be required to submit to the Central Repository a complete set of all Customer information required in Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C).”
Finally, CAT LLC proposes to revise the last sentence of Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the Reference Data Approach. It would state that “[t]he Plan Processor will use the CCID Generation Data to assign a Customer-ID for each Customer, and use the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data to enrich and link all Reportable Events associated with an order with the CCID for a Customer.”
With these changes, Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan would read as follows:
Each Industry Member must submit an initial set of the Reference Data required in Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) for each Customer with an Active Account(s) to the Central Repository upon the Industry Member's commencement of reporting to the Central Repository. Each Industry Member must submit to the Central Repository any updates, additions or other changes to the Reference Data required in Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) on a daily basis for all Active Accounts. The Plan Processor will use the CCID Generation Data to assign a Customer-ID for each Customer, and use the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data to enrich and link all Reportable Events associated with an order with the CCID for a Customer.
CAT LLC proposes to revise Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the adoption of the Reference Data Approach. Specifically, Figure B and the two paragraphs below Figure B describe the timeline for submitting and processing Customer information. CAT LLC proposes to revise Figure B, including its title, and the following two paragraphs to indicate that the submission and processing timeline apply to Reference Data, rather than Customer information.
CAT LLC also proposes to revise Section 9 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the move to the Reference Data Approach. Section 9, as indicated by its title “CAT Customer and Customer Account Information,” addresses the reporting and processing of Customer information. CAT LLC proposes to revise the title for Section 9 to read “CAT-Customer-ID.”
CAT LLC proposes to revise Section 9.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan in accordance with the Reference Data Approach. First, CAT LLC proposes to change the title of Section 9.1 from “Customer and Customer Account Information Storage” to “Assignment of CCID.” Second, CAT LLC proposes to eliminate the description of the capture of Customer information and its storage in the first paragraph, as it would no longer apply under the Reference Data Approach, and replace it with the following description of the creation of the CCID:
The CAT must capture and store in the Reference Database the TID and TID Type for each customer (or, for foreign customers, the TID, TID Type, Foreign TID Type and Foreign TID Country Code) submitted by Industry Members to the CAT.
Third, CAT LLC proposes to replace the reference to “Customer and Customer Account Information” with a reference to “Reference Data” in the second paragraph of Section 9.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan. The paragraph would then read as follows: “The Plan Processor must maintain valid Reference Data for each trading day and provide a method for Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC to easily obtain historical changes to the Reference Data.”
Fourth, CAT LLC proposes to revise the third paragraph of Section 9.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, which describes the data validation process related to Customer information, by clarifying that the validation process applies to Reference Data rather than Customer information. With such changes, this paragraph would read as follows: “The Plan Processor will design and implement a robust data validation process for submitted Reference Data.”
Fifth, CAT LLC proposes to revise the fourth paragraph of Section 9.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to clarify that the Plan Processor will use CCID Generation Data submitted by Industry Member CAT Reporters to the CAT to assign the CCID for each Customer. With this change, this paragraph would read as follows:
The Plan Processor will use the CCID Generation Data submitted by Industry Member CAT Reporters to the CAT to assign a unique Customer-ID for each Customer. The Customer-ID must be consistent across all broker-dealers that have an account associated with that Customer. This unique CAT-Customer-ID will not be returned to CAT Reporters and will only be used internally by the CAT.
Sixth, CAT LLC proposes to revise the final paragraph in Section 9.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to clarify that the Industry Members would submit Reference Data for each Customer with an Active Account or Accounts for all Active Accounts with the Reference Data Approach. CAT LLC also proposes to change the reference to “Broker-Dealers” to “Industry Members” as the requirement applies to Industry Members and “Industry Member” is a defined term in the CAT
Industry Members will initially submit Reference Data for each Customer with an Active Account(s) to the Plan Processor and subsequently submit updates and changes on a daily basis. The Central Repository must support account structures that have multiple account owners (joint accounts, managed accounts, etc.), and must be able to link accounts that move from one CAT Reporter to another (
Section 9.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan is entitled “Required Attributes for Customer Information Data Submitted by Industry Members.” Because Customer information would not be collected under the Reference Data Approach, CAT LLC proposes to rename this section as “CCID Transaction Enrichment Data.” In addition, Section 9.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan requires, at a minimum, the following Customer information data attributes must be accepted by the Central Repository: Account Owner Name, Account Owner Mailing Address, Account Tax Identifier (SSN, TIN, ITIN), Market Identifiers (Large Trader ID, LEI), Type of Account and Firm Identifier Number, Primer Broker ID, Bank Depository ID, and Clearing Broker. CAT LLC proposes to revise this provision to continue to require the acceptance of the clearing broker and account type, to further require the acceptance of branch office, registered representative, and individual's role in the account, to require the CCID Transaction Data, and to remove the other data elements.
With these changes, Section 9.2 would read as follows:
The following CCID Transaction Enrichment Data must be accepted by the Central Repository and stored in the Reference Database of the CAT: FDID, Date FDID Opened, Date FDID Closed, Customer Role Start Date, and Customer Role End Date.
In addition, the following data must be accepted by the Central Repository and stored in the Reference Database of the CAT: account type, clearing broker, branch office, registered representative, and individual's role in the account.
CAT LLC also proposes to revise Section 9.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan in light of the new Reference Data Approach. First, CAT LLC proposes to delete the first sentence of Section 9.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, which states that “[t]he Plan Processor will assign a CAT-Customer-ID for each unique Customer,” as it is repetitive of the similar statement in Section 9.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan. Second, CAT LLC proposes to delete the second sentence as it no longer would apply under the Reference Data Approach. The second sentence states that “[t]he Plan Processor will determine a unique Customer using information such as SSN and DOB for natural persons or entity identifiers for Customers that are not natural persons and will resolve discrepancies.” Third, CAT LLC proposes to revise the third sentence in Section 9.3 of Appendix of the CAT NMS Plan, which states that “[o]nce a CAT-Customer-ID is assigned, it will be added to each linked (or unlinked) order record for that Customer,” to more specifically describe the enrichment of Reportable Events under the Reference Data Approach. Specifically, the third sentence would be revised to state that “[o]nce a CAT-Customer-ID is assigned, the Plan Processor will use the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data to enrich Reportable Events for that Customer with the CCID.” Finally, CAT LLC proposes to revise the final sentence in Section 9.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to clarify that the Plan Processor would provide a CCID:FDID mapping table to regulators to allow them to identify if the same Customer is trading across accounts and/or across Industry Members. With these changes, Section 9.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan would read as follows:
Once a CAT-Customer-ID is assigned, the Plan Processor will use the CCID Transaction Enrichment Data to enrich Reportable Events for that Customer with the CCID.
Participants and the SEC must be able to use the unique CAT-Customer-ID to track orders from any Customer or group of Customers, regardless of what brokerage account was used to enter the order, including through a CCID:FDID mapping table, which allows regulators to identify if the same Customer is trading across accounts and/or across Industry Members.
CAT LLC also proposes to revise Section 9.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the elimination of CAIS and the introduction of the Reference Data Approach. First, CAT LLC proposes to change the title of Section 9.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan from “Error Resolution for Customer Data” to “Error Resolution for Reference Data.” Second, CAT LLC proposes to eliminate the requirement that the Plan Processor design and implement procedures and mechanisms to handle minor and material inconsistencies in Customer information. Such procedures are related to resolving discrepancies in Customer information, which would no longer be submitted to the CAT with the elimination of CAIS. Finally, CAT LLC proposes to remove the stated examples of reasons identified as the source of the issues, as they apply to the reporting of Customer information to CAIS (
The Central Repository must have an audit trail showing the resolution of all errors related to Reference Data. The audit trail must, at a minimum, include the:
• CAT Reporter submitting the data;
• Initial submission date and time;
• Data in question or the ID of the record in question;
• Reason identified as the source of the issue;
• Date and time the issue was transmitted to the CAT Reporter, included each time the issue was re-transmitted, if more than once;
• Corrected submission date and time, including each corrected submission if more than one, or the record ID(s) of the corrected data or a flag indicating that the issue was resolved and corrected data was not required; and
• Corrected data, the record ID, or a link to the corrected data.
CAT LLC proposes to add a new Section 9.5 to Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, entitled “Regulator Access to Reference Data.” This new section would describe that the Plan Processor would provide a mapping table for the FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data and
The Plan Processor will provide a mapping table for the FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data, and make such mapping table available to regulators via the user defined direct query and bulk extraction tools, and, if requested, via a regulator's own regulatory applications for the CAT. The Plan Processor also must provide regulators with a method (
CAT LLC proposes to add a new Section 9.6, entitled “Deletion of Certain Customer Data,” to Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan. This new section would require CAT LLC to direct the Plan Processor to delete from CAIS all existing Customer information or other data in CAIS, except for the FDID-CCID mapping table and clarify that such Customer information and data do not constitute records that CAT LLC must retain under Exchange Act Rule 17a-1. The new Section 9.6 of Appendix D would read as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan, this Appendix D, or the Exchange Act, CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to retire CAIS and to develop and implement a mechanism to delete from CAIS all Customer information or other data in CAIS, except for the FDID-CCID mapping table and historical FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data. The Plan Processor will migrate the FDID-CCID mapping table and historical FDIDs, CCIDs and Reference Data to the updated mapping table. For the avoidance of doubt, such data does not constitute records that must be retained by the CAT under Exchange Act Rule 17a-1.
To the extent that the Commission deems it necessary to grant exemptive relief from the recordkeeping and data retention requirements of Rule 17a-1 under the Exchange Act in order to effectuate the proposed changes as set forth in proposed new Section 9.6 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, for the same reasons as discussed herein, the Participants request that the Commission utilize its authority under Section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS to grant such exemptive relief with respect to the deletion of such reported data described above on a retroactive and prospective basis.
CAT LLC proposes to revise Sections 10.1 and 10.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect that, under the Reference Data Approach, Industry Members would report Reference Data to the CAT, and not Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information. Specifically, Section 10.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he Plan Processor must develop tools to allow each CAT Reporter to . . . Manage Customer and Customer Account Information.” CAT LLC proposes to revise this to state that “[t]he Plan Processor must develop tools to allow each CAT Reporter to . . . Manage Reference Data.” In addition, Section 10.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan states that “CAT Help Desk support functions must include . . . [s]upporting CAT Reporters with data submissions and data corrections, including submission of Customer and Customer Account Information.” CAT LLC proposes to revise this to state that “CAT Help Desk support functions must include . . . [s]upporting CAT Reporters with data submissions and data corrections, including submission of Reference Data.”
CAT LLC, after consultation with the Plan Processor, has determined that adopting the Reference Data Approach would allow CAT LLC to achieve a total of approximately $4-$6 million in savings per year related to cloud hosting services fees, as well as provide for the potential reduction in Plan Processor operating fees.
To implement the Reference Data Amendment, the Plan Processor has proposed a one-time change request implementation fee of approximately $2.5-$3.5 million. The Plan Processor estimates that it would take approximately nine to twelve months, including an allowance for three to four months for industry testing, to fully implement the changes for the Reference Data Amendment. One-time implementation costs will generally consist of Plan Processor labor costs associated with coding and software development, as well as any related cloud fees associated with the development, testing, and load testing of the Reference Data Approach. Even accounting for this one-time implementation cost, the Reference Data Amendment would allow CAT LLC to achieve substantial cost savings in the first year.
In addition to allowing CAT LLC to achieve significant annual cost savings, the Reference Data Amendment would build upon prior efforts to limit Customer information in the CAT. This Reference Data Amendment would eliminate the submission of Customer information, while preserving the regulatory goals of SEC Rule 613 because the Plan Processor would continue to create a unique CCID allowing regulators to conduct cross-market, cross-broker, and cross-account surveillance.
The Reference Data Amendment also would address the security-related considerations cited by the SEC in the 2025 CAIS Exemptive Order with respect to all Customers. As discussed in more detail above, the 2025 CAIS Exemptive Order grants relief from the requirement to report names, addresses, and years of birth for natural persons reported with transformed SSNs or ITINs to CAIS, but it does not address the deletion of existing data currently stored in CAIS. Therefore, the 2025 CAIS Exemptive Order only addresses new natural persons reported with transformed SSNs or ITINs added to CAIS after the date of the order. It does not address the SEC's cited security considerations with respect to (1) existing natural persons reported with transformed SSNs or ITINs with data already stored in CAIS; (2) natural persons who are not reported with transformed SSNs or ITINs, including foreign nationals; or (3) legal entity Customers. The Reference Data Amendment addresses the SEC's security considerations with respect to all Customers by fully eliminating the requirement to report Customer
CAT LLC believes that the Reference Data Amendment would not adversely affect market oversight. Under the Reference Data Amendment, the Plan Processor would continue to create a unique CCID for each Customer, and to provide CCID enrichment of Reportable Events. Because the Plan Processor would continue to provide CCID enrichment of Reportable Events, the Reference Data Amendment would not impact the ability of regulators to see a Customer's trading activity across accounts, broker-dealers, and markets. By preserving regulators' ability to see a Customer's activity when performing cross-market, cross-broker, and cross-account surveillance, the Reference Data Amendment would achieve significant cost savings and eliminate unnecessary Customer information in the CAT without impacting a key aspect of CAT's intended regulatory use.
CAT LLC also believes that the Reference Data Amendment would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact while having a positive impact on Industry Members. With the Reference Data Approach, Industry Members would no longer need to incur the costs related to the submission of certain types of data to CAIS, including Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information, as CAIS would be eliminated. Instead, Industry Members would be required to submit a far narrower set of data, the Reference Data, to the CAT. Moreover, under the Reference Data Approach, a CCID would continue to be created and assigned to each unique Customer. Based on conversations with members of the CAT Advisory Committee, SIFMA and FIF, CAT LLC understands that many Industry Members would prefer to continue having the CCID in the CAT to avoid the potential for increased Electronic Blue Sheet and other inquiries from the Participants and the SEC that may occur without the ability to track Customer activity across brokers and markets using the CCID.
CAT LLC also believes that the Reference Data Amendment would enhance the efficiency of the securities markets because it would reduce costs with limited regulatory impact. As discussed above, the Reference Data Amendment would provide significant annual cost savings for CAT LLC. Such cost savings would not only benefit CAT LLC, but also would provide cost savings for any Participants and Industry Members that are required to fund the CAT in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan. Ultimately, such cost savings would benefit investors and the U.S. markets as a whole, thereby facilitating the goals of the Exchange Act.
In prior years, incremental requests or interpretations of what is required under Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan have significantly increased the complexity and cost of the system. CAT LLC proposes to amend the CAT NMS Plan to adopt a spending cap provision that is designed to safeguard against future requests or interpretations that would expand the then-existing functionality or system operations of the CAT without a clear assessment of whether the costs outweigh any associated benefits. Specifically, CAT LLC proposes to add Section 11.1(a)(iii) to the Plan, which would provide as follows:
(iii) Spending Cap on Functionality and Operational Changes. Any additions or modifications to the then-existing functionality or system operations of the CAT that would have the effect of materially increasing the operating expenses of the Company cannot occur unless approved pursuant to a CAT NMS Plan amendment that has become effective in accordance with Rule 608(b) of Regulation NMS or by an order of the Commission, except where such additions or modifications were approved by the Operating Committee or its designee with the intent to (i) maintain in all material respects the then-existing CAT functionality and system operations or to otherwise ensure the security of the CAT system or CAT Data; or (ii) realize cost savings.
The proposed spending cap would safeguard against future additions or modifications to the then-existing functionality or system operations of the CAT, including incremental requests or interpretations of the CAT NMS Plan that would increase the costs of the system. The proposed spending cap reflects a shared understanding that the existing functionality and associated costs of the CAT are materially consistent with the CAT NMS Plan, and additions or modifications, including any subsequent interpretations, requests, or other requirements that impose additions or modifications to the functionality or system operations of the CAT beyond this scope, would require an effective CAT NMS Plan amendment before implementation, which would include public notice and comment, or an order by the Commission. This will create greater predictability for budgeting, compliance, and operational planning purposes.
As noted in proposed Section 11.1(a)(iii) above, any additions or modifications to the then-existing functionality or system operations of the CAT that would have the effect of materially increasing the operating expenses of the Company could only be effected pursuant to an approved CAT NMS Plan amendment or by another order of the Commission. This would include, for example, ad hoc requests to change system functionality or changes requested based on interpretations of Plan requirements, and would therefore provide for an opportunity for consideration of the costs and benefits associated with changes related to such functionality, system operations, or interpretations. For the avoidance of doubt, the spending cap is not intended to inhibit the ability of the Operating Committee in the ordinary course day-to-day management of the CAT (
As discussed above, based on industry feedback, CAT LLC is not proposing in this filing two aspects of the Original CAT LLC Proposal—the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component and the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component. These two alternatives, if proposed, would add to the savings that would be provided by 2025 Cost Savings Amendment. CAT LLC, however, describes these two Components of the Original CAT LLC Proposal in detail below and specifically requests comment on whether CAT LLC should include these Components in this proposed amendment.
The Original CAT LLC Proposal includes the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component, which would eliminate CAIS, the reporting of all Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information, and the CCID. As discussed in Section 7 above, after discussions with members of the Advisory Committee and other Industry Member groups about the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component, CAT LLC determined to propose the Reference Data Amendment instead of the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component of the Original CAT LLC Proposal. The Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component would have resulted in estimated savings for cloud hosting services of $6.5 to $9 million, which is more than the savings provided by Reference Data Amendment, in addition to potential savings related to the Plan Processor operating fee.
Although CAT LLC is not proposing the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component of the Original CAT LLC Proposal, the following describes the revisions to the CAT NMS Plan that would be necessary to incorporate this alternative into the Plan. Such changes would replace the changes discussed in Section 7 above with regard to the Reference Data Approach. These changes are set forth in detail in
Implementing the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component would require the deletion of terms from Article I of the CAT NMS Plan that would be obsolete with the adoption of this alternative. Specifically, CAT LLC would propose to delete the terms “Account Effective Date,” “Active Accounts,” “Customer Account Information,” “Customer-ID,” “Customer Identifying Information” and “PII”
If CAT LLC were to propose the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component, CAT LLC also would propose to revise Section 6.4 of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect this alternative. Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) of the CAT NMS Plan requires each Participant, via its CAT Compliance Rules, to require its Industry Members to record and report to the Central Repository the following: “For the original receipt or origination of an order, the Firm Designated ID for the relevant Customer, and in accordance with Section 6.4(d)(iv), Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information for the relevant Customer.” CAT LLC would propose to delete this provision, and mark paragraph (C) as reserved.
In addition, CAT LLC would propose to delete Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component of the Original CAT LLC Proposal as well. Section 6.4(d)(iv) of the CAT NMS Plan currently states the following:
Each Industry Member must submit an initial set of the Customer information required in Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) for Active Accounts to the Central Repository upon the Industry Member's commencement of reporting to the Central Repository. Each Industry Member must submit to the Central Repository any updates, additions or other changes to the Customer information required in Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C) on a daily basis for all Active Accounts. In addition, on a periodic basis as designated by the Plan Processor and approved by the Operating Committee, each Industry Member will be required to submit to the Central Repository a complete set of all Customer information required in Section 6.4(d)(ii)(C). The Plan Processor will correlate such Customer information across all Industry Members, use it to assign a Customer-ID for each Customer, and use the Customer-ID to link all Reportable Events associated with an order for a Customer.
If CAT LLC were to propose the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component, CAT LLC would propose to revise Section 6.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect this alternative. Specifically, Figure B and the two paragraphs below Figure B describe the timeline for submitting and processing Customer information. As a result, CAT LLC would propose to delete Figure B and the two paragraphs below Figure B.
If CAT LLC were to propose the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component, CAT LLC also would propose to delete Section 9 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan in its entirety. Section 9 of Appendix D, as indicated by its title “CAT Customer and Customer Account Information,” addresses the reporting and processing of Customer information. CAT LLC proposes to revise the title for Section 9 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to mark it as “Reserved.” Correspondingly, CAT LLC would propose to delete each of the subsections of Section 9—Section 9.1 (Customer and Customer Account Information Storage), Section 9.2 (Required Data Attributes for Customer Information Data Submitted by Industry Members), Section 9.3 (Customer-ID Tracking), and Section 9.4 (Error Resolution for Customer Data), and mark each Section as “Reserved.”
In addition, CAT LLC would propose to add a new Section 9.5, entitled “Deletion of Certain Customer Data,” to Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan. This new section would require CAT LLC to direct the Plan Processor to delete from CAIS all existing Customer information or other data in CAIS, and clarify that such Customer information and data do not constitute records that CAT LLC must retain under Exchange Act Rule 17a-1. The new Section 9.5 of Appendix D would read as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan, this Appendix D, or the Exchange Act, CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to retire CAIS and to develop and implement a mechanism to delete from CAIS all Customer information or other data in CAIS. For the avoidance of doubt, such data does not constitute records that must be retained by the CAT under Exchange Act Rule 17a-1.
If CAT LLC were to propose the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component,
If CAT LLC were to propose the Full Elimination of CAIS/CCID Component, CAT LLC would propose to revise Sections 10.1 and 10.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to delete the requirements related to Customer information. Specifically, Section 10.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he Plan Processor must develop tools to allow each CAT Reporter to . . . Manage Customer and Customer Account Information.” CAT LLC would propose to delete this bullet regarding managing Customer and Customer Account Information. In addition, Section 10.3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan states that “CAT Help Desk support functions must include . . . [s]upporting CAT Reporters with data submissions and data corrections, including submission of Customer and Customer Account Information.” CAT LLC would propose to revise this bullet by deleting the phrase “including submission of Customer and Customer Account Information.”
The Original CAT LLC Proposal includes the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component, which would reduce the linkage processing timeline from four days to two days. With this alternative, feedback would be provided twice: once on T+2 at 8 a.m. (regarding all data for trade date T submitted by T+1 8 a.m.) and again on T+3 8 a.m. (regarding all data for trade date T submitted by T+2 8 a.m.). A linkage error discovered for an on-time submission would be provided as feedback on T+2. A CAT Reporter would have 24 hours to submit their correction for on-time correction credit, but would not receive linkage feedback on the repair attempt.
In developing the Original CAT LLC Proposal, CAT LLC noted that, through the first ten months of 2025, 80% of linkage errors were resolved by T+2 8 a.m., 12% were resolved by T+3 8 a.m., and 1% were resolved by T+4 8 a.m. “Outside the window” repairs constituted 6% of the whole, while 2% went unrepaired. CAT LLC further noted that this alternative would have resulted in an additional estimated savings of $6-$8 million in cloud hosting services costs annually, as well as potential reductions in the operating fees for the Plan Processor.
After discussions with the CAT LLC Advisory Committee and other Industry Member groups, however, CAT LLC determined not to propose the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component of the Original CAT LLC Proposal. Members of the CAT Advisory Committee and other Industry Member groups raised concerns regarding this alternative, including the fact that this alternative would provide CAT Reporters with only two rounds of linkage feedback and delay the availability of feedback by 20 hours. As a result, Industry Members would have just one 24-hour window to correct linkage errors associated with on-time submissions.
Accordingly, members of the CAT Advisory Committee and other Industry Member groups raised issues with the shortened amount of time that would be available to Industry Members to review and provide corrected data under the reduced linkage timeline, which they were concerned may increase regulatory compliance risks for Industry Members and may reduce the accuracy of CAT Data. The industry also raised the potential need for more personnel to accomplish the necessary data review and corrections. As a result, CAT LLC determined not to include this Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component in this 2025 Cost Savings Amendment at this time. CAT LLC specifically requests comment on whether CAT LLC should propose the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component of the Original CAT LLC Proposal.
Although CAT LLC is not proposing the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component of the Original CAT LLC Proposal at this time, the following describes the revisions to the CAT NMS Plan that would be necessary to incorporate this alternative into the Plan. These changes are set forth in detail in
If CAT LLC were to propose the Reduced Linkage Processing Timeline Component, CAT LLC would propose to revise the timeline set forth in Section 6.1 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to reflect the modified linkage processing timeline set forth below.
Not applicable.
The Participants propose to implement the proposal upon approval of the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment by directing the Plan Processor to make the technological changes necessary to implement this Amendment.
Subject to SEC approval of this 2025 Cost Savings Amendment, the Participants and the Plan Processor will determine an implementation schedule to effectuate the proposed changes.
CAT LLC does not believe that the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. Indeed, CAT LLC believes that the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment will have a positive impact on competition, efficiency and capital formation. The 2025 Cost Savings Amendment will provide significant savings in CAT costs while imposing minimal impact on the regulatory use of CAT Data. Such substantial cost savings would benefit all participants in the markets for NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities, including Participants, Industry Members, and most importantly, investors. Such cost savings would assist the U.S. market in its competition in the global markets as well. Moreover, in light of the limited impact on the regulatory purposes of the CAT, CAT LLC believes that the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. In this way, the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment would enhance the markets for NMS Securities and OTC Equity Securities for all market participants.
Furthermore, the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment would provide significant cost savings without creating any disparate impact between or among market participants. Any Participants and Industry Members required to contribute to the funding of the CAT under the CAT NMS Plan would also benefit from the reduced CAT costs due to the proposed changes regarding the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment.
For all of these reasons, CAT LLC does not believe that the 2025 Cost Savings Amendment would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.
Not applicable.
Section 12.3 of the CAT NMS Plan states that, subject to certain exceptions, the CAT NMS Plan may be amended from time to time only by a written amendment, authorized by the affirmative vote of not less than two-thirds of all of the Participants, that has been approved by the SEC pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act or has otherwise become effective under Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act. In addition, the proposed amendment was discussed during Operating Committee meetings. The Participants, by a vote of the Operating Committee taken on December 17, 2025, have authorized the filing of this 2025 Cost Savings Amendment with the SEC in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The Commission seeks comment on the amendment. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Exchange 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.