The U.S. Codex Office
Economic Analysis Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
This interim final rule (IFR) amends U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to remove the requirement that R-1 religious workers who have reached the maximum period of stay must reside abroad and be physically present outside the United States for one year before being eligible for readmission in R-1 status after departing from the United States upon reaching the maximum admission period. The purpose of this change is to promote stability and minimize disruptions to the vital services that R-1 religious workers provide to U.S. churches, mosques, synagogues, and other bona fide nonprofit religious organizations.
This IFR is effective on January 16, 2026. Written comments and related material must be submitted on or before March 17, 2026. The electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments prior to midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.
You may submit comments on the entirety of this rulemaking package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0403, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion of the interim final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be considered comments on the interim final rule and may not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In addition, USCIS cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is also not accepting mailed comments at this time.
If you cannot submit your comment by using
Business and Foreign Workers Division, Office of Policy & Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000.
DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments and arguments on all aspects of this rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this rule. Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS will reference a specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above, including emails or
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or Act) allows for admission to the United States as nonimmigrants certain aliens who are members of a religious denomination with a bona fide nonprofit religious organization in the United States and who seek to enter temporarily to perform qualifying religious work. INA 101(a)(15)(R); 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(R). These aliens are known as R-1 religious workers.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to enhance stability and significantly reduce disruptions for U.S. religious organizations and their employees, including those who are impacted by long waits for immigrant visas caused by demand in the fourth employment-based preference category (EB-4)
The Secretary of Homeland Security's authority for the regulatory amendment is found in various sections of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101
In 1990, as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the immigration system, Congress created new immigration classifications for religious workers, that is the R-1 nonimmigrant classification and the special immigrant religious worker classification.
By creating the new religious worker classifications, Congress acknowledged that the existing visa classifications traditionally used by religious workers were not suited to the unique characteristics and needs of the religious workers and religious
The R-1 classification allows alien religious workers to temporarily perform services in the United States as a minister or in a religious occupation or vocation.
If the petition is approved, the alien may be admitted as a nonimmigrant R-1 religious worker
The spouse and any unmarried child under the age of 21 of an R-1 religious worker can be admitted to the United States in R-2 nonimmigrant status in order to accompany, or follow to join, the principal R-1 religious worker. R-2 nonimmigrants are admitted for the same period and subject to the same limits as the principal, regardless of the time such spouse and child may have spent in the United States in R-2 status.
If otherwise eligible, the R-1 religious worker, spouse, and children may seek to immigrate permanently to the United States under the special immigrant religious worker category during the R-1 religious worker's stay.
Currently, R-1 religious workers who have reached the 5-year maximum period of stay may not be readmitted or receive an extension of stay in R-1 status until they have resided abroad and been physically present outside the United States for one year. This is due to the one-year foreign residence requirement in 8 CFR 214.2(r)(6).
The one-year foreign residence requirement does not apply to R-1 religious workers who did not reside continually in the United States and whose employment in the United States was seasonal or intermittent or was for an aggregate of six months or less per year.
Because these exceptions to the one-year requirement are limited, the vast majority of R-1 religious workers who reach the end of the five-year period, and have not filed their Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, to immigrate permanently to the United States, are required to depart the United States and remain outside the United States for at least one year before being eligible to return to the United States to work as an R-1 religious worker.
The status of an R-2 dependent of a principal R-1 religious worker is subject to the same period of stay and limitations as the principal beneficiary.
An R-1 religious worker may not need to depart the United States if a petition is filed for the R-1 religious worker to permanently immigrate to the United States, the petition is approved, and the R-1 religious worker subsequently applies to adjust his or her status to lawful permanent resident. United States immigration laws generally provide avenues for employers to petition for aliens to come to, or remain in, the United States permanently to live and work. Section 203(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1153(b), establishes categories of aliens who may be classified as employment-based immigrants and allocates the allowable number of immigrant visas in a given fiscal year among those categories. These are referred to as the first through the fifth employment-based (EB)
R-1 religious workers—and the religious organizations that employ them—often use the special immigrant religious worker classification under the EB-4 category to obtain lawful permanent residence for the religious worker. The eligibility requirements for R-1 nonimmigrant religious workers and special immigrant religious workers are generally similar. Both classifications, among other requirements, require the alien to have at least 2 years of denominational membership, work as a minister (or in a religious vocation or occupation), and be employed in the United States by either a bona fide non-profit religious organization or a bona fide organization affiliated with the religious organization.
A religious organization that seeks to petition for an alien beneficiary in the special immigrant religious worker classification must file Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.
Under sections 201 through 203 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1151-1153, Congress set annual numerical limits for each preference category. In a typical year, 9,940 visas are allocated for the fourth employment-based preference category, which are shared among the various classifications that are assigned to the fourth preference category, including special immigrant religious workers.
Immigrant visas, including many employment-based preference categories, are made available to potential immigrants based on the order in which an immigrant petition or labor certification, as applicable, is filed on their behalf (the applicable filing date is referred to as the priority date).
The U.S. Department of State (State) publishes in the monthly State Bureau of Consular Affairs Visa Bulletin relevant dates that determine who may apply for or be approved for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status. Those with a priority date that precedes the relevant date may apply for or be approved for the visa or adjustment of status.
As noted previously, special immigrant religious workers are one of many types of immigrants classified under EB-4.
Visas were generally available without any wait in EB-4 for aliens from all countries until May 2016 and remained available without any wait for aliens from all but a few countries until December 2022. Beginning in December 2022, the Visa Bulletin reflected that aliens from all countries would have to wait before receiving EB-4 visas.
The Visa Bulletin correction has significantly impacted the EB-4 availability and specifically the religious communities in the United States. Members of Congress have recently called the impact on R-1 religious workers a real crisis.
Now, however, the very long waits for visas in the EB-4 category means that R-1 religious workers are not able to obtain permanent residence or file an adjustment of status application within the first five years of obtaining R-1 status. Because the current and projected demand for immigrant visas in the EB-4 category greatly exceeds the available supply, R-1 religious workers who are also the beneficiaries of an approved special immigrant religious worker petition will generally reach their five-year maximum period of stay in R-1 nonimmigrant status well before an immigrant visa becomes available to them. At the end of fiscal year 2022, there were fewer than 63,000 approved petitions in the EB-4 category with priority dates on or after the established Final Action Dates in the Visa Bulletin.
As a result, without either an extended nonimmigrant visa status or the ability to file an adjustment of status application based on an available immigrant visa, these aliens generally will have to leave the United States for the one-year period required by current regulations before they can, based on a new R-1 petition approval, reenter the United States in R-1 status to continue to provide their services on behalf of their religious organization for their congregation, community, and the American public.
On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14205, Establishment of the White House Faith Office, 90 FR 9499 (Feb. 12, 2025), highlighting the important work that religious workers perform in faith-based entities, community organizations and houses of worship. The E.O. states that these organizations have tremendous ability to serve individuals, families, and communities through means that are different from those of government, and are essential to
R-1 religious workers are a significant portion of the religious workers in the United States. According to the May 2023 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, there were approximately 91,770 people employed as religious workers in the United States.
Calculation: approximately 19,000 R-1 religious worker/91,770 religious workers in the United States = 0.2070 (rounded) or approximately 21%.
Calculation: 21% attend every week + 9% attend almost every week + 11% attend about once a month = 41% attending about once a month or more often.
Many religious organizations depend on alien religious workers to provide crucial services and spiritual support to communities in the United States. Apart from performing duties reserved to members of the clergy, religious workers and organizations also perform services such as providing support to the neediest, caring for and ministering to the sick, aged, and dying in hospitals and special facilities, assisting religious leaders who lead their congregations, counseling victims of trauma or hardship, and supporting families and individual members in crisis. Religious workers and organizations also work with adolescents and young adults, and serve as principals, teachers, and school support staff. National organizations representing a variety of religious denominations and faith traditions report that some traditions must rely on the services of alien religious workers because they do not have established institutions in the United States to recruit and train the workers they require. Consequently, their presence is vital for religious organizations to serve those in need and respond effectively to the dynamic intercultural realities of modern America.
The important work of faith-based entities is being increasingly disrupted by the very long wait for EB-4 immigrant visas combined with the regulatory one-year foreign residence requirement for R-1 religious workers. As a result, many R-1 religious workers serving vital roles in their communities have been forced to leave the country for at least one year due to delays in transitioning to permanent residence.
This crisis comes at a time when American religious institutions are already struggling on multiple fronts. Faith communities across the nation report at an alarming rate that they do not have enough clergy to lead congregations, in particular in rural areas, in part because clergy are retiring and dying faster than new ones are entering the ministry.
DHS believes that removing the one-year foreign residence regulatory requirement for religious workers may significantly reduce the time that a religious organization is without its trusted clergy and non-ministerial religious workers. As the waitlist for EB-4 visas may continue to grow without Congressional action to increase visa availability for these essential religious workers in the United States, this rulemaking can significantly reduce damaging losses to religious organizations and American religious communities. DHS strongly believes that this action must be taken to address the immediate needs of religious organizations and to avert a further crisis. Given the broad public and congressional support, DHS believes this IFR is the appropriate measure to provide immediate relief to the American community while providing the public the opportunity for further input post-promulgation.
DHS is amending 8 CFR 214.2(r)(6) to remove the requirement that a nonimmigrant religious worker (R-1), who has exhausted the five-year maximum period of stay as an R-1 religious worker, must reside abroad and be physically present outside the United States for one year before being eligible for readmission as an R-1 religious worker.
By statute, R-1 religious workers may not continuously remain in the United States in that status for more than five years.
This one-year period was established in a 1991 rulemaking and was based on the one-year period that an H-1 orL-1 nonimmigrant is required to remain outside the United States under the same circumstances.
DHS is now amending 8 CFR 214.2(r)(6) to remove the requirement that an alien who has spent five continuous years in the United States as an R-1 religious worker must reside abroad and be physically present outside of the United States for the immediate year prior to being readmitted or receiving an extension of stay as an R-1 religious worker.
DHS is executing a very narrowly tailored solution to provide a reasonable and rational solution to the problem at hand.
DHS notes that there are no specific statutory requirements imposed on R-1 religious workers
As noted above, DHS created the one-year requirement to remain outside the United States for R-1 nonimmigrants to be consistent with the H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrant classifications. However, DHS does not believe that there are specific similarities between the R-1 nonimmigrant classification and the H-1B
In addition, certain workers in H-1B nonimmigrant status can extend their nonimmigrant status beyond the general statutory limits if they have reached certain benchmarks in their lawful permanent residence process, which is a flexibility that is not present in any other nonimmigrant classification, including the R-1 nonimmigrant classification.
Finally, the recent increased waiting period for an immigrant visa in the EB-4 category does not impact H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrants in the same way that it does the R-1 nonimmigrants applying for lawful permanent residence because H-1B and L-1 nonimmigrants generally apply for lawful permanent residence under the EB-1, EB-2, or EB-3 categories.
Treating R-1 nonimmigrants consistent with the category of nonimmigrants that do not require a minimum period outside of the United States is more appropriate. There is precedent to not require a minimum period of time outside the United States before a nonimmigrant may be readmitted to the United States for a new initial period of stay after departing due to a statutory maximum period of stay. For example, the statutory provisions for the P-1 (athlete) nonimmigrant classification do not require a specific period outside the United States for athletes who have reached the 10-year maximum period of stay.
DHS is now taking a similar approach for the R-1 nonimmigrant classification.
This change is intended to significantly reduce disruptions for R-1 nonimmigrants and U.S. employers who want to retain R-1 nonimmigrant workers. It is also intended to specifically provide relief for those religious workers who have been awaiting an immigrant visa under the EB-4 category because the change will permit them to return as a temporary R-1 nonimmigrant without having to reside abroad and be physically present outside the United States for a year, and to continue to pursue the permanent immigration status in the United States once the worker's EB-4 priority date becomes current. This is particularly important because the wait for EB-4 visas is growing.
DHS believes that removing the requirement that an R-1 nonimmigrant religious worker, who has exhausted the five-year maximum period of stay as an R-1, must reside abroad and be physically present outside the United States for one year before being eligible for readmission as an R-1 nonimmigrant will enhance stability and significantly reduce disruptions to religious organizations with respect to their activities in providing vital services at U.S. churches, mosques, synagogues, and other places of worship.
With this IFR, DHS is amending 8 CFR 214.2(r)(6) to remove the requirement that an alien who has spent five years in the United States in R-1 status must reside abroad and be physically present outside the United States for one year before being readmitted to or receiving an extension of stay in the United States under the R visa classification. Correspondingly, DHS is removing the reference to readmission in the first sentence of the paragraph to clarify that, although the IFR does not remove the requirement that the alien be physically present outside the United States prior to readmission in R-1 status after spending five years in the United States in R-1 status, it does remove any minimum period of time that the alien must be physically present outside the United States before readmission.
Additionally, DHS is retaining the reference to the extension of stay in the first sentence of the paragraph and adding a new second sentence that explicitly requires departure of the alien when reaching the maximum five-year period of stay in the United States in R-1 status. Therefore, under new 8 CFR 214.2(r)(6), an alien in the R-1 nonimmigrant category who has spent five years in the United States in R-1 status cannot receive an extension of stay in the United States pursuant to 8 CFR 214.1. Rather, the alien must depart the United States and, upon having a new Form I-129 approval from USCIS and a new R-1 nonimmigrant visa from State (if applicable), may be readmitted to the United States as an R-1 nonimmigrant without having to wait outside the United States for a particular time period.
DHS is not substantively changing the regulation with respect to R-1 nonimmigrants who do not continually reside in the United States and whose employment in the United State was seasonal or intermittent or was for an aggregate of six month or less, and with respect to R-1 nonimmigrants who reside abroad and regularly commute to the United States to engage in part-time employment.
DHS is also making updates throughout 8 CFR 214.2(r)(6) to replace the term “shall,” which may be ambiguous depending on the context in which it is used, with “will”, if appropriate, to clarify the meaning of the provision. These changes are technical in nature and do not substantively impact the regulated public. They enhance the usability and readability of the provision. Additionally, DHS is removing the term “shall” in the last sentence of the paragraph, and changing the infinitive form of the verb “consist” to the third person singular present tense. By using “such as,” the sentence intends to covey that arrival and departure records, transcripts of processed income tax returns and records of employment abroad are examples of proof that an alien may submit. That is consistent with longstanding interpretation of USCIS.
DHS is invoking the “good cause” exceptions of the APA under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3) and issuing this rule without prior notice-and-comment and without a 30-day delayed effective date. Furthermore, DHS finds that the regulatory amendment involves a foreign affairs function under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), thereby exempting this rule from all requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. Notwithstanding the explanation below, DHS nonetheless welcomes post-promulgation comment on all aspects of this IFR.
An agency may forgo notice and comment rulemaking when the agency “for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Likewise, section 553(d)'s requirement of 30-day advanced publication may be waived by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule, or if the rule relieves a restriction.
The “impracticable” prong of the good cause exception excuses notice and comment in emergency situations, or where the delay caused by the APA's notice and comment procedures would result in real harm.
An agency may invoke the good cause exemption if providing notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The question is not whether
For the reasons explained below, DHS believes that, based on the totality of the circumstances, it has good cause to bypass ordinary notice-and-comment procedures.
As discussed in the preamble, religious organizations are facing a crisis affecting not only their religious workers but also the communities they serve and the American public at large. Because of the converging circumstances related to the long wait for visas in the EB-4 category, the current regulatory one-year foreign residence requirement, DHS, consistent with its missions and responsibilities, is immediately taking measures to ensure that the religious worker program is administered in a manner that averts harm to the public. Engaging in the APA's notice and comment requirement under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) in this situation would impede the due execution of DHS's missions and responsibilities, including the responsibilities as outlined in the directive of E.O.s 14205 and 13397, to administer the religious worker nonimmigrant and immigrant programs effectively and to strengthen faith-based organizations, and would result in real and serious harm to religious organizations and American religious communities. Unless DHS acts immediately, every day that goes by, there is a risk that another religious organization has an R-1 pastor or religious worker who must depart the United States, and who is unable to return for at least 1 year as an R-1 worker on account of the one-year foreign residence requirement. The current harm and the risk of future harm is tremendous, considering that R-1 religious workers account for approximately 21 percent of all religious workers in the United States that are serving and providing crucial services and spiritual support to 41 percent of the U.S. population.
DHS anticipates that, without this action, the number of religious workers who have to leave the United States may significantly increase, further impacting religious organizations and American faith communities by reducing the ability for these communities to receive the essential services these workers provide.
DHS also believes that bypassing notice and comment procedure is warranted because of the narrow scope of the rule, providing a limited fix by eliminating the unique element of the one-year foreign residence requirement. Additionally, this rulemaking is
As explained above, courts have noted that the need for notice and comment gains in importance the more expansive the regulatory reach of the agency rule, and that the scope of the rule, while itself not determinative, is an important consideration in the good cause assessment.
The narrow scope of the change in practice therefore supports DHS's approach of seeking post-promulgation comments rather than advanced notice-and-comment procedures. Furthermore, the approach of bypassing advanced notice-and-comment procedures and having an immediate effective date is further supported by the tremendous positive direct and indirect benefits of the measure, as well as the fact that DHS, by removing the one-year foreign residence requirement, lessens a restriction without further imposing additional requirements. As explained in Section II of this preamble, removing the one-year foreign residence requirement for religious workers may allow them to return to the United States as soon as possible and resume their positions of providing critical services to the religious organization and the American public. This rulemaking may, thus, bring immediate relief and decrease the significant burden that the current converging situations create, providing not just stability and continuity to religious organizations and congregations, but also schools, hospitals, and other social institutions where religious workers perform their essential work with compassion and dedication. Letters received by the DHS,
DHS notes that in some cases, regarding the good cause standards, courts have concluded that an agency's claim of good cause and emergency was undermined because the agency delayed the implementation of a decision.
Moreover, and as explained in Section II.D, that wait is expected to grow considering the fact that there are only 9,940 EB-4 visas available in a typical fiscal year, and as of March 2025, the number of approved petitions where no visa was immediately available in the EB-4 category had grown to approximately 217,500 (compared to the 63,000 approved petitions at the end of fiscal year 2022). Furthermore, on March 3, 2025, State announced that it had issued all available immigrant visas in the EB-4 category, which includes visas made available to special immigrant religious workers, and the category was unavailable.
Finally, DHS believes it is unnecessary to delay this final rule's effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). First and foremost, a delayed effective date is unnecessary because the IFR relieves a restriction that is beneficial to religious workers, their employers and the faith-community at large as it reduces the interruption and costs that the one-year foreign residence requirement causes.
In sum, for the reasons outlined above, DHS believes that bypassing the ordinary notice and comment procedures and the delayed effective date requirement is justified, under the totality of the circumstances, and given that immediate action is necessary, is consistent with DHS' statutory mission to take regulatory action to administer the religious worker nonimmigrant and immigrant benefits effectively, and the President's directives in E.O. 13397 and E.O. 14205. Nevertheless, recognizing the value of public comments, DHS is publishing this rule as an IFR with a request for public comment.
Agencies may forgo notice and comment rulemaking and a delayed effective date when the rulemaking involves “a military or foreign affairs function of the United States.”
DHS finds that this rulemaking is directly connected to the alien's status or authorized period of stay such that it constitutes a foreign affairs function. Removing the one-year foreign residence requirement in 8 CFR 214.2(r)(6) allows a religious worker that has departed the United States after having exhausted the five-year period to be readmitted under the R classification as soon as possible. Thus, this rulemaking is related to the control of the entry and exit of aliens across the borders of the United States and falls within the Secretary's foreign affairs determination.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, although not economically significant under section 3(f)(1). Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by OMB.
This rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the United States.
This rule would affect R-1 workers and their employers when these workers have reached their five-year maximum period of stay in the U.S. Due to changes in the availability of EB-4 immigrant visas, a growing number of R-1 religious workers have been impacted by the regulatory requirement of exiting the U.S. and waiting abroad for a one-year period before being readmitted. Based on the number of R-1 Nonimmigrants between FY 2015 and FY 2019 who had petitions filed for new R-1 status within 5 to 6
The main benefit of this rule is to reduce disruptions for religious organizations who want to retain R-1 workers that have reached five years in R-1 status, and to reduce disruptions for the public who are served by these organizations. This rule allows religious workers to continue their service in the United States without the cost and logistical challenges of relocating abroad for a year, thereby permitting employers and their R-1 religious workers greater continuity of employment. The employer, the R-1 religious worker, and the community they serve benefit from the retained entity-specific human capital as a result of the shortened break in employment. USCIS expects this worker retention to result in increased productivity for employers and R-1 religious workers.
As discussed above, under the current regulatory requirement, an R-1 nonimmigrant who has exhausted the five-year maximum period of stay, must reside abroad and be physically present outside the United States for one year before being eligible for readmission as an R-1 nonimmigrant. Prior to December 2022, most R-1 workers and their employers who wanted to continue their religious work in the U.S. were able to apply for lawful permanent residency, which effectively allowed them to remain in the U.S. without reaching the five-year maximum period for R-1. However, since December 2022, the availability of the EB-4 visa has dramatically dropped for R-1 workers, and more R-1 workers have become burdened by the current regulatory requirement of leaving the U.S. for a one-year period before readmittance. There are costs associated with moving to and residing in the destination country and post one-year transitioning back to the United States for those returning as R-1 nonimmigrant workers. Without this rule, R-1 workers may simply not return to the U.S. as transition costs to move back and forth after a year may be prohibitive. Employers may have to hire new workers rather than retain their R-1 workers' positions for a year, which they may find cost prohibitive. Further, employers holding the positions vacant could result in lost services for their community. Employers who hire new religious workers may incur hiring and training costs for these replacement workers.
As discussed earlier, R-1 employers have recently faced challenges in retaining their R-1 workers, as previously these R-1 workers were able to remain in the United State by taking certain steps towards obtaining lawful permanent residency. However, the unavailability of the EB-4 visa has changed the baseline conditions for employers, creating challenges to long-term worker retention. In summary, the newly realized burdens for employers and R-1 workers to remain in the United States past the five-year time-period has significantly increased in recent years and will continue to do so. DHS is issuing this IFR to address these additional burdens.
The rule will remove the requirement that an R-1 nonimmigrant, who has exhausted the maximum period of stay, remain outside of the United States for one year before being eligible for readmission as an R-1 nonimmigrant. The rule will not change the requirements that these nonimmigrants travel abroad for consular processing as an R-1 nonimmigrant and return to the United States with a new R-1 status, including employment authorization incident to that status.
DHS expects two populations to be affected by this rule. The first population consists of those religious organizations and religious workers that would have filed for a renewed R-1 status in the absence of this rule. This population is estimated below.
The second population consists of those who may be induced into seeking renewed R-1 status as a result of this
While the removal of the one-year foreign residence requirement will apply to all R-1 nonimmigrants, the group most affected by this provision will be those who are about to exhaust their maximum period of stay with a desire to continue their current work. This population currently must remain outside of the United States for one year and then be admitted again in R-1 status in order to maintain continuity in employment. Due to the recent changes in the availability of special immigrant status visas, commenters have indicated there would be an increase in the number of R-1 workers who would be required to depart the United States for one year and have to decide whether to return.
We identify this group by looking at R-1 nonimmigrants who have Form I-129 petitions filed for them, in fiscal years 2015 to 2019.
Elimination of the requirement that R-1 nonimmigrants reside and are physically present outside of the United States for one year after exhausting the maximum period of stay before readmission as an R-1 nonimmigrant will result in those R-1 nonimmigrants seeking readmission being permitted to return up to one year earlier than in the absence of this provision. Accordingly, DHS expects a 1-year acceleration in some of these petitions for R-1 status and employment authorization incident to such status as an R-1 nonimmigrant. This increase is expected to be between 92 and 127 petitions annually.
Given the recent increase in wait times for EB-4 visas and the information DHS received about the impact of this change from religious communities, DHS anticipates that this rule could benefit significantly more aliens than between the 92 and 127 who file petitions annually identified based on prior year experience. As explained more fully in Section 3 of the Background section of the preamble, prior to December 2022, R-1 nonimmigrants and religious organizations have historically sought to use the EB-4 category to obtain lawful permanent residence for the religious workers within the first 5 years of obtaining R-1 status. However, due to the long wait for EB-4 immigrant visa availability, most special immigrant religious workers will likely face long wait times before the priority date of their special immigrant petition (Form
Thus, because R-1 workers are unable to file a Form I-485 within their five-year maximum period of stay, which historically they could and allowed them to remain in the United States after their R-1 maximum period of stay had been reached, it is possible that this rule, which eliminates the one-year foreign residence requirement, would result in an increase in the number of R-1 nonimmigrants interested in obtaining new R-1 status to allow them to return to the United States significantly earlier. Table 2 demonstrates that there is a growing number of R-1 workers who would like to stay in the United States but have not been able to due to visa limitations. This could be an indication of the growing interest of R-1 workers to return to the United States under the beneficial conditions of this rule.
As shown below, since fiscal year 2023, there is an average of approximately 1,700 religious workers per year on whose behalf a Form I-360 EB-4 petition has been approved, but who have not yet filed an adjustment of status application (
Historically, religious organizations have sponsored some of their R-1 nonimmigrant religious workers as Special Immigrants using Form I-360. After the Form I-360 is approved, these religious workers wait until an EB-4 visa becomes available to file a Form I-485 to adjust status from nonimmigrant to immigrant. As shown in Table 2, the population of religious workers with an approved Form I-360 that have not yet filed for adjustment of status (
The rule is expected to result in at least between 92 and 127 petitions filing a Form I-129 a year earlier than without this rule, and could potentially be much more. There has been an increase of approximately 1,150 religious workers annually that have an approved Form I-360 but have not yet been able file a Form I-485 to adjust status. It is expected some portion of these religious workers will take advantage of this rule change, though we do not have an estimate of how many will. DHS believes any costs associated with filing this form a year earlier are de minimis.
The rule will allow R-1 nonimmigrants who have exhausted their maximum period of stay to return to the United States in R-1 status sooner. Accordingly, it may also increase the number of R-1 workers who choose to return with an R-1 visa. This rule does not alter the requirement for these aliens to travel abroad before they return to the United States with a new R-1 status.
Further, to minimize the aliens' time abroad, employers are permitted to file a new Form I-129 before their R-1 religious workers reach their five-year maximum period of stay.
The main benefit of this rule is to reduce disruptions for religious
We recognize that these aliens would be generating benefits during the time outside of the United States, however, DHS does not attempt to estimate comparative utility analysis between the United States and other countries. Observing that these aliens voluntarily return to work in the United States provides sufficient evidence of comparatively greater welfare from additional time as an R-1 nonimmigrant. Similarly, organizations employing those religious workers who return to work in the United States faster may benefit indirectly from this productivity occurring sooner, but DHS has not quantified these effects.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments. Title II of UMRA requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule for which the agency published a proposed rule, that includes any Federal mandate that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
The inflation adjusted value of $100 million in 1995 is approximately $206 million in 2024 based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) enacted as part of section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847, 868
This rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This IFR was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This IFR was written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and was reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal Court system. DHS has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of Executive Order 12988.
DHS has reviewed this rule in line with the requirements of section 654 of the Treasury and General Appropriations Act, 1999.
With this IFR, DHS is removing the requirement that a nonimmigrant religious worker (R-1) who has exhausted the maximum period of stay as an R-1 must reside abroad and be physically present outside the United States for one year before being eligible for readmission as an R-1 nonimmigrant. The purpose of this change is to enhance stability and significantly reduce disruptions to the vital services that nonimmigrant religious workers provide to U.S.
DHS has determined that the implementation of this regulation does not negatively affect family well-being as outlined in section 654 of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999. To the contrary, DHS believes that the consequence of the rule—the fact that religious workers who are trusted members of their faith communities and organizations may return faster and are no longer required to comply with the 1-year foreign residence requirement, positively impacts the community at large, and given the essential work performed of religious workers, the well-being of families overall.
This IFR does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
DHS and its components analyze final actions to determine whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA implementing procedures, categories of actions (“categorical exclusions”) that experience has shown do not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three conditions: (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential for a significant environmental effect.
This IFR amends DHS regulations to remove the requirement that R-1 religious workers, who have reached the maximum period of stay must, reside abroad and be physically present outside the United States for one year before being eligible for readmission in R-1 status. While R-1 nonimmigrants must still depart the United States upon reaching the maximum admission period, there is no longer a mandated duration for residing and being physically present outside the United States before seeking readmission in R-1 status. The purpose of this change is to promote stability and minimize disruptions to the vital services that nonimmigrant religious workers provide to U.S. churches, mosques, synagogues, and other religious organizations.
This final rule is strictly administrative and procedural because it is only amending existing DHS regulations governing eligibility for readmission as an R-1 nonimmigrant. DHS has reviewed this IFR and finds that no significant impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect will result from the amendments being promulgated in this final rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this final rule's amendments to current regulations clearly fits within categorical exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures as an administrative change with no change in environmental effect, is not part of a larger Federal action, and does not present extraordinary circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental effect. Therefore, these regulatory amendments are categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
This IFR does not propose any new or revise any existing “collection[s] of information” as that term is defined under the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 13200. This IFR will eliminate the 1-year foreign residence requirement under 8 CFR 214.2(r)(6), and USCIS has determined there is no need to update the Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker (Form I-129) or any other information collection related to religious workers.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange program, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Students.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, DHS amends 8 CFR part 214 as follows:
6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305, 1357, and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 115-218, 132 Stat. 1547 (48 U.S.C. 1806).
(r) * * *
(6)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-9 and 787-10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of multiple supplier notices of escapement (NOEs) indicating that multiple cargo barrier fitting links were possibly manufactured with an incorrect titanium alloy material. This AD requires a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) or handheld X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer inspection of the cargo barrier fitting link to determine the titanium alloy material and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 20, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 20, 2026.
• For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-9 and 787-10 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International, (ALPA) and United Airlines who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA received additional comments from American Airlines (American) and Boeing. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested the FAA revise the estimated number of affected airplanes of U.S. registry from 23 to 25 in the Costs of Compliance paragraph of the proposed AD and adjust the costs accordingly. Boeing noted that Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530089-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 7, 2025, includes 25 airplanes of U.S. registry. Boeing explained that the two additional airplanes are currently operated by foreign operators but remain on the U.S. registry.
The FAA agrees with the request and has revised the Costs of Compliance section of this AD accordingly.
American requested the FAA revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to state that either an XRF or HFEC inspection method is acceptable for compliance with the proposed AD. The commenter expressed concern that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD specifies doing all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530089-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 7, 2025, but the inspection instructions in the requirements bulletin do not clearly state that doing an HFEC inspection to determine the type of titanium alloy material negates the need for an XRF inspection (for example, see task 1, table 1, More Data notes 1 and 2). The commenter stated it cannot accomplish the XRF inspection because the equipment is unavailable.
The FAA disagrees with the request. Tables 1 through 3 the Accomplishment Instructions of the requirements bulletin specify to do an HFEC or handheld XRF spectrometer inspection of the cargo barrier fitting link to determine the titanium alloy material. In addition, More Data note 2 of the corresponding
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530089-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 7, 2025. This material specifies procedures for an HFEC or handheld XRF spectrometer inspection of the cargo barrier fitting link to determine the titanium alloy material type, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include replacing any affected fitting link with a new cargo barrier fitting link that is manufactured with Ti-6Al-4V alloy material. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 25 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 20, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-9 and 787-10 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530089-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 7, 2025.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of multiple supplier notices of escapement (NOEs) indicating that multiple cargo barrier fitting links were possibly manufactured with an incorrect titanium alloy material. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cargo barrier fitting links possibly manufactured with the incorrect titanium alloy material, which, if not addressed, could fail in the event of a rapid decompression in the aft fuselage and could result in damage to the aft electronic equipment bay and consequent loss of continued safe flight and landing.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530089-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 7, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530089-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 7, 2025.
Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530089-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 7, 2025, refer to the Issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530089-00 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530089-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 7, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by cracking found during an inspection on an airplane equipped with Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) scimitar blended winglets. This AD requires performing a general visual inspection (GVI) or maintenance records check of certain stringers for an approved freeze plug repair, performing a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the same area for any crack common to a certain stringer and a reinforcement strap, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 20, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 20, 2026.
• For APB material identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd St., Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone 206-830-7699; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
Sarah Illg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 206-231-3517; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
The FAA received comments from APB and Boeing who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (Delta). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD stating the proposed AD and APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-012 both serve as a method of compliance to AD 2020-01-18, Amendment 39-19824 (85 FR 5304, January 30, 2020); corrected February 26, 2020 (85 FR 10969) (AD 2020-01-18). Delta also requested that paragraph (b) of the proposed AD be revised to reference AD 2020-01-18. Delta noted that, among other actions, AD 2020-01-18 requires implementation of airworthiness limitations (AWL) task 57-20-12, which is an inspection of left- and right-hand lower wing stringers 6 and 8. Delta stated that if a freeze plug is installed in accordance with APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, it will no longer be feasible to accomplish AWL task 57-20-12 because some of the material required to be inspected will be removed and the installed freeze plug and retainer washer will cover up the area required to be inspected. Delta concluded the proposed AD would infringe upon the requirements of AD 2020-01-18.
The FAA agrees that installation of a freeze plug repair would affect accomplishment of AWL task 57-20-12 as required by AD 2020-01-18. However, the FAA disagrees with adding an exception to paragraph (h) of this AD and referencing AD 2020-01-18 in paragraph (b) of this AD. The FAA notes that an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to AD 2020-01-18 was issued for Model 757-200 and -300 airplanes modified in accordance with STC ST01518SE to allow accomplishment of AWL task 57-20-12A, which supplements AWL task 57-20-12 but does not replace it. Similarly, an operator would need to submit a request for an AMOC to AD 2020-01-18 to address any freeze plug repair that affects accomplishment AWL task 57-20-12. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
Delta requested that the FAA add the following exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD: Where paragraph 1.A.1 of APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, states “with winglets or wing tips installed,” replace that text with “with winglets or wing tips installed or on which winglets have been installed and subsequently removed.” Delta stated that the effectivity of the service bulletin does not mention airplanes on which winglets were installed per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE and subsequently removed per APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-001, Revision 1, dated May 18, 2012. Delta also stated it is unlikely that accomplishment of APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-001 would restore an airplane to a configuration where the unsafe condition of the proposed AD does not exist.
The FAA agrees that the unsafe condition of this AD could exist on airplanes modified per STC ST01518SE where winglets were never installed, or winglets were installed and subsequently removed. However, the FAA disagrees that an exception is needed to address airplanes that had winglets installed per STC ST01518SE and subsequently removed. The FAA clarifies that where the effectivity of APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specifies “or wing tips installed,” that wording includes airplanes that were modified per STC ST01518SE and either the winglets were never installed, or winglets were installed and subsequently removed. The FAA has not revised the AD in this regard.
Delta requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(5) of the proposed AD to “or within 22 months” to correct a typographical error.
The FAA agrees and has revised paragraph (h)(5) of this AD accordingly.
Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to point to the appropriate tables for accomplishing the repetitive surface HFEC inspections for airplanes with a freeze plug repair done in accordance with APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024. Delta stated that, if a freeze plug repair is accomplished (per condition 4.2, action 1), then condition 4.2, action 2 of tables 3, 6, 10, and 13 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” and tables 3 and 6 of paragraph 3.B., “Work Instructions,” in the service bulletin specify accomplishing repetitive surface HFEC inspections, but those tables are applicable to inspection areas with no existing freeze plug repair. Delta asserted that condition 4.2, action 2 of tables 3, 6, 10, and 13 in paragraph 1.E. of the service bulletin should specify accomplishing the repetitive inspections per tables 2, 5, 9, and 12 of paragraph 1.E because there is now a freeze plug. Similarly, Delta asserted that condition 4.2, action 2 of tables 3 and 6 in paragraph 3.B. of the service bulletin should specify accomplishing the repetitive inspections per tables 2 and 5 of paragraph 3.B.
The FAA agrees that freeze plug repairs accomplished in accordance with APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, should be considered as existing freeze plug repairs for repetitive surface HFEC inspections on a per stringer, per wing basis. However, no change is necessary to this AD because the FAA included exceptions in the proposed AD that address Delta's request. Those exceptions are in paragraphs (h)(7) and (8) of this AD, which specify to use figures 3 and 8, respectively, to
Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to provide instructions on how to comply with the surface HFEC inspections specified in APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, for areas that have a freeze plug repair. Delta also stated that the HFEC inspection areas shown in figure 3 of the service bulletin could be concealed by freeze plug repairs in the inspection area, which makes the surface HFEC inspection not possible as written in the service bulletin. Delta noted there are no instructions for removal of the fastener and retainer washer in areas with a freeze plug installed and referred to an email from APB that clarified such instructions.
The FAA agrees to clarify the instructions for accomplishing a surface HFEC inspection in an area with a freeze plug repair. The freeze plug retainer washer does not need to be removed. It is acceptable to perform the surface HFEC inspection around the circumference of the retainer washer. Accordingly, the FAA has added a new exception to paragraph (h)(9) of this AD to require the surface HFEC inspection of the applicable lower stringer vertical web flange around each fastener, including any washers or freeze plug retainer washers (washer removal is not required) for any crack.
Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to clarify that figures 3 and 8 of APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, require applying Boeing Material Specification (BMS) 5-45 or BMS 5-168 sealant. Delta stated that step 4 of those figures list BMS 5-45 and BMS 5-168 in separate substeps, which could be misinterpreted to mean that both sealants need to be applied.
The FAA agrees that only one sealant must be applied under step 4 of figures 3 and 8 of the service bulletin. The FAA has added a new exception in paragraph (h)(10) of this AD accordingly.
Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to clarify the requirement for the retainer washer in flag note (e) of figures 6 and 11 of APB Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024. Delta stated the flag note specifies that the retainer washer must have a 0.15-0.20-inch overlap with the freeze plug, which can be interpreted as the washer needs to overlap the freeze plug as opposed to overlapping the surrounding structure. Delta asserted that the wording in the service bulletin does not appear to provide a requirement for the outer diameter of the retainer washer. Delta requested that the requirement instead state that the retainer washer must be fabricated with a 0.15-0.20-inch diameter greater than a freeze plug.
The FAA agrees to clarify the requirement for retainer washer fabrication of in flag note (e) of figures 6 and 11 in the service bulletin. The FAA has added a new exception in paragraph (h)(12) to clarify the retainer washer must have a 0.15-0.20-inch radius greater than the freeze plug.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012 Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024. This material specifies procedures for performing a GVI or maintenance records check of the lower stringer L-6 and lower stringer L-8 vertical web flange, between WS 397.50 and WS 403 for an approved freeze plug repair; a surface HFEC inspection for cracking of the wing lower stringer L-6 and lower stringer L-8 vertical web flange, common to the reinforcement strap attach fasteners located between WS 397.50 and WS 403.00; and applicable on-condition actions. The on-condition actions include repetitive surface HFEC inspections for cracking, crack length measurement, a surface HFEC inspection of the lower stringer L-6 or L-8 vertical web flange around each of the four fasteners for cracks, crack removal, freeze plug repair, and crack repair.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 156 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 20, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -300 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as specified in paragraph 1.A.1 of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by an operator reporting a crack on a Model 757-200 airplane equipped with Aviation Partners Boeing scimitar blended winglets. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the potential for cracking on the right- or left-wing lower stringer L-8 or L-6 vertical web flange at a fastener common to the reinforcement strap. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, do all applicable actions identified as “RC” (required for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
(1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, refer to the original issue date of this Service Bulletin, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Table 2 and Table 3 of the “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specify Action 1 without a compliance time, for this AD, the compliance time is before 9,500 flight cycles after the blended winglet installation, within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(3) Where Table 5 and Table 6 of the “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specify Action 1 without a compliance time, for this AD, the compliance time is before 8,000 flight cycles after the blended winglet installation, within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or within 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(4) Where Table 9 and Table 10 of the “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specify Action 1 without a compliance time, for this AD, the compliance time is before 9,500 flight cycles after the blended winglet installation, within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or within 22 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(5) Where Table 12 and Table 13 of the “Compliance” paragraph of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specify Action 1 without a compliance time, for this AD, the compliance time is before 8,000 flight cycles after the blended winglet installation, within 3,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, or within 22 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(6) Where Condition 2 of Table 6 in the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, includes “remove crack” as part of the actions, the action “remove crack” is not required by this AD for Condition 2 of Table 6.
(7) Where Action 2 of Condition 4.2 in Table 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, does not include a method of compliance for the inspection, for this AD, the method of compliance is Figure 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
(8) Where Action 2 of Condition 4.2 in Table 6 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, does not include a method of compliance for the inspection, for this AD, the method of compliance is Figure 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
(9) Where flag notes (b) and (c) of Figure 3 and Figure 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specify doing a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the applicable lower stringer vertical web flange “around each of the four fasteners for any crack”, this AD requires replacing that text with “around each fastener, including any washers or freeze plug retainer washers (washer removal is not required) for any crack”.
(10) Where Step 4 of Figure 3 and Figure 8 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specifies applying both BMS 5-45 and BMS 5-168 sealants, this AD requires application of either BMS 5-45 or BMS 5-168 sealant.
(11) Where flag note (b) of Figure 5 and Figure 10 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing
(12) Where flag note (e) of Figure 6 and Figure 11 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specifies “The retainer washer must have 0.15-0.20 inch overlap with the freeze plug”, this AD requires replacing that text with “The retainer washer must have a 0.15-0.20-inch radius greater than the freeze plug”.
(13) Where Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specifies contacting Aviation Partners Boeing for repair instructions: This AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
Although Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024, specifies to report existing repairs, this AD does not require any report.
(1) The Manager, West Certification Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Except as specified by paragraph (g) of this AD: For material that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(2)(i) and (ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
For more information about this AD, contact Sarah Illg, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712; phone: 206-231-3517; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP757-57-012, Revision 1, dated October 17, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Aviation Partners Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd St., Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone 206-830-7699; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2025-23-52, which applied to all Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. AD 2025-23-52, required replacing the center shaft assembly with a serviceable center shaft assembly (either a shaft with another part number (P/N) or the same P/N with lower hours time-in-service (TIS)) and prohibited installing a center shaft assembly that is not a serviceable center shaft assembly on any helicopter. Since the FAA issued AD 2025-23-52, it was determined that for certain center shaft assemblies a repetitive inspection is adequate instead of replacement. This AD requires repetitively inspecting the center shaft assembly for cracks and replacing the center shaft assembly if it fails the inspection or exceeds a certain TIS. This AD also prohibits installing a center shaft assembly that is not a serviceable center shaft assembly on any helicopter. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 2, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 2, 2026.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by March 2, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the
George Weir, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-4045; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jacob Fitch, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued AD 2025-23-52, Amendment 39-23195 (90 FR 52555, November 21, 2025) (AD 2025-23-52), for Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters. AD 2025-23-52 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued Emergency AD 2025-0249-E, dated November 7, 2025, (EASA Emergency AD 2025-0249-E) to correct an unsafe condition identified as cracking on the center shaft assembly. EASA Emergency AD 2025-249-E states that fatigue testing revealed the service life limit of the center shaft assembly needs to be corrected because a crack could initiate on the center shaft assembly, P/N 350A34021401 (Manufacturer P/N 350A34-0214-01), in the riveted area and propagate until failure. AD 2025-23-52 required replacing the center shaft assembly with a serviceable center shaft assembly (either a shaft with another P/N or the same P/N with lower hours TIS) and also prohibited installing a center shaft assembly that is not a serviceable center shaft assembly on any helicopter. The FAA issued AD 2025-23-52 to address cracking on a center shaft assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the tail rotor drive shaft with consequent loss of control of a helicopter.
Since the FAA issued AD 2025-23-52, EASA superseded Emergency AD 2025-0249-E and issued EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E, dated November 25, 2025 (EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI retains the new service life limit from EASA Emergency AD 2025-249-E and additionally provides repetitive inspections to supersede the replacement instructions for certain center shaft assemblies.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E, which specifies procedures for repetitively inspecting the center shaft assembly and replacing the center shaft assembly if it fails the inspection or exceeds a certain TIS with a serviceable center shaft assembly (either a shaft with another P/N or the same P/N with lower hours TIS). EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E also prohibits installing a center shaft assembly that is not a serviceable center shaft assembly on any helicopter.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This AD retains certain requirements of AD 2025-23-52. This AD also requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E. Material required by EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E for compliance will be available at
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because cracks in the center shaft assembly could already exist and if not immediately addressed could lead to structural failure of the tail rotor drive shaft with consequent loss of control of a helicopter. Additionally, the initial inspection for certain parts is within 10 hours TIS from the effective date of this AD, which is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 304 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 2, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2025-23-52, Amendment 39-23195 (90 FR 52555, November 21, 2025) (AD 2025-23-52).
This AD applies to all Airbus Helicopters Model EC130B4 and EC130T2 helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6510, Tail Rotor Drive.
This AD was prompted by a determination that the service life limit of the center shaft assembly needs to be corrected because a crack could initiate on the center shaft assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking on a center shaft assembly. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of the tail rotor drive shaft with consequent loss of control of a helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency
(1) Where EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E refers to November 11, 2025 (the effective date of EASA Emergency AD 2025-0249-E), this AD requires using December 8, 2025 (the effective date of AD 2025-23-52).
(3) Where EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E requires compliance in terms of flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(4) Where the material referenced in EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E specifies to make photos, this AD does not require that action.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E.
Although the material referenced in EASA Emergency AD 2025-0262-E specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer and to return the parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not require those actions.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact George Weir Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-4045; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD 2025-0262-E, dated November 25, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 20, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of February 20, 2026.
• For Bombardier material identified in this AD, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-2999; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
John Massey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential structural, control system, and navigational system failures. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received comments from an anonymous commenter and
Bombardier recommended that the FAA change Bombardier's website address in the proposed AD to
The FAA partially agrees and has instead changed the website address to “
Bombardier requested that the FAA revise the unsafe condition of the proposed AD to state the FAA is proposing this AD to address any potential unsafe condition that could arise from non-compliance with the new or more restrictive limitations. Bombardier did not provide justification for the suggested change.
The FAA disagrees. The FAA must provide operators with notice of any potential unsafe condition and the end-level effect of the unsafe condition. In ADs for airworthiness limitations, the unsafe condition typically includes a summary of the affected systems or parts addressed by the airworthiness limitations. In the case of this AD, the new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations required by this AD address structural, control system, and navigational system failures. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
Bombardier requested that the FAA revise paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of the proposed AD to allow later revisions of the service information to be used for compliance.
The FAA agrees to revise paragraph (g) of this AD to clarify that using a later revision of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” Bombardier Challenger 300 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC), Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, Revision 24, dated August 9, 2023; and Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” Bombardier Challenger 350 TLMC, Publication No. CH 350 TLMC, Revision 14, dated August 9, 2023; as applicable, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided that the information in the later revision is identical to that contained in Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the applicable TLMC manual. As long as the information in the later revision of the applicable TLMC manual is identical, an operator can show compliance with those airworthiness limitations without having to request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
Bombardier stated that it considers Bombardier Challenger 300 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC), Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, and Bombardier Challenger 350 TLMC, Publication No. CH 350 TLMC, and all associated temporary revisions to both TLMCs, to be confidential business information (CBI) or proprietary information (PROPIN).
The FAA infers that Bombardier requests the FAA refrain from publishing in the AD docket the service information that is required for compliance with this AD. The FAA disagrees. The FAA clarifies that the CBI section of the NPRM applies only to information submitted by a commenter as part of their comment, and not to documents required for compliance. Under 44 U.S.C. 3101 and 3105, the FAA is required to create and preserve records and establish safeguards against removal or loss of records. These statutes apply to the FAA's AD rulemaking activities. Accordingly, the AD docket in
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed the following Bombardier documents:
• Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 300 TLMC, Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, Revision 24, dated August 9, 2023.
• Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 350 TLMC, Publication No. CH 350 TLMC, Revision 14, dated August 9, 2023.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 782 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 20, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential structural, control system, and navigational system failures. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the applicable time limits/maintenance checks (TLMC) manual identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD. The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the applicable TLMC manual identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD is at the time specified in the applicable TLMC manual, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Using a later revision of Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the applicable TLMC manual with information identical to the material listed in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, as applicable, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
(1) For Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 20003 through 20457 inclusive: Bombardier Challenger 300 TLMC, Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, Revision 24, dated August 9, 2023.
(2) For Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes having S/Ns 20501 through 21399 inclusive: Bombardier Challenger 350 TLMC, Publication No. CH 350 TLMC, Revision 14, dated August 9, 2023.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact John Massey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 300 Time Limits/Maintenance Check (TLMC), Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, Revision 24, dated August 9, 2023.
(ii) Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 350 TLMC, Publication No. CH 350 TLMC, Revision 14, dated August 9, 2023.
(3) For Bombardier material identified in this AD, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514 855 2999; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 787-9 and 787-10 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of multiple supplier notices of escapement (NOEs) indicating that ram air turbine (RAT) forward fittings were possibly manufactured with an incorrect titanium alloy material. This AD requires a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) or handheld X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer inspection of the RAT forward fitting to determine the titanium alloy material and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective February 20, 2026.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 20, 2026.
• For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 787-9 and 787-10 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the
The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Boeing, United Airlines, and an individual who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA received an additional comment from American Airlines (American). The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
American requested the FAA revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to state that either an XRF or HFEC is acceptable for compliance with the proposed AD. The commenter expressed concern that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD specifies doing all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530090-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 24, 2025, but the inspection instructions in the requirements bulletin do not clearly state that doing an HFEC inspection to determine the type of titanium alloy material negates the need for an XRF inspection (for example, see task 1, table 1, More Data notes 1 and 2). The commenter stated it cannot accomplish the XRF inspection because the equipment is unavailable.
The FAA disagrees with the request. Table 1 (“Ram Air Turbine (RAT) forward fitting at Station (STA) 1329—Inspection and Replacement) of the Accomplishment Instructions of the requirements bulletin, specifies to do an HFEC or handheld XRF spectrometer inspection of RAT forward fitting to determine titanium alloy material. In addition, More Data note 2 of the Method of Compliance task table 1 states to do, as an option, an HFEC inspection of the RAT forward fitting to determine the material in accordance with the 787 NDT Manual Part 6, 51-00-13. More Date note 2 denotes that the HFEC inspection is an alternative to the XRF spectrometer inspection specified in More Data note 1. Therefore, operators may accomplish either an HFEC or XRF spectrometer inspection to comply with the AD requirement to determine the type of titanium alloy material. No change has been made to this AD in this regard.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530090-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 24, 2025. This material specifies procedures for an HFEC or handheld XRF spectrometer inspection of the RAT forward fitting to determine the titanium alloy material and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include an open hole HFEC for cracking of all fastener hole locations common to titanium parts of the interfacing structure of each affected RAT forward fitting, replacing any RAT forward fitting that was not manufactured with the correct titanium alloy material, and repair.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 9 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary inspections or replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these inspections or replacements:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this AD.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective February 20, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-9 and 787-10 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530090-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 24, 2025.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by reports of multiple supplier notices of escapement (NOEs) indicating that ram air turbine (RAT) forward fittings were possibly manufactured with an incorrect titanium alloy material. The FAA is issuing this AD to address RAT forward fittings that were possibly manufactured with the incorrect titanium alloy material. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of backup hydraulic and/or electrical power as well as the RAT module departing from the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530090-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 24, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-
(1) Where the Compliance Time column of the table in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530090-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 24, 2025, refers to the Issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530090-00 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530090-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 24, 2025, specifies contacting Boeing for repair and installation instructions: This AD requires doing the repair and installation using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Hodgin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3962; email:
(2) Material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the address specified in paragraph (k)(3) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB530090-00 RB, Issue 001, dated February 24, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For the Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
By this rule, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (“NOAA”) is eliminating a part of the Code of Federal Regulations that consists solely of a single provision cross-referencing another part of the Code. This action is necessary to streamline and simplify NOAA's regulations. The intended effect of this action is to reduce administrative clutter without altering any substantive rights or obligations.
The rule is effective January 16, 2026.
Daniel Sweeney, Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 482-1395.
This rule affects 15 CFR part 903, which pertains to public access to NOAA's records under various statutes, including the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552. The sole regulation within 15 CFR part 903 is § 903.1. It states that the applicable rules and procedures are found at 15 CFR part 4, which contains the regulations governing disclosure of government information for the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) at large.
Historically, 15 CFR part 903 contained NOAA's own agency-specific regulations for implementing FOIA. However, those agency-specific regulations were rendered obsolete when they were superseded by the comprehensive, Department-wide FOIA regulations located at 15 CFR part 4. In a final rule published on August 11, 1992 (57 FR 35749), NOAA revised 15 CFR part 903 to reflect this supersession and consolidation. Specifically, the 1992 amendment removed all of the superseded procedural text from 15 CFR part 903 and replaced it with a single section directing readers to the comprehensive disclosure regulations at 15 CFR part 4. Thus, as a result of the 1992 amendment, the sole regulation within 15 CFR part 903 is simply an administrative cross-reference to 15 CFR part 4.
By this rule, NOAA is eliminating § 903.1 and therefore 15 CFR part 903 in its entirety. As discussed above, § 903.1 is simply an administrative cross-reference to the comprehensive disclosure regulations at 15 CFR part 4. While this cross-reference may have been somewhat useful when the comprehensive disclosure regulations were newly promulgated, it no longer serves any meaningful, independent function. The Department-wide regulations at 15 CFR part 4 are easy enough to locate and fully satisfy NOAA's obligation to implement FOIA.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only removes an entirely unnecessary cross-reference to other applicable regulations; public participation could not justify the continued maintenance of 15 CFR part 903. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The language being removed by this rule serves no meaningful, independent purpose and effectively amounts to regulatory clutter; its removal will immediately benefit the public at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).
The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Archives and records, Freedom of information.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects the preamble to a final rule published in the
Effective January 16, 2026.
Carol Afflerbach, Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408, telephone: 301-743-8595; email:
Zachary R. Goldstein, Project Manager, Division of Mechanical Engineering, Directorate for Laboratory Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 20850; telephone: 301-987-2472; email:
In final rule FR Doc. 2025-22827, beginning on page 58096 in the issue of December 15, 2025, make the following corrections in the
1. Remove the following text:
“Before the effective date of this rule, you can view a copy of the standards at:
•
•
•
•
•
Once the rule becomes effective.”
2. Remove the link “
3. Revise “
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final rule; technical amendment.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is adopting a technical amendment to correct an outdated cross-reference in its rules delegating authority to the Commission's staff to grant certain exemptions.
The amendment is effective January 16, 2026.
Jennifer Dodd, Special Counsel, or Alba Baze, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Market Supervision, at (202) 551-5500, Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Pursuant to 17 CFR 200.30-3, the Commission has delegated certain functions to the Director of the Division of Trading and Markets (“Director”) to be performed by the Director or under the Director's direction by such person or persons as may be designated from time to time by the Chairman of the Commission, including the authority to grant and deny exemptions from Rule 612. The Commission is amending 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(83) to correct an outdated cross-reference to the subsection of Rule 612 that authorizes the Commission to grant exemptions from Rule 612. Currently, 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(83) states that the Commission delegates to the Director the ability to “grant or deny exemptions from Rule 612 (17 CFR 242.612), pursuant to Rule 612(c) (17 CFR 242.612(c)).” On September 18, 2024, the Commission adopted Regulation NMS: Minimum Pricing Increments, Access Fees and Transparency of Better Priced Orders
We are adopting this technical amendment under the authority set forth in sections 4A and 23(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Authority delegations (Government agencies).
For reasons set forth in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
15 U.S.C. 77z-3, 78d-1, 78d-2, 78w, and 78mm, unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(83) To grant or deny exemptions from Rule 612 (17 CFR 242.612), pursuant to Rule 612(d) (17 CFR 242.612(d)).
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Final rule.
By this rule, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) amend its regulations governing the use of supplies in emergency relief work by removing an outdated and obsolete one-time reporting requirement. This action is necessary to streamline the Department's regulations and to remove a provision that no longer serves any practical purpose and that poses a risk of distraction and confusion. The intended effect of this action is to minimize regulatory complexity and clutter, and to preserve the relevancy and accuracy of the Department's regulations.
The rule is effective January 16, 2026.
Daniel Sweeney, Senior Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, at (202) 482-1395.
The Department is amending its regulations at 19 CFR part 358, which pertain to the use of supplies in emergency relief work. Specifically, the Department is amending Part 358 by removing § 358.104, a provision that established a one-time reporting requirement that is now obsolete. The Department is taking this action to reduce regulatory complexity, to eliminate clutter from the Code of Federal Regulations, and to ensure that the Department's regulations are relevant and accurate.
The regulations at 19 CFR part 358 establish the procedures through which the Secretary of Commerce may permit the temporary importation of certain supplies free of antidumping and countervailing duties during a Presidentially-declared emergency. The Department established these regulations in a final rule on October 30, 2006 (71 FR 63234). That rule implemented the authority granted to the Secretary of Commerce under section 318(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1318(a)), which allows for the duty-free importation of supplies for emergency relief work. This authority was originally vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, but it was delegated to the Secretary of Commerce with respect to antidumping and countervailing duties in 1979. The 2006 final rule was promulgated to create a clear and defined process for the Department to exercise this authority, thereby facilitating access to critical resources, such as food, clothing, medical supplies, and other necessary goods, in the event of a declared emergency.
As part of the original rulemaking, the Department promulgated 19 CFR 358.104, titled “Report.” That section required the Secretary to review the first five years of the operation of part 358 and issue a report on its findings. The purpose of this one-time report was to consider and document the impact that determinations permitting the duty-free importation of emergency supplies had on U.S. parties that had previously been found to be injured by dumped and/or subsidized imports. The Department included this provision because it had no prior experience with this waiver mechanism and sought to monitor its application for any potential
After a review of 19 CFR part 358, the Department has determined that § 358.104 is appropriate for removal for the reasons discussed below.
The Department is amending its regulations at 19 CFR part 358 to remove § 358.104. As previewed, § 358.104 established a one-time reporting requirement related to the first five years of the operation of part 358, which began in 2006. That five-year span has now long since passed (and the one-time reporting requirement was satisfied), rendering § 358.104 obsolete. Section 358.104 no longer serves any practical purpose. Accordingly, the Department has determined that § 358.104 is appropriate for removal. Removing § 358.104 represents a common-sense measure to clean up the Department's regulations, eliminate outdated language and other clutter, and minimize the risk of confusion.
For the sake of completeness, the Department also notes that the precise reporting requirement established by § 358.104 was not specifically mandated or authorized by the cited statutory authority. While 19 U.S.C. 1318(a) directs the Secretary to report to Congress on actions taken under that section, it does not require the promulgation of a regulation detailing a five-year review cycle or the specific impact assessments outlined in 15 CFR 358.104. The Department will continue to fulfill its statutory reporting obligations as required by law, and the elimination of § 358.104 does not alter the Department's statutory duties—it simply removes an unnecessary and expired procedural layer from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only removes a plainly outdated and obsolete one-time reporting requirement; public participation could not change the obsolete nature of § 358.104 or otherwise justify its continued inclusion in 19 CFR part 358. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The language being removed by this rule contributes to regulatory complexity and poses a risk of confusion, and its removal will immediately benefit the public at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).
The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.
Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Administrative practice and procedure, Antidumping, Countervailing duties, Disaster assistance, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 358 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
19 U.S.C. 1318(a).
Department of State.
Final rule.
This rule provides an additional change in the address for service of process for summonses, complaints, or other legal documents directed to the Department of State or to any Department employee or former employee in connection with Federal or State litigation.
This rule is effective January 16, 2026.
Alice Kottmyer, Attorney Adviser, Office of Management,
For background and Regulatory Analyses, please see the final rule at 91 FR 1245 on January 13, 2026. This rule provides a further modification to § 172.3.
Administrative practice and procedure, Courts, Government employees.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of State amends part 172 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1202(f); 22 U.S.C. 2651a, 2664, 3926.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final rule; correction.
This document contains corrections to TD 10040, which was published in the
The corrections are effective January 16, 2026. For the applicability dates of the final regulations
Jonathan A. Dunlap at (202) 317-4718 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations (TD 10040) that are the subject of these corrections are under sections 139E, 7872, and 7805(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Accordingly, FR Doc. 2025-22873 (TD 10040), appearing on page 58378 in the
1. On page 58378, in the first column, in the
2. On page 58394, in the second column, in the second full paragraph, the twelfth line up from the bottom of the paragraph is corrected to read “training and education for internal”.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of expired temporary rules issued.
This document provides notification of substantive rules issued by the Coast Guard that were made temporarily effective but expired before they could be published in the
This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became effective, primarily between July 2023 and September 2023, unless otherwise indicated, and were terminated before they could be published in the
Temporary rules listed in this document may be viewed online, under their respective docket numbers, at
For questions on this document contact Ambar Ali, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, email
Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in motion. Security zones limit access to prevent injury or damage to vessels, ports, or waterfront facilities. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events.
Timely publication of these rules in the
The following unpublished rules were placed in effect temporarily during the period between July 2023 and September 2023 unless otherwise indicated. To view copies of these rules, visit
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of two vessels carrying cargo requiring an elevated level of security in the Corpus Christi and La Quinta Shipping Channels. The security zone is needed to protect the vessels, their cargo, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, or events of a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi.
This rule is effective without actual notice from January 16, 2026 through January 22, 2026. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 13, 2026, until January 16, 2026.
To view available documents, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Tim Cardenas, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-244-4784, email
The Coast Guard received notification that the M/V COBIA LNG and M/V ORION SUN will be transiting the Corpus Christi and La Quinta Ship Channels sometime between January 13 and 22, 2026. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Corpus Christi has determined that these vessels are carrying dangerous cargo that creates a security concern for the vessels and the port. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124, which is needed to protect the vessels, their cargo, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage, and other subversive acts, accidents, or events of a similar nature in the navigable waters within the security 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 was notified of this event on January 8, 2026, but we must establish this security zone by January 13, 2026, to protect the vessels, their cargo, and the surrounding waterways. Therefore, we have 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 security zone from January 13, 2026, to January 22, 2026. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the vessels. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security 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
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is a security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 1-800-874-2143. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission revises its rules to restrict the Postal Service from increasing rates above the
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On April 5, 2024, the Commission issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comments on the Commission's review of the system for regulating rates and classes for Market Dominant products (ratemaking system).
On June 9, 2025, the Commission announced its consideration of and sought public comment on two proposed revisions to the ratemaking system for Phase 2(a) of this proceeding.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 503 and 3622, the Commission adopts the rules proposed in Order No. 8893 with minor alterations as discussed below. Both revisions are necessary to address areas that frustrate the ability of the ratemaking system to achieve the statutory objectives found in 39 U.S.C. 3622. Balancing the statutory objectives and considering the statutory factors has required the Commission to consider the necessary tradeoffs in designing the system. The Commission adopts both revisions in Phase 2(a) because they are comparatively simpler needed changes to the system and important first steps aimed at achieving relevant statutory objectives in conjunction with each other.
First, the Commission will restrict the Postal Service from adjusting rates of general applicability for Market Dominant products more than once per fiscal year, unless such rate adjustment filings only include rate decreases or are
Second, the Commission corrects a regulatory gap to ensure that workshare discounts remain as close to avoided costs as possible. The Commission adjusts the existing rule governing application for waiver to allow the Postal Service to seek waiver of the new workshare discount rule under limited circumstances. As amended, the final rule balances the statutory objectives by advancing the goals of Objectives 1, 2, and 5, while continuing to allow pricing flexibility under Objective 4. The benefits of adopting this rule change outweigh the minimal limitations on the Postal Service's pricing flexibility—especially considering the expansion of the waiver process. Consideration of Factors 5, 7, 12, and 14 also supports adopting this rule change.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fees, Postal Service.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission amends 39 CFR part 3030 as follows:
39 U.S.C. 503; 3622.
(a) Except as described in paragraph (b) of this section, effective March 1, 2026, through September 30, 2030, the Postal Service may not adjust rates of general applicability for Market Dominant products using the rate authorities provided under subparts C through H of this part more than one time each fiscal year.
(b) Rate adjustment filings that only include rate decreases calculated pursuant to § 3030.244 or are de minimis rate increases compliant with § 3030.129 are not subject to paragraph (a) of this section.
(d) No proposal to adjust a rate associated with a workshare discount may increase the absolute value of the difference between the workshare discount and the cost avoided by the Postal Service for not providing the applicable service, unless it is set in accordance with a Commission order issued pursuant to § 3030.286.
(a) In every instance in which the Postal Service determines to adjust a rate associated with a workshare discount in a manner that does not comply with the limitations imposed by §§ 3030.282(d) and 3030.283 through 3030.284, the Postal Service shall file an application for waiver. The Postal Service must file any application for waiver at least 60 days prior to filing the proposal to adjust a rate associated with the applicable workshare discount. In its application for waiver, the Postal Service shall indicate the approximate filing date for its next rate adjustment filing.
(b) The application for waiver shall be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and demonstrate that a waiver from the limitations imposed by §§ 3030.282(d) and 3030.283 through 3030.284 should be granted. Preponderance of the evidence means proof by information that, compared with that opposing it, leads to the conclusion that the fact at issue is more probably true than not.
By the Commission. Commissioner Ann C. Fisher dissenting.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document amends the Table of FM Allotments, of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) rules, by removing certain vacant FM allotment channels that were auctioned through our FM competitive bidding process and are no longer considered vacant FM allotments. The FM allotments are currently authorized licensed stations. FM assignments for authorized stations and reserved facilities will be reflected solely in Media Bureau's Licensing Management System (LMS). These FM allotment channels have previously undergone notice and comment rule making. This action constitutes an editorial change in the Table of FM Allotments. Therefore, we find for good cause that further notice and comment are unnecessary.
Effective January 16, 2026.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2054,
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS closes the General category fishery for Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) for the remainder of the January through March time period. The General category may only retain, possess, or land large medium and giant (
Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, January 14, 2026, through March 31, 2026.
Aiman Raza,
Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (HMS FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a closure action with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. Retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited on or after the effective date and time of a closure action for that category until the opening of the relevant subsequent quota period or until such date as specified.
As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 metric tons (mt) (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area per § 635.27(a)(3)). The General category baseline quota is 710.7 mt. The General category baseline quota is suballocated to different time periods. Relevant to this action, the baseline subquota for the January through March time period is 37.7 mt. On January 8, 2026, NMFS adjusted the January through March subquota to be 63.7 mt (91 FR 1094, January 12, 2026).
Separate from this action, NMFS is working on a rulemaking that would implement the 2025 ICCAT recommendation (Recommendation 25-
To date, reported landings for the BFT General category January through March time period total 64.6 mt. Based on these landings data, including average daily catch rates, as well as anticipated favorable fishing conditions in the coming days, NMFS has determined that the adjusted January through March time period subquota of 63.7 mt has been reached and exceeded. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant (
The BFT General category will automatically reopen June 1, 2026, for the June through August 2026 time period. At that time, unless otherwise adjusted, the retention limit will be three large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip. On July 1, 2026, unless otherwise adjusted, restricted-fishing days will go into effect and the retention limit on open days will decrease to one large medium or giant BFT per vessel per day/trip through August 31. This action applies to Atlantic Tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1).
During the closure, fishermen aboard General category permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels may tag and release BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs described at § 635.26(a). All BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize their survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at
NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Per § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A), dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General and HMS Charter/Headboat category vessel owners are required per § 635.5(a)(4) to report their own catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing
After the fishery reopens on June 1, depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT at that time, and after consideration of all the criteria specified at § 635.27(a)(7), NMFS may determine that additional adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas. If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635, and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing for prior notice and an opportunity to comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and, based on the most recent landings information, the available time period subquota has been reached and exceeded. Delaying this action could result in BFT landings that further exceed the adjusted January through March time period subquota, which may result in future potential quota reductions for other BFT categories, depending on the magnitude of a potential overharvest. Taking this action does not raise conservation and management concerns and would support effective management of the BFT fishery. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota, the inseason adjustment, and closure criteria.
For all of the above reasons, the AA also finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.
16 U.S.C. 971
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; correction.
The FAA is correcting a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that was published in the
The last date for submitting comments on the NPRM (91 FR 931, January 9, 2026) remains February 23, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Boeing material identified in this proposed AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
Raymond Vital, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3521; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Raymond Vital, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3521; email:
The FAA issued an NPRM (91 FR 931, January 9, 2026) that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes.
The NPRM proposed to require measuring the freeplay of the horizontal stabilizer pivot hinges and the jackscrew, and applicable on-condition actions. The NPRM was prompted by reports from multiple operators of pitch oscillations events due to excessive horizontal stabilizer freeplay. The FAA is proposing this AD to address excessive horizontal stabilizer freeplay. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to a flutter event, which can result in loss of control of the airplane.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-55A1104 RB, dated June 12, 2025. This material specifies procedures for measuring freeplay of the left and right horizontal stabilizer pivot hinges and the jackscrew to determine freeplay value, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include determining total horizontal stabilizer freeplay, repeating the freeplay measurement procedure of the horizontal stabilizer pivot hinges and the jackscrew, and
As published, the docket number referenced throughout the NPRM is incorrect. The NPRM incorrectly references “Docket No. FAA-2025-0540.” The correct docket number is “Docket No. FAA-2025-5403.”
Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information has been corrected, for clarity the FAA is publishing the entire proposed rule in the
The comment due date of the NPRM remains February 23, 2026.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by February 23, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-55A1104 RB, dated June 12, 2025.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.
This AD was prompted by reports from multiple operators of pitch oscillations events due to excessive horizontal stabilizer freeplay. The FAA is issuing this AD to address excessive horizontal stabilizer freeplay. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to a flutter event, which can result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-55A1104 RB, dated June 12, 2025, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-55A1104 RB, dated June 12, 2025.
Where the “Effectivity” paragraph and the Boeing Recommended Compliance Time columns of the tables in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-55A1104 RB, dated June 12, 2025, refer to the original issue date of the Requirements Bulletin 737-55A1104 RB, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Raymond Vital, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3521; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-55A1104 RB, dated June 12, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing material identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
We, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), are announcing receipt of a proposed rule amendment to the Wyoming regulatory program (Wyoming program) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA or the Act). Between 2017 and 2021, the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council (EQC) approved several changes to the Wyoming Department of
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., M.T., February 17, 2026. If requested, we may hold a public hearing or meeting on the amendment on February 10, 2026. We will accept requests to speak at a hearing until 4:00 p.m., M.T., on February 2, 2026.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule amendment, identified as State Amendment Tracking System (SATS) No. WY-054-FOR, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
In addition, you may review a copy of the amendment during regular business hours at the following location:
Jeffrey Fleischman, Field Office Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 100 East B Street, Casper, Wyoming 82602. Telephone: (307) 261-6550.
Email:
Section 503(a) of the Act permits a State to assume primacy for the regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands within its borders by demonstrating that its approved State program includes, among other things, State laws and regulations that govern surface coal mining and reclamation operations in accordance with the Act and consistent with the Federal regulations.
On the basis of these criteria, the Secretary of the Interior conditionally approved the Wyoming program on November 26, 1980. You can find background information on the Wyoming program, including the Secretary's findings, the disposition of comments, and conditions of approval of the Wyoming program in the November 26, 1980,
By letter sent December 17, 2024 (Admin Record No. WY-054-01), Wyoming sent us a proposed amendment to its State program under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Wyoming submitted this amendment after the EQC updated the WYDEQ Rules of Practice and Procedure during three separate rulemaking hearings, occurring between 2017 and 2021. Wyoming states in its submission that rules that contain specific references to Public Law 95-87 (SMCRA) or the WYDEQ, Land Quality Division (LQD) coal rules were not revised in order to maintain consistency with the LQD's approved coal program.
In 2017, EQC revised the WYDEQ Rules of Practice and Procedure, Chapter 1—General Rules, Chapter 2—Contested Case Hearings, Chapter 3—Rulemaking, Chapter 5—Petitions for Award of Costs and Expenses, and Chapter 7—Very Rare or Uncommon Areas. Additionally, Chapter 4—Rehearing was repealed and Chapter 6—Review by the Director, was repealed and renamed Chapter 9—Director Review of Actions Involving Surface Coal Mining Operations and All Hearings Before the Department. The rule changes were made in response to a legislative change that directed the Wyoming Office of Administrative Hearings to promulgate uniform contested case rules for use by all Wyoming State agencies to the extent those rules do not conflict with applicable Federal law.
In 2018, the EQC revised WYDEQ Rules of Practice and Procedure, Chapter 1—General Rules, in response to a legislative change that required uniform rules for all Wyoming State agencies in assessing fees to produce public records. Chapter 1 was revised to adopt the uniform rules in a new section 11 to include the rule and effective date that is incorporated by reference.
In 2021, a rulemaking revised WYDEQ Rules of Practice and Procedure, Chapter 3—Rulemaking, in response to the 2019 Wyoming House Enrolled Act (HB0033) which clarified the role of WYDEQ's Advisory Boards, developed a process by which the Director may bring matters before the EQC, and amended the scope of the EQC's authority. Chapter 3 of the WYDEQ Rules of Practice and Procedure was revised to provide consistency with these statutory changes.
The full text of the program amendment is available for you to read at the locations listed above under
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we are seeking your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Wyoming State program.
If you submit written or electronic comments on the proposed rule amendment during the 30-day comment period, they should be specific, confined to issues pertinent to the proposed regulations, and explain the reason for any recommended change(s). We appreciate any and all relevant comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions on the final regulations will be those that either
We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see
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.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed under
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible, that each person who speaks at the public hearing provide us with a written copy of his or her comments. The public hearing will continue on the specified date until everyone scheduled to speak has been given an opportunity to be heard. If you are in the audience and have not been scheduled to speak and wish to do so, you will be allowed to speak after those who have been scheduled. We will end the hearing after everyone scheduled to speak and others present in the audience who wish to speak, have been heard.
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. Pursuant to OMB guidance, dated October 12, 1993, the approval of State program amendments is exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
When a State submits a program amendment to OSMRE for review, our regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require us to publish a notice in the
We conclude our review of the proposed amendment after the close of the public comment period and determine whether the amendment should be approved, approved in part, or not approved. At that time, we will also make the determinations and certifications required by the various laws and Executive orders governing the rulemaking process and include them in the final rule.
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of procedural order.
The Commission sets a deadline for interested persons to request, by petition in the instant proceedings, that the Commission consider specific proposals for modifications to the ratemaking system or for an alternative system.
The deadline by petition for modifications to the ratemaking system or for an alternative system: February 17, 2026. The responses to any petition (including the Postal Service Petitions) is due: March 2, 2026.
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission sets a deadline for interested persons, in accordance with 39 CFR 3010.201(b), to request, by petition in the instant proceedings, that the Commission consider specific proposals for modifications to the ratemaking system or for an alternative system. The deadline for such petitions is 30 days after the date of publication of this Order in the
On April 5, 2024, the Commission initiated Docket No. RM2024-4 to review the Ratemaking System to determine whether the ratemaking system is achieving the objectives appearing in 39 U.S.C. 3622(b), taking into account the factors in 39 U.S.C. 3622(c).
On June 9, 2025, the Commission indicated that it would “proceed using a phased approach to consider modifications necessary to achieve the statutory objectives.”
Also on June 9, 2025, the Commission issued Order No. 8893, the first such notice of proposed rulemaking, and initiated Phase 2(a) of the instant proceedings.
On January 13, 2026, the Commission finalized the rules proposed in Order No. 8893.
Petitions under 39 CFR 3010.201(b)(1) for modifications of the ratemaking system, or for adoption of an alternative system, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3622(d)(3) in the instant proceedings are due no later than 30 days from the date of publication of this Order in the
Upon consideration of such petitions, the Commission plans to issue a notice and order establishing one or more new phases of the instant proceedings to address any changes proposed in such petitions that the Commission, in its discretion, decides to pursue and such additional proposals as the Commission may make.
1. This Order, or abstract thereof, shall be published in the
2. The deadline for interested persons, in accordance with 39 CFR 3010.201(b), to request, by petition in the instant proceedings, that the Commission consider specific proposals for modifications to the ratemaking system or for an alternative system is no later than 30 days from the date of publication of this Order in the
3. Responses to any petition (including the Postal Service Petitions) shall be due 44 days from the date of publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
U.S. Codex Office, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S. Codex Office is sponsoring a public meeting on March 3, 2026. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft U.S. position to be discussed at the 56th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). CCFA will be held in Chongqing, China, from April 13-17, 2026. The U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius and the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 56th Session of the CCFA and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for March 3, 2026, from 1:00-3:00 p.m. ET.
The public meeting will take place via video teleconference only. Documents related to the 56th Session of the CCFA will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
Dr. Daniel E. Folmer, U.S. Delegate to the 56th Session of the CCFA, invites interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
For further information about the 56th Session of the CCFA, contact U.S. Delegate, Dr. Daniel Folmer,
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1963. Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) are:
(a) to establish or endorse permitted maximum levels for individual food additives;
(b) to prepare priority lists of food additives for risk assessment by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives;
(c) to assign functional classes to individual food additives;
(d) to recommend specifications of identity and purity for food additives for adoption by the Commission;
(e) to consider methods of analysis for the determination of additives in food; and
(f) to consider and elaborate standards or codes for related subjects such as the labelling of food additives when sold as such.
China hosts the CCFA. The United States attends the CCFA as a member country of Codex.
Although the meeting agenda was not available at the time of publication of this notice, the following items are expected to be on the agenda for the 56th Session of the CCFA and will be discussed during the public meeting:
At the March 3, 2026, public meeting, agenda items and draft U.S. positions will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
Written comments must be submitted on or before March 17, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Amanda Budny, Chief, Direct Transactions and Positions Branch, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Amanda Budny, Chief, Direct Transactions and Positions Branch, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce; via phone at (301) 278-9154; or via email at
The BE-13, Survey of New Foreign Direct Investment in the United States, is a mandatory survey conducted by BEA under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101-3108).
The purpose of the BE-13 survey is to collect data on the acquisition or establishment of U.S. business enterprises by foreign investors and the expansion of existing U.S. affiliates of foreign companies to establish a new facility where business is conducted. The data collected on the survey are used to measure the amount and economic significance of new foreign direct investment in the United States and assess its impact on the U.S. economy. Foreign direct investment in the United States is defined as the ownership or control, directly or indirectly, by one foreign investor of 10 percent or more of the voting securities of an incorporated U.S. business enterprise, or an equivalent interest of an unincorporated U.S. business enterprise, including a branch. The data collected through the survey are used to measure the amount of new foreign direct investment in the United States, assess the impact on the U.S. economy, and ensure complete coverage of BEA's other foreign direct investment statistics.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is not proposing any changes to the BE-13 survey.
Notifications will be mailed to respondents as BEA becomes aware of a potentially reportable investment or when annual cost updates are needed. A business enterprise that meets the reporting requirements of the survey is required to report whether or not it is contacted by BEA. A business enterprise that is contacted by BEA and does not meet the reporting requirements is required to respond to indicate that it does not meet the requirements. The survey is due 45 days after (1) an acquisition is completed, (2) a new U.S. business enterprise is established, (3) an expansion is begun, (4) a cost update is requested by BEA, or (5) a U.S. business enterprise that does not meet the filing requirements for the survey receives a notification letter from BEA.
BEA offers electronic filing through its eFile system (
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department of Commerce/Bureau of Economic Analysis to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on welded large diameter line pipe (welded line pipe) from Japan would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of this AD order.
Applicable December 29, 2025.
Janaé Martin, 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) 482-0238.
On December 6, 2001, Commerce published in the
On December 29, 2025, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the
The merchandise covered by this
• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 18 inches and less than or equal to 22 inches, with a wall thickness measuring 0.750 inch or greater, regardless of grade.
• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 24 inches and less than 30 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.875 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.750 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.688 inches in grades X60 or greater.
• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 30 inches and less than 36 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.000 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 0.875 inches in grades X60 or greater.
• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 36 inches and less than 42 inches, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.375 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.125 inches in grades X60 or greater.
• Having an outside diameter greater than or equal to 42 inches and less than 64 inches, with a wall thickness measuring greater than 1.500 inches in grades A, B, and X42, with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.375 inches in grades X52 through X56, and with wall thickness measuring greater than 1.250 inches in grades X60 or greater.
• Having an outside diameter equal to 48 inches, with a wall thickness measuring 1.0 inch or greater, in grades X-80 or greater.
• In API grades X80 or above, having an outside diameter of 48 inches to and including 52 inches, and with a wall thickness of 0.90 inch or more.
• In API grades XI00 or above, having an outside diameter of 48 inches to and including 52 inches, and with a wall thickness of 0.54 inch or more.
• An API grade X-80 having an outside diameter of 21 inches and wall thickness of 0.625 inch or more.
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
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 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that lattice boom crawler cranes (cranes) from Japan are being, or likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Applicable January 16, 2026.
Dmitry Vladimirov or Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665 or (202) 482-0410, respectively.
This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Commerce published the notice of initiation of this investigation on May 7, 2025.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation,
The products covered by this investigation are cranes from Japan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
Commerce is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying the preliminary determination,
Sections 733(d)(1)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this investigation, Commerce preliminarily calculated a dumping margin of zero percent for Sumitomo Heavy Industries Construction Cranes Co., Ltd. (Sumitomo). Therefore, the
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Consistent with section 733(b)(3) of the Act, Commerce disregards zero or
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Sumitomo is zero or
Should the final estimated weighted-average dumping margin be zero or
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce will analyze and, if appropriate, address any timely allegations of significant ministerial errors by amending the preliminary determination. However, consistent with 19 CFR 351.224(d), Commerce will not consider incomplete allegations that do not address the significance standard under 19 CFR 351.224(g) following the preliminary determination. Instead, Commerce will address such allegations in the final determination together with issues raised in the case briefs or other written comments.
As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. A timeline for the submission of case briefs and written comments will be notified to interested parties at a later date. 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 request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), Commerce requires that a request by exporters for postponement of the final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.
On October 10 and November 20, 2025, respectively, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Sumitomo and Kobelco requested that Commerce postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its preliminary determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation consists of lattice boom crawler cranes, and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies. Lattice boom crawler cranes combine the assemblies defined below, among other components, including a lower carriage assembly fitted with tank-link crawler tracks, an upper carriage housing the operator cab, engine, and hydraulics, and a boom made of steel pipe welded together in a distinctive lattice pattern. The scope of this investigation covers lattice boom crawler cranes and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, and whether or not the lattice boom crawler crane contains any additional features that provide for functions beyond the primary lifting function. All lattice boom crawler cranes are included in the scope regardless of maximum lift capacity, lattice boom length, jib configuration, or other added features.
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following lattice boom crawler crane assemblies which can be imported in isolation or combined in different configurations at the time of import:
• Lattice boom assemblies and pieces thereof. Lattice boom assemblies are formed of interlocking sections of welded high-strength steel pipe, that form the lifting attachment of the crane. A lattice boom is formed by welding main chords together with lacing pipes typically arranged in a “W” or “V” pattern. Lattice boom assemblies consist of a boom butt (also known as a boom bottom or boom base), which attaches to the upper carriage assembly, and a boom head (also known as a boom tip or boom hat), which forms the other end of the boom structure. In between the boom butt and boom head, boom inserts of various lengths can be inserted to reach the desired boom height and load bearing capability. Lattice boom assemblies may be imported with boom butt, boom tip, and boom inserts together, but boom butt, boom tip, and boom inserts imported alone are also covered by the scope.
• Lower carriage assembly. The lower carriage assembly (also may be referred to as a carbody or lower works) is constructed with high-strength steel components and forms the base of the crawler crane. The lower carriage assembly typically includes various motors, drive mechanisms, and hydraulics. The lower carriage assembly may also include a set of counterweights to provide backward stability for the assembled crane. The lower carriage typically has a circular center that is connected to the upper carriage assembly with a bearing. The lower and upper carriage assemblies may or may not be connected by a bearing at the time of importation. Steel arms extend from the center of the lower carriage and connect to the front and rear of the crawler assemblies that are positioned on both sides of the lower carriage assembly. The lower carriage assembly may also contain a hydraulic system that allows for the extension and retraction of the crawler assemblies to create a wider base. A lower carriage assembly may be imported with or without crawler assemblies.
• Crawler assembly. Each lattice boom crawler crane contains at least two crawler assemblies, which are continuous tracks that provide mobility and distribute the crane's weight evenly across the ground. The tracks of a lattice boom crawler crane consist of steel track shoes, which are interlocking steel plates that form the tread of the tracks and make direct contact with the ground, a track chain, which is a continuous loop of interconnected steel links, and a crawler body and track rollers, which support the track shoes and track chain. Typically, drive motors mounted on the lower carriage assembly connect to crawler-mounted drive sprockets, which engage the track chain and allow the LBCC to move forward and backward.
• Upper carriage assembly. The upper carriage assembly, also known as the upper works, typically includes the operator's cab, hydraulic systems, engine, boom hoist, mast, and a turntable base with swing drive mechanism that connects to the lower carriage assembly and allows the upper carriage to pivot on the lower carriage assembly. The upper and lower carriage assemblies may or may not be connected by a bearing at the time of importation. The upper carriage assembly may also include a separate counterweight tray and counterweights, which allow the crane to maintain balance while lifting heavy loads, as well as a gantry, which helps lift the boom and counterweights during installation,
• Hoisting assembly. The hoisting assembly, housed within the upper carriage assembly and lattice boom assembly, powers the lifting and lowering of loads and typically consists of a hoisting line of high strength steel cable, a hoist motor, hoist brakes, hoisting drums, and a hook block formed from steel sheaves, which helps distribute the load on the hoisting line and increases lifting capacity. The main hoisting line typically runs from the hoist drums, housed in the upper carriage assembly, up through the lattice boom (which may or may not house additional hoist drums) and hook block.
• Jib assemblies. Jib assemblies are optional components that can be added to the top end of the boom to provide the crane with greater reach. Similar to lattice boom assemblies, jib assemblies typically consist of interlocking sections of welded steel pipe, arranged in a “V” or “W” lattice pattern. Jib assemblies can consist of either fixed jib, which extends from the main lattice boom at a fixed angle, or a luffing jib, which can be raised or lowered by the operator through a separate set of controls.
Importation of any of these assemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, constitutes unfinished lattice boom crawler cranes for purposes of this investigation. Inclusion of other components not identified as comprising the finished or unfinished lattice boom crawler cranes and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies do not remove the products from the scope.
Processing of lattice boom crawler cranes and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies such as welding, joining, bolting, painting, coating, finishing, or assembly, either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope. Lattice boom crawler cranes and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies subject to this investigation include those that are produced in the subject country whether assembled with other components in the subject country or in a third country. Processing or completion of finished and unfinished lattice boom crawler cranes and the covered lattice boom crawler crane assemblies either in the subject country or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope.
Lattice boom crawler cranes subject to this investigation are typically classifiable under subheadings 8426.49.0010 and 8426.49.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Lattice boom crawler crane assemblies may also be classified under subheadings 8426.49.0010 or 8426.49.0090, or may be classified under subheadings 8431.49.1090, 8431.49.1060, or 8425.19.0000 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Ketchikan Dock Company, LLC (KDC) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to construction work for the Ketchikan Berth IV Expansion Project in Ketchikan, Alaska in the East Tongass Narrows.
This authorization is effective from February 1, 2026 through January 31, 2027.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Kelsey Potlock, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Among the exceptions is section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Specifically, NMFS will issue an IHA if it finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least [practicable] adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definitions of key terms, such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact,” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS' implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
On September 30, 2025, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to the Ketchikan Dock Company, LLC (KDC) for take of marine mammals incidental to the Ketchikan Berth IV Expansion Project in Ketchikan, Alaska in the East Tongass Narrows was published in the
No comments were received during the public comment period. With the exception of the minor changes described below, there are no changes to the specified activity, the species taken,
Upon feedback received by the applicant, NMFS made minor changes to some of the mitigation and monitoring measures that were originally found in the proposed draft IHA. These include removal of a requirement to soft-start during down-the-hole drilling and anchoring, as soft-start is not possible given the continuous nature of the sound source, a removal of the requirement to use pile caps during impact pile driving as the contractor is not planning on using them, and minor adjustments to the locations where Protected Species Observers (PSOs) would be stationed to monitoring for marine mammals, as well as the number of PSOs needed depending on each pile driving scenario. These latter two changes were made to align with the Protected Species Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. None of these changes affect our analysis, findings, determinations, or the effectiveness of the prescribed mitigation and monitoring measures.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
There is one ESA-listed marine mammal species (humpback whale (Mexico DPS)) with confirmed occurrence in the project area. NMFS requested consultation under section 7 of the ESA on September 25, 2025. The NMFS Alaska Regional Office Protected Resources Division issued a Biological Opinion, under section 7 of the ESA, on the issuance of an IHA to KDC under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA by the NMFS Permits and Conservation Division. The Biological Opinion concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Mexico DPS of humpback whales, and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for this species.
Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued an IHA to KDC for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Ketchikan Berth IV Expansion Project in Ketchikan, Alaska in the East Tongass Narrows.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-13, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing and National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Israel has requested to buy two thousand one hundred sixty-six (2,166) GBU-39/B
The U.S. is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.
The proposed sale improves Israel's capability to meet current and future threats, strengthen its homeland defense, and serves as a deterrent to regional threats. Israel already has these weapons in its inventory and will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
This proposed sale will be from both U.S. inventory, as available, and from principal contractors The Boeing Company, located in St. Louis, MO; ATK Tactical Systems Company LLC, located in Rocket Center, WV; L3Harris Fuzing and Ordnance Systems, located in Cincinnati, OH; and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, located in McAlester, OK. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Israel.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. Joint Direct-Attack Munitions (JDAM) consist of a bomb body paired with a warhead-specific tail kit containing an Inertial Navigation System (INS)/Global Positioning System (GPS) (using either Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) and or M-code) guidance capability that converts unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, adverse weather “smart” munitions. The JDAM weapon can be delivered from modest standoff ranges at high or low altitudes against a variety of land and surface targets during the day or night. The JDAM can receive target coordinates via preplanned mission data from the delivery aircraft, by onboard aircraft sensors (
2. The MK 82 GP bomb is a 500-pound, free-fall, unguided, low-drag weapon. It is designed for soft, fragment-sensitive targets and is not intended for hard targets or penetrations. The explosive filling is usually tritonal, though other compositions have sometimes been used.
3. The FMU-139 or FMU-152 Joint Programmable Fuze (JPF) are a multi-delay, multi-arm impact fuze compatible with GP blast, fragmentation, and hardened-target penetrator weapons. The JPF settings are cockpit-selectable in flight when used with numerous precision-guided weapons.
5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
7. A determination has been made that Israel can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Israel.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-09, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Australia has requested to buy fifty-four (54) Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System-Alternate Warhead (GMLRS-AW) rounds. The following non-MDE items will also be included: telemetry kits; engineering services; technical assistance; and other related logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $91.2 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States (U.S.) Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the Western Pacific. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.
The proposed sale will enhance Australia's capability to meet current and future threats by increasing its capability to deter adversaries. The proposed sale will support its goal of improving national and territorial defense, interoperability with U.S. forces, and working to uplift industry as a new source of supply. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Lockheed Martin, located in Grand Prairie, TX, and Lockheed Martin, Australia. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Australia.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The M30A2 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System-Alternate Warhead (GMLRS-AW) is a Convention on Cluster Munitions treaty compliant weapon with a 200-pound fragmentation warhead of pre-formed tungsten penetrators which is optimized for effectiveness against large area and imprecisely located targets. The munition has a Global Positioning System/Precise Positioning System (GPS/PPS) aided inertial guidance and control system, a fuzing mechanism, a multi-option height of burst capability, and an effective range of 15-70 kilometers.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Australia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Australia.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 25-0D.
(i)
(ii)
Date: November 8, 2022
Implementing Agency: Air Force
(iii)
This transmittal notifies the inclusion of the following MDE items: one hundred fifty-nine (159) AIM-120D-3 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM); one (1) AMRAAM D-3 guidance section; and one (1) AIM-120D Integrated Test Vehicle. The following non-MDE items will also be included: weapon system support, including software; and KGV-135A COMSEC chips. The estimated total value of the new items and services is $509 million. The estimated non-MDE value will increase by $30 million to a revised $52 million. The estimated total case value will increase by $509 million to a revised $889 million. MDE constitutes $837 million of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
The AIM-120D-series Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) is a supersonic, air-launched, aerial intercept, guided missile featuring digital technology and micro-miniature, solid-state electronics. AMRAAM capabilities include look-down/shoot-down, multiple launches against multiple targets, resistance to electronic countermeasures, and interception of high- and low-flying and maneuvering targets. The AIM-120D features a quadrangle target detection device and an electronics unit within the guidance section that performs all radar signal processing, mid-course and terminal guidance, flight control, target detection, and warhead detonation.
The KGV-135A is a high-speed, general purpose encryptor/decryptor module used for wideband data encryption.
The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
(vii)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-0R.
(i)
(ii)
Date: November 1, 2017
Implementing Agency: Air Force
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
This transmittal notifies increased value for continued design and construction services and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total non-MDE value will increase by $0.52 billion, resulting in a new non-MDE and overall total case value of $1.62 billion. There is no MDE included in this potential sale.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-104, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: Foreign Military Financing
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Israel has requested to buy three thousand (3,000) AGM-114 Hellfire Air-to-Ground Missiles, to include one or any combination of the R3, F, F/A, K1, K1A, K2, K3, K3A, KA, N, N3, and/or R variants. The following non-MDE items will also be included: support and test equipment; integration and test support; spare and repair parts; software delivery and support; publications and technical documentation; personnel training and training equipment; U.S. Government and contractor engineering; technical and logistics support services; storage; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $660 million.
The U.S. is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.
The proposed sale will improve Israel's capability to meet current and future threats by improving the ability of the Israeli Air Force to defend Israel's borders, vital infrastructure, and population centers. This sale will increase interoperability with U.S. forces and conveys U.S. commitment to Israel's security and armed forces modernization. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be the Lockheed Martin Corporation, located in Troy, AL. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Israel. The only additional U.S. military support required would be Technical Assistance Field Team visits during training phases.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The AGM-114 is an air-to-surface missile. The Hellfire Missile provides precision striking power against light armored targets, thin skinned vehicles, urban structures, bunkers, caves and personnel.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Government of Israel can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Israel.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-124, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has requested to buy two thousand (2,000) Advanced Precision Kill Weapon Systems (APKWS). The following non-MDE items will be included: APKWS spare parts; support equipment; missile software; training; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $100 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a partner country that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf Region.
The proposed sale will improve the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's capability to meet current and future threats and give it the ability to precisely engage targets with much less risk of collateral damage than other guided missile systems. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be BAE Systems, Inc., located in Falls Church, VA. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of up to two additional U.S. Government and up to two contractor representatives annually to Saudi Arabia for a duration of one week for program technical support and management oversight.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The WGU-59/B Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System-II (APKWS-II) All-Up-Round (AUR) (Rotary Wing) and WGU-59A/B APKWS-II AUR (Single Variant) are a design conversion of an unguided Hydra 2.75-inch rocket with a laser guidance kit to provide precision capability. As a low-cost weapon, it is intended as an inexpensive means to destroy targets while limiting collateral damage. The APKWS consists of an APKWS-II Guidance Section (GS) (Single Variant Block Upgrade (SVBU)) developed by BAE Systems, Inc., a legacy 2.75-inch MK66 Mod 4 Rocket Motor, and the MK-151 or MK-152 High Explosive Warhead.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware or software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-127, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Australia has requested to buy MJU-61 decoy flares; MJU-64 decoy flares; MJU-66 flare countermeasures; MJU-76 flare countermeasures; RR-198A/L chaff cartridges; CCU-145/A impulse cartridges; other support equipment (MK-3 pallet); U.S. Government and contractor technical assistance; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $165 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the U. S. Australia is one of our most important allies in the Western Pacific. The strategic location
The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability to meet current and future threats by protecting and increasing aircraft survivability. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractors will be Kilgore Flares Company, LLC, located in Toone, TN; Armtec Countermeasures Company, located in Coachella, CA; Alloy Surface Company, Inc, located in Aston, PA; Chemring Australia PTY LTD, located in Lara, Australia; and CCI Capco LLC, located in Grand Junction, CO. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will require three U.S. Government personnel and one contractor representatives to visit Australia on a temporary basis in conjunction with program technical oversight and support requirements, including program and technical reviews.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. Chaff and flare countermeasure systems are critical defensive technologies designed to protect tactical aircraft from enemy threats. Chaff consists of dispersed metallic or conductive strips that generate false radar reflections, confusing enemy radar systems and reducing the probability of a successful radar-guided missile engagement. Flare systems deploy intense infrared-emitting devices to counteract and mislead missiles and tracking systems, diverting them away from the aircraft. These countermeasures collectively enhance the aircraft's defensive capabilities by impairing enemy targeting systems. For training purposes, pilots use simulated chaff and flare systems to practice the deployment and effectiveness of these defensive measures in combat scenarios.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Australia can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This proposed sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Australia.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-128, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.
The Government of Japan has requested to buy equipment and services in support of its indigenous Hyper Velocity Gliding Projectiles (HVGP) capability, including test preparation, test, and transportation support, including range support; test utility support (water, gas, electricity); range surveillance; range safety including Flight Termination System reviews; radio frequency assignments; test plan generation, test data, and environmental and site approvals; office facilities; administrative services; transport of test equipment; procurement of measuring equipment; coordination meetings in the U.S. and Japan; and other related elements of logistics and program support. The estimated total cost is $200 million.
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a major ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Indo-Pacific region.
The proposed sale will improve Japan's capability to meet current and future threats by providing defense for remote islands. Japan will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
Equipment and services will be provided by the U.S. Government. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Japan.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The upgraded Hyper Velocity Gliding Projectile (HVGP) is an indigenous weapon and standoff missile. The weapon uses a solid-propellant rocket booster, with the projectile separating at a high altitude and then gliding at hypersonic speeds until impact. The upgraded version will increase performance of the original HVGP.
2. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar advanced capabilities.
4. A determination has been made that Japan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. The sale is necessary to advance the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Japan.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-110, Policy Justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
(i)
(ii)
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
* as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act
The Government of Romania has requested to buy four hundred (400) Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-39B Small Diameter Bombs (SDB-I), and two (2) GBU-39 (T-1)/B inert practice bombs with fuze. The following non-MDE items will also be included: GBU-39 tactical training rounds; Common Munitions Built-In-Test (BIT)/Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE); ADU-890E Computer Test Set Adapter Groups; containers, weapons system support, and support and test equipment; training aids, devices, and spare parts; consumables and accessories, and repair and return support; publications and technical data; personnel training and training equipment; warranties; transportation
This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the U.S. by improving the security of a NATO Ally that is an important force for political and economic stability in Europe.
This proposed sale will improve Romania's capability to meet current and future threats by increasing its ability to deter and defend against all threats and to participate in NATO coalition air operations. Romania will have no difficulty absorbing these articles and services into its armed forces.
The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
The principal contractor will be The Boeing Company, located in St. Louis, MO. At this time, the U.S. Government is not aware of any offset agreement proposed in connection with this potential sale. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.
Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Romania.
There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
(vii)
1. The Guided Bomb Unit (GBU)-39 Small Diameter Bomb Increment 1 (SDB-I) All Up Round (AUR) is a 250-pound GPS-aided conventional air-to-ground precision glide weapon with an inertial navigation system and small autonomous, day or night, and adverse weather capabilities able to strike fixed and stationary targets from standoff ranges. It is intended to provide aircraft with an ability to carry a high number of bombs. Aircraft are able to carry four SDBs in place of one 2,000-pound bomb.
2. The GBU-39/B inert practice bombs with fuze are identical to a live tactical weapon except that the live warhead is replaced with an inert fill. These bombs are suited for training missions where a flight termination system or collection of telemetry data is not a necessity.
3. Common Munitions Built-In-Test (BIT)/Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) is support equipment used to interface with weapon systems to initiate and report BIT results, and upload and download flight software. CMBRE supports multiple munitions platforms with a range of applications that perform preflight checks, periodic maintenance checks, loading of Operational Flight Program (OFP) data, loading of munitions mission planning data, loading of Global Positioning System (GPS) cryptographic keys, and declassification of munitions memory.
4. The ADU-891 Adapter Group Test Set provides the physical and electrical interface between the CMBRE and the bomb.
5. The highest level of classification of defense articles, components, and services included in this potential sale is SECRET.
6. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.
7. A determination has been made that Romania can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.
8. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Romania.
Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense (DoD).
Arms sales notice.
The DoD is publishing the unclassified text of an arms sales notification.
Urooj Zahra at (703) 695-6233,
This 36(b) arms sales notification is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives with attached Transmittal 24-0M.
(i)
(ii)
Date: May 12, 2014
Implementing Agency: Navy
Funding Source: National Funds
(iii)
This transmittal notifies an increase in MDE value by $100 million, due to recent cost increases. There are no additional MDE or non-MDE items being reported with this notification. The total case value will increase by $100 million to $270 million. MDE will constitute $226 million of this total.
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Southeast Virginia Energy Storage Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in Sussex County, 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. 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 February 12, 2026. Comments may be submitted in written or oral 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 and oral 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 comments in Docket No. CP26-20-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.
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.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does not subsequently grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of that eminent domain authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
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 four 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 eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP26-20-000) 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.
(4) In lieu of sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping session its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:
The primary goal of these scoping sessions is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the environmental document. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of oral comments in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.
The scoping session is scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST. You may arrive at any time after 5:00 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival. Comments will be taken until 7:00 p.m. However, if no additional numbers have been handed out and all individuals who wish to provide comments have had an opportunity to do so, staff may conclude the session at 6:30 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.
Your oral comments will be recorded by a court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see the last page of this notice for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing oral comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the scoping session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from Columbia will also be present to answer project-specific questions.
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 construct and operate a 1.3 Billion cubic feet liquified natural gas storage (LNG) tank, associated liquefaction and vaporization facilities, approximately 5,398 feet of 12-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline, and other appurtenant facilities in Sussex County, Virgina. The Southeast Virginia Energy Storage Project would provide up to 1,100,000 dekatherms per day of commercial storage capacity to the Commonwealth of Virginia. According to Columbia, its project is designed to meet winter peak-day load requirements, mitigate pricing volatility during high-demand periods, and enhance energy reliability in the region.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 3.
Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 91.0 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and pipeline. Following construction, Columbia would maintain about 33.0 acres of land for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.
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;
• socioeconomics;
• land use;
• air quality and noise; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff have already identified several issues that deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and the environmental information provided by Columbia. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis:
• roadway improvements necessary to access construction work areas;
• traffic effects; and
• public 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.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(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 the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that 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 public utility holding company 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
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. Each filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for comment.
In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 3, of a proposed cost recovery settlement agreement (Settlement) pursuant to CERCLA with Altuglas, LLC (Settling Party) relating to the Trinseo Polymer Release Site (Site), located in Bristol, Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
Written comments must be received on or before February 17, 2026.
Requests for copies of the proposed Settlement and submission of comments must be via electronic mail to
Robert Hasson, Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, CERCLA Branch 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Philadelphia, PA 19103. Email:
The Settling Party will pay to the EPA $22,171.29, the amount of the EPA's initial demand on August 21, 2025, plus additional sums for: (i) interest on that amount calculated from August 21, 2025, through the date of publication of the notice of this Settlement Agreement in the
The EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection by request. Please see the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Brownfields Program—Accomplishment Reporting in Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (EPA ICR Number 2104.10, OMB Control Number 2050-0192) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed revision of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2026. Public comments were previously requested via the
Comments may be submitted on or before February 17, 2026.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OLEM-2024-0477, to EPA online using
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Wireman, Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization, (5105T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-2649; email address:
This is a proposed revisions of the ICR, which is currently approved through March 31, 2026. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Public comments were previously requested via the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice request for nominations.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is inviting nominations for membership on the Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory Committee (FRRCC). The purpose of the FRRCC is to provide policy advice, information, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on a range of environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.
To be considered for the 2025-2027 appointments, nominations should be submitted no later than March 2, 2026.
Submit nominations electronically with the subject line “FRRCC Membership 2025-2027” to
General information regarding the FRRCC can be found on the EPA website at:
Susan Park, Deputy Associate Administrator for Strategic Initiatives, Office of External Affairs, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-2529; email address:
EPA established the FRRCC in 2008 pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, to help EPA build a more positive and proactive relationship with the agricultural industry in furtherance of EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment. The FRRCC serves as part of EPA's efforts to expand cooperative working relationships with the agriculture community and others who are interested in agricultural issues and achieving greater progress in environmental protection. The FRRCC provides advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on environmental issues and programs that impact, or are of concern to, farms, ranches, and rural communities. Topics addressed may include water or air quality issues, pesticides, toxics, food loss and waste, emergency response, enforcement and compliance, technology and innovation, and other topics of environmental importance pertaining to agriculture and rural communities. The charter for the FRRCC was renewed November 12th, 2025. The membership of this committee will include a balanced representation of interested persons with relevant experience to contribute to the functions of the committee, and will be drawn from relevant sectors, including but not limited to academia, agricultural industry, nongovernmental organizations, and state, local, and tribal governments.
The FRRCC will be comprised of no more than 21 members: including one chair, and one vice-chair. Additional members, commonly referred to as “alternates,” are not permitted. Members will serve no more than three, two-year terms; except in the initial implementation where ten members shall serve one three-year term, and eleven members shall serve the standard two-year term. The three-year term will count as one-term towards the two-term limit. The intent of the initial three-year term is to stagger the departure of members and preserve institutional memory. Term limits will commence upon renewal of this charter and will not consider service rendered prior to this charter.
The full committee expects to meet up to two times per calendar year. Meetings will be held in Washington, DC, the EPA Regions, and/or virtually. The Administrator may ask members to serve on subcommittees and workgroups to develop reports and recommendations to address specific policy issues, reflecting the priorities of the administration. The average workload for members is approximately five hours per month. Members serve on the committee in a voluntary capacity. Although we are unable to offer compensation or an honorarium, members may receive travel and per diem allowances, according to applicable Federal travel regulations and the agency's budget.
Because of the nature of the issues to be discussed, it is the intent of the Agency for the majority of Committee members to be actively engaged in farming or ranching. The membership of this committee will include a balanced representation of interested persons with relevant experience to contribute to the functions of the committee and will be drawn from a variety of relevant sectors. Members may represent farmers, ranchers, and rural communities (can include large, small, crop, livestock, commodity, and specialty producers from various regions)—and their allied industries (farm groups, rural suppliers, marketers, processors, etc.) as well as the academic/research community who research environmental issues impacting agriculture, tribal agriculture groups, state, local, and tribal government, and environmental/conservation and other nongovernmental organizations. Individuals are generally appointed to serve on the FRRCC as “Representative” members and are thus expected to represent the points of view of a particular group (
In selecting committee members, EPA will consider each candidate's qualifications including, but not limited to, on whether the candidate is:
In addition, well-qualified applicants must be prepared to process a substantial amount of complex and technical information and the ability to volunteer several hours per month to
Any interested person or organization may submit the names of qualified persons, including themselves. To be considered, all nominations should include the information requested below:
• Name:
• Organization:
• Business address:
• Position/Title:
• Email address:
• Phone number:
• (1) Interest and Availability:
• (2) Identify group(s) whose views you are representing and how. Potential groups include Farmer; Rancher; Academia; Federal/State/Local/Tribal Government; Non-governmental Organization; Agriculture Industry; Other: __.
• (3) Prior experience on Federal Advisory Committee(s), please provide dates of service:
• (4) How did you learn of the FRRCC Membership opportunity:
Attach resume or CV (limit to 5 pages) detailing the nominee's background, experience and qualifications and other relevant information. Submit through
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final decision on a request by Republic Industrial and Energy Solutions, LLC of Romulus, Michigan to reissue its exemption from the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that an exemption to the land disposal restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) has been granted to Republic Industrial and Energy Solutions, LLC (RIES) of Romulus, Michigan for two Class I injection wells located in Romulus, Michigan. As required by Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR), RIES has demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents out of the injection zone or into an underground source of drinking water (USDW) for at least 10,000 years. This final decision allows the continued underground injection by RIES of only those hazardous wastes designated by the codes in Table 1 through its two Class I hazardous waste injection wells identified as #1-12 and #2-12. This decision constitutes a final EPA action for which there is no administrative appeal.
This action is effective as of December 23, 2025.
Kaelyn Quinlan, Lead Petition Reviewer, EPA, Region 5, Water Division, Underground Injection Control Section, WP-16J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590; telephone number: (312) 886-7188; email address:
RIES submitted a request for reissuance of its existing exemption from the land disposal restrictions of hazardous waste on November 20, 2023, as amended on June 16, 2025, June 30, 2025, July 21, 2025, August 25, 2025, and November 5, 2025. EPA reviewed all data pertaining to the petition, including, but not limited to, well construction, well operations, regional and local geology, seismic activity, penetrations of the confining zone, and computational models of the injection zone. EPA has determined that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the nature of the waste streams are such that reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that injected fluids will not migrate out of the injection zone within 10,000 years, as set forth at 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i). The injection zone includes the injection interval into which fluid is directly emplaced and the overlying arrestment interval into which it may diffuse. The injection interval for the RIES facility is composed of the Precambrian wash sediments, Mount Simon Sandstone, Eau Claire Formation, and Franconia-Galesville Formation between 3,937 and 4,537 feet below ground level (bgl). The arrestment interval for the RIES facility is composed of the Trempealeau Formation, Prairie du Chien Group, Glenwood Shale, and lower Black River Formation between 3,356 and 3,924 feet bgl. The confining zone at the RIES facility is composed of the upper Black River Formation, Trenton Limestone, and Utica Shale between 2,351 and 3,356 feet bgl. The confining zone is separated from the lowermost underground source of drinking water (at a depth of 342 feet bgl) by a sequence of permeable and less permeable sedimentary rocks. This sequence provides additional protection from fluid migration into drinking water sources.
EPA issued a draft decision, which described the reasons for granting this exemption in more detail, a fact sheet, which summarized these reasons, and a public notice on October 1, 2025, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.10. The public comment period ended on December 17, 2025. EPA received six comments during the comment period. EPA has prepared a response to the comments, which can be viewed at the following URL:
This exemption is subject to the following conditions. Non-compliance with any of these conditions is grounds for termination of the exemption:
(1) The exemption applies to the two existing hazardous waste injection wells, #1-12 and #2-12, located at the RIES facility at 28470 Citrin Drive, Romulus, Michigan;
(2) The injection zone for wells #1-12 and #2-12 is at depths of 3,369 to 4,537 ft below ground level (3,937 to 4,550 ft relative to kelly bushing; true vertical depths) and is composed of the Precambrian wash sediments, Mount Simon Sandstone, Eau Claire Formation, Franconia-Galesville Formation, Trempealeau Formation, Prairie du
(3) Injection shall only occur into the injection interval composed of the Precambrian wash sediments, Mount Simon Sandstone, Eau Claire Formation, and Franconia-Galesville Formation from 3,924 to 4,537 ft below ground level (3,937 to 4,550 ft relative to kelly bushing; true vertical depths);
(4) The only hazardous waste that can be injected are the hazardous wastes designated by the RCRA waste codes found in Table 1;
(5) The specific gravity of the injected waste must be within the range of 0.9 to 1.1 measured at a temperature of 68 °F;
(6) The combined total injection rate of both wells shall not exceed a monthly average of 130 gpm and a maximum instantaneous rate of 225 gpm;
(7) The total injection volume shall not exceed 68,374,800 gallons annually into wells #1-12 and #2-12;
(8) The injection pressure at the well head of wells #1-12 and #2-12 shall not exceed 968 psig;
(9) Maximum concentrations of chemical contaminants which are hazardous at less than one part in a trillion (1:1,000,000,000,000) shall meet any limits for maximum concentration at the wellhead set in the permits;
(10) RIES must submit copies of the reports on the annual bottom-hole pressure surveys conducted in wells #1-12, and #2-12 to EPA. The annual reports must include a comparison of reservoir parameters determined from the fall-off test, such as permeability, transmissibility, and long-term shut-in pressure, with parameters used in the approved no migration petition;
(11) RIES must annually submit copies of a waste sample report and the reports on the annual radioactive tracer surveys and annulus pressure tests for wells #1-12 and #2-12 to EPA;
(12) RIES shall notify EPA in writing if any injection well loses mechanical integrity and prior to any workover or plugging and shall provide workover or plugging to procedures to EPA prior to commencing the work;
(13) RIES must fully comply with all requirements set forth in Underground Injection Control Permits MI-163-1W-C010 and MI-163-1W-C011 issued by EPA;
(14) Upon the expiration, termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification of the permits referenced above, this exemption is subject to review;
(15) This exemption is granted only while the underlying assumptions presented in the no migration petition submitted by RIES are valid;
(16) Whenever EPA determines under 40 CFR 148.23 or 148.24 that the basis for approval of a petition may no longer be valid, EPA may terminate this exemption. There are also other causes for terminating an exemption at 40 CFR 148.24. Whenever EPA determines that the basis for approval of a petition may no longer be valid, EPA will require a new demonstration in accordance with 40 CFR 148.20 and 148.23(b);
(17) This exemption is only approved for the 20-year modeled injection period, which ends on January 31, 2043. RIES may petition EPA for a reissuance of the exemption beyond that date, provided that a new and complete petition and no-migration demonstration is received at EPA, Region 5, by July 31, 2041.
In addition to the above conditions, this approval of a petition for reissuance of an exemption is contingent on the validity of the information submitted in the RIES petition reissuance request for an exemption to the land disposal restrictions. This final reissuance decision is subject to termination when any of the conditions occur which are listed in 40 CFR 148.24, including noncompliance, misrepresentation of relevant facts, or a determination that new information shows that the basis for approval is no longer valid.
Thursday, January 22, 2026, 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held at the Jacqueline A. Berrien Training Center, 131 M Street NE, Washington, DC 20507. The meeting will also be held as a listen-only audio dial-in by telephone. The public may attend in person or connect to the audio-only dial-in by following the instructions that will be posted on
If you wish to attend the meeting in person, you must email
The meeting will be open to the public.
The following item will be considered at the meeting:
In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the public will be able to observe the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on Commission meetings in the
Please telephone (202) 921-2705, or email
Raymond Windmiller, Executive Officer, (202) 921-2705.
Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.
Notice of request for comments regarding the reinstatement of an OMB clearance.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to reinstate an expired collection of information, previously approved as OMB Control No. 3121-0001, Permitting Notice of Initiation. The Permitting Council publishes this notice and invites the public and Federal agencies to comment on the proposed reinstatement.
Submit comments on or before March 20, 2026.
Submit comments to
Anderson Tran at
The Permitting Council coordinates Federal environmental reviews and authorizations for projects that seek and qualify for FAST-41 coverage. These projects are entitled to comprehensive permitting timetables, and a transparent and collaborative management of those timetables on the Federal Permitting Dashboard in compliance with FAST-41 procedural requirements. 42 U.S.C. 4370m-2(c) & (d). Sponsors of FAST-41 covered projects also benefit from the direct engagement of the Permitting Council Executive Director and the Permitting Council members in timely identification and resolution of permitting issues that affect covered projects' permitting timetables.
The FIN is a collection of information necessary for the administration of FAST-41. Such a collection of information is required to have approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Approval for the FIN was originally provided to the General Services Administration (GSA) in 2018 under OMB control number 3090-0316 and was transferred to the Permitting Council in 2020 and became OMB control number 3121-0001. The approval subsequently expired on January 31, 2021. The Permitting Council seeks to reinstate the approval for the FIN collection of information.
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) staff has released for public comment an exposure draft of a proposed Staff Implementation Guide titled
Responses are requested by March 13, 2026.
The exposure draft is available on the FASAB website at
Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Notice is given that an amended complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the
Complainant is a limited liability company and ocean transportation intermediary organized and operating under the laws of Vietnam with its principal place of business located in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Complainant identifies Respondent as a limited liability company that engages in the business of providing ocean transportation and logistics services, organized and operating under the laws of the state of Virginia with its principal place of business located in Fairfax, Virginia.
Complainant alleges that Respondent violated 46 U.S.C. 40901, 40902, and 41102(a), (b), and (c). Complainant alleges these violations arose from Respondent's operating as a non-vessel-operating common carrier without a license, failure to remit payment to relevant carriers for the shipping of 558 containers contracted by Complainant, repeated misappropriation of funds, and other acts or omission by Respondent.
Per the presiding judge's December 1, 2025 order in this proceeding, an answer to the amended complaint was to be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service of the amended complaint.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at
Notice is given that a complaint has been filed with the Federal Maritime Commission (the “Commission”) by Nancy Prior (the “Complainant”) against AMOOV Group; FreightLead LLC; Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc. (the “Respondents”). Complainant states that the Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U.S.C. 41301(a), and over Respondents FreightLead LLC and Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc. as licensed ocean transportation intermediaries.
Complainant is an individual residing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and is the sole contracting party and owner of the household goods shipment at issue.
Complainant identifies Respondent AMOOV Group with a mailing address in Lille, France.
Complainant identifies Respondent FreightLead LLC as a licensed ocean transportation intermediary with a mailing address in Parsippany, New Jersey.
Complainant identifies Respondent Air 7 Seas Transport Logistics, Inc. as a licensed ocean transportation intermediary with a mailing address in Milpitas, California.
Complainant alleges that Respondents violated 46 U.S.C. 41102(c). Complainant alleges that these violations arose from Respondents' refusal to provide an unredacted master bill of lading, withholding of Complainant's shipment due to a dispute between Respondents, and other acts or omissions by Respondents.
An answer to the complaint must be filed with the Commission within 25 days after the date of service.
The full text of the complaint can be found in the Commission's electronic Reading Room at
Federal Trade Commission.
Annual notice of revision.
The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 required by the 2000 amendment of Section 7A of the Clayton Act; and the revised filing fee schedule for the same Act required by Division GG of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
February 17, 2026.
Nora Whitehead (
This document announces updates to (1) the thresholds for the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as required by the 2000 amendment of Section 7A of the Clayton Act; and (2) the filing fee schedule for the same Act, as required by Division GG of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Both updates are discussed in more detail below.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, Public Law 94-435, 90 Stat. 1390 (“the Act”), requires all persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions, which meet or exceed the jurisdictional thresholds in the Act, to file notification with the Commission and the Assistant Attorney General and to wait a designated period of time before consummating such transactions. Section 7A(a)(2) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product, in accordance with Section 8(a)(5).
The new jurisdictional thresholds, which take effect 30 days after publication in the
Any reference to the jurisdictional thresholds and related thresholds and limitation values in the HSR rules (16 CFR parts 801 through 803) and the Antitrust Improvements Act Notification and Report Form (“the HSR Form”) and its Instructions will also be adjusted, where indicated by the term “(as adjusted)”, as follows:
Section 605 of Public Law 101-162 (15 U.S.C. 18a note) requires the Federal Trade Commission to assess and collect filing fees from persons acquiring voting securities or assets under the Act. The original filing fee thresholds are set forth in Section 605. Division GG of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 117-328, 136 Stat. 4459, requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise these filing fee thresholds and amounts based on the percentage change in the GNP for such fiscal year compared to the GNP for the year ending September 30, 2022 (for the filing fee thresholds) and the percentage increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index, as determined by the Department of Labor or its successor, for the year then ended over the level so established for the year ending September 30, 2022 (for the fee amounts).
Any reference to the fee thresholds and related values in the HSR rules (16 CFR parts 801 through 803) and the HSR Form and its Instructions will also be adjusted, where indicated by the term “(as adjusted)”, as follows:
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Annual notice of revision.
The Federal Trade Commission announces the revised thresholds for interlocking directorates required by the 1990 amendment of Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits, with certain exceptions, one person from serving as a director or officer of two competing corporations if two thresholds are met. Competitor corporations are covered by Section 8 if each one has capital, surplus, and undivided profits aggregating more than $10,000,000, with the exception that no corporation is covered if the competitive sales of either corporation are less than $1,000,000. Section 8(a)(5) requires the Federal Trade Commission to revise those thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product. The new thresholds, which take effect immediately, are $54,402,000 for Section 8(a)(1), and $5,440,200 for Section 8(a)(2)(A).
January 16, 2026.
Aylin Skroejer (202-326-2459), Attorney Advisor, Bureau of Competition.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by February 17, 2026.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Amber Barrett, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Tobacco products are governed by chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (sections 900 through 920) (21 U.S.C. 387 through 21 U.S.C. 387u). Implementing regulations are found in 21 CFR subchapter K (21 CFR parts 1100 through 1150). Section 3 of the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (the Smokeless Tobacco Act) (15 U.S.C. 4402) as amended by section 204 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco Control Act), requires, among other things, that all smokeless tobacco product packages and advertisements bear one of four required warning statements (15 U.S.C. 4402(a)(1)). The warning statements specified in 4402(a)(1) must be randomly displayed on packaging and randomly distributed “in accordance with a plan submitted by the tobacco product manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer” to, and approved by FDA (15 U.S.C. 4402(b)(3)(A)). Those statements must be rotated quarterly in advertisements for each brand of smokeless tobacco product, also “in accordance with a plan” submitted to and approved by FDA (15 U.S.C. 4402(b)(3)(B)).
To implement statutory requirements for smokeless tobacco products, warning plans are reviewed by FDA, upon submission by respondents (21 U.S.C. 4402(b)(3)(C)). FDA published a draft guidance entitled “Submission of Warning Plans for Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco Products” on September 9, 2011, which describes the information and format to be submitted for smokeless plans (
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based on FDA's experience over the years, FDA retains the estimate of 60 hours to complete an original rotational warning plan. FDA estimates that preparing and submitting a supplement to an approved plan will take half this time (30 hours).
Regarding smokeless tobacco warning plans, FDA estimates a total of one respondent will submit a new original smokeless tobacco warning plan per year, which will take approximately 60 hours to complete, for a total of 60 burden hours. Additionally, FDA estimates a total of two respondents will submit a supplement to an approved smokeless tobacco warning plan, taking
FDA has adjusted its burden estimate, which has resulted in a decrease of 60 hours and 2 respondents to the currently approved burden. This adjusted burden estimate is based on historical trends for smokeless tobacco warning plans. As of this OMB submission, FDA has received a total of 47 original smokeless warning plans, and a total of 33 supplements. Generally, after receiving the initial influx of original smokeless warnings plans, the number of annual warning plan submissions has decreased, and FDA does not expect submissions to increase at this time. Since publication of the 60-day notice, we removed the cigar warning plan burden from this collection.
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 open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
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:
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 National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and is open to the public, as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify Dr. Gillian Acca via email at
A portion of the meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.,
The meeting identified below has been scheduled in the event the Council is unable to complete all agenda items identified for the February 3, 2026, meeting. Information on the agenda items and/or the necessity to hold the meeting listed below will be posted on the Institute/Center homepage (link identified below).
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to Dr. Gillian Acca via email at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days from the meeting date due to exceptional circumstances. As a result of the 43-day government shutdown, due to lapsed appropriations, the above meeting was canceled. This meeting was to assess the scientific and technical merit of NIH grant applications, required by statute to disburse NIH funds. The meeting must take place urgently so that evaluations of biomedical research applications addressing multiple major public health priorities can be submitted to the national advisory councils for timely funding recommendations.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of a modified systems of records.
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is issuing a public notice of its intent to modify the HUD System of Records Notices for the HUD systems of records listed below.
Comments will be accepted on or before February 17, 2026. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number by one method:
Shalanda Capehart, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410-0001; telephone (202) 402-5085 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
On March 25, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14249, “Protecting America's Bank Account Against Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.” In the E.O., President Trump directed agency heads to review and modify relevant System of Records Notices (SORNs) under the Privacy Act of 1974 to include a routine use that allows for the disclosure of records to the Department of Treasury for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping fraud and improper payments, to the extent permissible by law. Pursuant to E.O. 14249 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-25-32, “Preventing Improper Payments and Protecting Privacy Through Do Not Pay” (August 20, 2025), this notice: (1) adds a new routine use to the end of the routine use section of the HUD systems of records notices listed below; and (2) removes the Do Not Pay routine use for the System of Records Notice titled “Single Family Mortgage Insurance Origination System” last published at 90 FR 36173 (August 1, 2025), listed as routine use “P”: To the US Department of Treasury through a computer matching program interface between CHUMS and Treasury's Do Not Pay (DNP) system for the purposes of preventing and recovering improper payments and to verify borrower eligibility to participate in FHA's mortgage insurance programs per the Payments Integrity Information Act of 2019.”
The following routine use shall be added to the end of each routine use section for the systems of records listed below:
The applicable security classification is identified in each notice.
The applicable system location is identified in each notice.
The applicable system manager(s) is identified in each notice.
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.
See system name and number above.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey and the supplemental plats of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed 30 days after the date of this notice in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) New Mexico State Office. The surveys and plats announced in this notice are necessary for the management of the depicted lands.
If you wish to protest a survey or supplemental plat identified in this notice, you must file a written notice of protest with the BLM State Director for New Mexico by February 17, 2026.
Submit written protests to the BLM New Mexico State Office, 301 Dinosaur Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87508. You may obtain a copy of a survey or supplemental plat record from the public room at this office upon required payment. The plats and field notes may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Jacob B. Barowsky, Chief Cadastral Surveyor; (505) 761-8903;
The plat representing the dependent resurvey of a portion of Township 30 North, Range 18 West, accepted August 5, 2025, for Group No. 1198 New Mexico. This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo Region.
The plat representing the dependent resurvey and survey of a portion of Township 17 South, Range 8 East, accepted August 12, 2025, for Group No. 1207 New Mexico. This plat was prepared at the request of the National Park Service, Intermountain Region, Lands Resource Division.
The Supplemental Plat of Township 20 South, Range 26 East, accepted August 13, 2025, for Group No. 1223 New Mexico. This plat was prepared at the request of the BLM, New Mexico State Office, Minerals Division.
The Supplemental Plat of Township 10 North, Range 27 East, accepted July 31, 2025, for Group No. 247 Oklahoma. This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Oklahoma Region.
The Supplemental Plat of Township 11 North, Range 27 East, accepted August 4, 2025, for Group No. 247 Oklahoma. This plat was prepared at the request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Oklahoma Region.
The Supplemental Plat of Township 11 North, Range 8 West, accepted August 13, 2025, for Group No. 248 Oklahoma. This plat was prepared at the request of the BLM, New Mexico State Office, Minerals Division.
A person or party who wishes to protest a survey must file a written notice of protest by the date specified in the
A written statement of the reasons in support of the protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the BLM State Director for New Mexico within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is received.
Before including your address, or other personally identifiable information in your protest, please be aware that your entire protest, including your personally identifiable information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Dr. Mark R. Wheeler, Senior Advisor to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, three individuals have been identified. The four associated funerary objects include one lot of modified stones, one lot of modified shells, one lot of faunal remains, and one lot of historic materials. The human remains and associated funerary objects originate from site CA-ELD-31 in western El Dorado County, CA. They were excavated by California State University, Sacramento in the 1950s and are housed at the University under accession 81-357.
Human remains representing, at least, nine individuals have been identified. The 49,445 associated funerary objects include modified stones, shells, and bones; faunal remains; floral remains; baked clay objects; quartz crystals; unmodified stones; pigments; and historical materials. The human remains and associated funerary objects originate from site CA-ELD-255 in western El Dorado County, CA. They were excavated by a California State University, Sacramento student in 1979-1980 and were returned to the University in 2015 where they are currently housed under accession 81-91.
Human remains representing, at least, two individuals have been identified. The 38,011 associated funerary objects include modified stones, bones, and shells; faunal remains; floral remains; baked clay objects; coprolites; quartz crystals; unmodified stones; pigments; and historical materials. The human remains and associated funerary objects originate from site CA-ELD-426 in western El Dorado County, CA. They were excavated by California State University, Sacramento in the 1990s and are housed at the University under accession 81-94.
Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified. The 299 associated funerary objects include modified stones and shells; quartz crystals; faunal remains; and historic
Human remains representing, at least, one individual has been identified. The 44 associated funerary objects include modified stones and shells; unmodified stones; and faunal remains. The human remains and associated funerary objects originate from site CA-ELD-1827 in western El Dorado County, CA. They were collected by a California State University, Sacramento student in the 1970s and are housed at the University under accession 81-132.
The University is unaware of any treatment of the human remains or associated funerary objects listed above with pesticides, preservatives, or other substances that represent a potential hazard to the objects or to persons handling the objects. An unknown number of unidentified cultural items may be missing from the above collections, which may include other categories of items.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 16 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 87,803 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; Washoe Tribe of Nevada & California (Carson Colony, Dresslerville Colony, Woodfords Community, Stewart Community, & Washoe Ranches); and the Wilton Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Ball State University intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Chyan Gilaspy, Ball State University, Applied Anthropology Laboratories, 2000 W Riverside Avenue, Muncie, IN 47306, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Ball State University and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of four cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The four sacred objects are listed as baskets. One basket was purchased from William Shrawder of Dublin, Indiana in 1938 and was listed with “Unknown” affiliation and provenance. One “Southwest Pima” basket and one “Unknown” basket with lid from “Arizona” was gifted to the institution by a private donor in 1989 and 1990, respectively. In 2018, an “Unknown Southwest” basket was bequeathed to the institution by a private donor. The institution has no records of treating the cultural items with potentially hazardous materials, however, requested XRF testing results were positive for the presence of arsenic, lead, and/or mercury.
The Ball State University has determined that:
• The four sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Ball State University must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Ball State University is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of a sacred object and that has a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Dr. Christopher Woods, Williams Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Penn Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one sacred object is a carved wooden figure known as a
News of the discovery was subsequently reported in an English-language newspaper on October 11, 1873, and in a Hawaiian-language newspaper on October 15, 1873. According to newspaper accounts, the wooden figure was given to an American associated with the U.S. naval ship
The Penn Museum has determined that:
• The one sacred object described in this notice is a specific ceremonial object needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Hui Iwi Kuamo'o.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Penn Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Penn Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (acting in place of the Arizona State University School of Human Evolution
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Allisen Dahlstedt, Arizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, P.O. Box 872402, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Arizona State University (ASU) Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (CASR), and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 276 lots of cultural items have been requested for repatriation.
The 119 unassociated funerary objects are 10 lots of faunal bone, six lots of ceramic objects, eight lots of chipped stone objects, two lots of glass objects, one lot of ground stone objects, six lots of raw stone objects, two lots of samples, and 84 lots of shell objects.
The 157 lots of sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony are one lot of faunal bone, 10 lots of ceramic objects, 10 lots of chipped stone objects, 19 lots of ground stone objects, 18 lots of raw stone objects, and 99 lots of shell objects.
The cultural items were removed from the Cashion site in Maricopa County, AZ during four different archaeological undertakings: in December 1964 during a NSF-funded regional survey; in Summer 1966 during a localized excavation conducted by ASU students, in summer 1977 during a field survey and research project on a private parcel within the Cashion site boundaries, and during the a four-season ASU field school on a private parcel within the Cashion site in the Fall semester of 1997, Spring and Fall semesters of 1998, and the Fall semester of 1999 overseen by Dr. Glen Rice. After each field undertaking, the collections were curated by what was then the Department of Anthropology, now the School of Human Evolution and Social Change, at ASU's Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (CASR).
The Arizona State University (ASU) Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (CASR) has determined that:
• The 119 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The 157 sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice are, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision).
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Ak-Chin Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the ASU Center for Archaeology and Society Repository must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The ASU Center for Archaeology and Society Repository is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Berkshire Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Jason Vivori, Berkshire Museum, 39 South Street,
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Berkshire Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
The 50 sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony are four Kūpe'e Niho 'Ilio (Dog Tooth Leg Ornaments), five 'I'e Kūkū (Kapa Beaters), 21 Kapa (Bark Cloths), one 'Umeke (Wood Bowls in 3 Large Pieces), three Moena (Mats), one 'Ohe Kāpala (Kapa Stamp), two Hale (House) Models of Thatched House, one 'A'a (Lava sample in fragments—Large Grey Piece, with five Small Black Glassy Pieces), one Pūniu (Knee Drum), one Puke Kapa (Kapa Book) Square Book Bound in Folded Pieces of Kapa Cloth, one Ipu Pawehe (Decorated Water Gourd), one Pōhaku Ku'i 'Ai (Stone Food Pounder), one Wa'a (Model Canoe), one 'Umeke (Gourd Calabash), two Nā Hulu (Feathers—Brown Fragments from a cape of Kamehameha, as well as Red, Yellow, and Black feather fragments from a bundle, including Olonā), three Pāpale (Hats) and one Kapa Dress.
Five items (1906.7.2,6a,6b,6c,18) were transferred to the Berkshire Museum in 1906 from the Berkshire Athenaeum collection, having been gifted to the Athenaeum in the 1870s from the collections of several missionaries. Of note, 1906.7.18, a kapa fragment given by JEA Smith in 1871, is missing. However, it may be one of several Found in Collection objects listed here. Additionally, C1988.7, a kapa tablecloth from the collection of Mercy Patridge Whitney that was noted to be in poor condition in a conservation report in 1989, is also missing. Three Kapa cloths (1931.81.9,18,19) were given in 1931 by Mrs. George B. Kirkbride, as part of a collection of twenty Polynesian objects. Four items were given in 1932 (1932.41.1-3,5) by Mrs. Dwight M. Collins of Pittsfield. This includes a Kapa cloth (1932.41.1), two Moena Mats (1932.41.3,5), and an Umeke Bowl (1932.41.2). One Kapa cloth (1967.18) was given by Mr. Edwin. E. Wood of Pittsfield. It was a given to Mrs. Florence Wood in 1937 by her brother John Foster Wood. Six items were given by Janice Greer in 1990 as part of a donation of ten items from Dr. Charles H. Wetmore collection. Upon his arrival in 1849, Wetmore served as a health officer for the Hawaiian Kingdom's Board of Health and oversaw the United States Hospital for Seamen. All remaining items have been listed as Found in Collection. The museum lacks sufficient documentation regarding the acquisition of these items to establish right of ownership or to establish lineal descent.
The Berkshire Museum has determined that:
• The 50 sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice are, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision).
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and Hui Iwi Kuamo'o.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Berkshire Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Berkshire Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Dr. Christopher Woods, Williams Director, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 3260 South Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6324, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Penn Museum, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, four individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
One individual (PM# 97-606-441) is identified as an adult male and is represented by a cranium and mandible. Published information and museum
One individual (PM# 97-606-579) is identified as an adult male and is represented by a cranium. Published information and museum records identify this individual as “Athlaha-Ficksa, a Muscogee, or Creek Chief” who died in Mobile, Alabama, in 1837 and whose remains were obtained by Dr. Henry S. Rennolds. Dr. Rennolds was commissioned as an Assistant Surgeon of the United States Navy and was stationed at the Naval Hospital in Pensacola at the time. In 1837, Rennolds transferred the human remains to Dr. Morton, and they were stored at the ANSP.
One individual (PM# 97-606-751) is identified as an adult female and is represented by a cranium and mandible. Published information and museum records identify this person as a “Creek woman [from] Georgia.” By 1840, the remains were obtained by Dr. Joseph Walker. Published information indicates that this Creek individual was from Georgia. Available museum documents, archival records, and published information do not reveal the specific circumstances surrounding Walker's collection of the human remains. Walker likely obtained the human remains sometime between 1838 and 1840 while serving in the U.S. Army as U.S. Assistant Army Surgeon assigned to Fort Leavenworth in the Missouri Territory from 1839-1841, before he was transferred to Florida. By 1840, Walker transferred the human remains to Dr. Morton, and they were stored at the ANSP.
One individual (PM# 97-606-1454) is identified as an adult female and is represented by a cranium. Published information and museum records identify this individual as Creek and indicate they were removed from an unidentified location in western Arkansas by Dr. Samuel W. Woodhouse. From 1849 to 1850, Woodhouse participated in the U.S. Army Corps of Topographical Engineers survey of the Creek-Cherokee boundary as a physician and naturalist at the recommendation of Dr. Samuel G. Morton of the ANSP. In 1849, the survey party left Washington, DC, for Fort Gibson, traveling to Ohio and through Arkansas between May 1 and June 6. It is possible that Woodhouse obtained the human remains sometime between May 29th and June 5th while traveling through Arkansas by boat on the Arkansas River to Fort Smith. It is also possible that Woodhouse obtained the human remains during the survey expedition that mapped the Creek boundary (in what is today Oklahoma) between June and October 1849. In 1850, Woodhouse transferred the human remains to Morton, and they were stored at the ANSP.
Dr. Morton died in 1851, and in 1853, the ANSP purchased Morton's collection, including the four human remains discussed in this report, from Morton's estate. In 1966, Morton's collection was loaned to the Penn Museum, and in 1997, Morton's collection, including these human remains, was formally gifted to the Penn Museum. There is no known presence of any potentially hazardous substances.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains described in this notice.
The Penn Museum has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of four individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Poarch Band of Creek Indians and The Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Penn Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Penn Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (acting in place of the Arizona State University School of Human Evolution and Social Change) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Allisen Dahlstedt, Arizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, P.O. Box 872402, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The
A total of 277 cultural items have been requested for repatriation.
The 73 unassociated funerary objects are four lots of faunal bone, one lot of botanicals, eight lots of ceramics, two lots of chipped stone, two lots of ground stone, one lot of historic artifacts, five lots of other stone, and 50 lots of shell.
The 204 sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony are nine lots of faunal bone, one lot of botanicals, seven lots of ceramics, two lots of chipped stone, 19 lots of ground stone, 12 lots of other stone, and 154 lots of shell.
The cultural items were removed from the Sce:dagi Mu:val Vaaki site in Maricopa County, AZ in the spring and fall semesters of 1955 and the spring and fall semesters of 1972, during the course of field schools led by Kenneth Stewart. Wilburn Cockrell, and Barbara Stark, respectively. After the field seasons, the collection was curated by what was then the Department of Anthropology, now the School of Human Evolution and Social Change, at ASU's Center for Archaeology and Society Repository.
The Arizona State University (ASU) Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (CASR) has determined that:
• The 73 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• The 204 sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice are, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, and have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision).
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Ak-Chin Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the ASU Center for Archaeology and Society Repository must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The ASU Center for Archaeology and Society Repository is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Arizona State University, Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (CASR) acting in place of the Arizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change (ASU SHESC) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Allisen Dahlstedt, Arizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, P.O. Box 872402, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the ASU CASR, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing, at least, 31 individuals have been identified. The human remains were removed from the Cashion site in Maricopa County, AZ, during the course of four separate archaeological undertakings associated with ASU, over a total span of 33 years. Archaeological evidence suggests that
From July to September 1966, at least seven individuals were removed from an unknown location within the Cashion site, during an unofficial project carried out by ASU students. Very few details about the project are available. The 19 associated funerary objects are eight lots of shell materials, three lots of faunal fragments, two lot of ceramics, one lot of chipped stone, two lots of raw stone, two lots of daub, and one lot of historic materials.
On January 22 and 23rd, 1975, ASU Department of Anthropology faculty Dr. Charles Merbs and a team of ASU osteology students removed two burials disturbed by the landowner while digging to plant a tree, in the southwest portion of the Cashion site. The two individuals and several cultural objects were removed and brought to ASU. The 15 associated funerary objects are three pollen samples, one lot of bone tools, one vessel, one lot of ceramic sherds, two lots of chipped stone, four lots of ground stone, one lot of raw stone, and two lots of shell.
Between July and November 1977, at least six individuals were removed from the west-central portion of the site during research conducted by an ASU graduate student. The 13 associated funerary objects are six lots of ceramic sherds, five lots of chipped stone, one lot of ground stone, and one lot of raw stone.
Over four semesters from Fall 1997 through Spring of 1999, at least 16 individuals were removed from the Cashion Site during multiple phases of a field school overseen by Dr. Glen Rice of ASU's Department of Anthropology. The 31 associated funerary objects are 19 lots of faunal bone, two lots of chipped stone, three lots of raw stone, five lots of shell, and two lots of historic materials.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The ASU, SHESC, CASR, Tempe, AZ, has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 31 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 78 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ak-Chin Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the ASU CASR must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The ASU CASR is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Sacramento intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Dr. Mark R. Wheeler, Senior Advisor to President Luke Wood, California State University, Sacramento, 6000 J Street Sacramento, CA 95819, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the California State University, Sacramento, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of 72 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 72 unassociated funerary objects include modified stones and shells; unmodified stones; quartz crystals; faunal remains; charcoal pieces; soil/ash samples; and historic materials. The unassociated funerary objects were removed from several sites in western El Dorado County, CA, including CA-ELD-32 (acc. 81-362), CA-ELD-33 (acc. 81-CSUS-025), CA-ELD-35 (acc. 81-349), CA-ELD-433 (acc. 81-119), CA-ELD-447 (acc. 81-119), CA-ELD-450 (acc. 81-119), CA-ELD-Crystal Cosumnes Cave (acc. 81-CSUS-358), CA-ELD-1569 (acc. 81-193), CA-ELD-1828 (acc. 81-132), CA-ELD-Scott Creek (81-CSUS-
The California State University, Sacramento has determined that:
• The 72 unassociated funerary objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near human remains, and are connected, either at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony of a Native American culture according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization. The unassociated funerary objects have been identified by a preponderance of the evidence as related to human remains, specific individuals, or families, or removed from a specific burial site or burial area of an individual or individuals with cultural affiliation to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the California State University, Sacramento must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The California State University, Sacramento is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Center for Archeology and Society Repository (acting in place of the Arizona State University School of Human Evolution and Social Change) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Allisen Dahlstedt, Arizona State University, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, P.O. Box 872402, Tempe, AZ 85287-2402, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Arizona State University (ASU) Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (CASR), and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing at least six individuals have been identified. The 38 associated funerary objects are nine lots of ceramics, six lots of chipped stone, four lots of shell, nine lots of faunal bone, four lots of samples, one lot of botanicals, one lot of glass, three lots of other stone, and one lot of post/beam wood.
In the spring and fall semesters of 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from the Sce:dagĭ Mu:val Va'aki site in Maricopa County, AZ during field schools conducted by Wilburn A. Cockrell and Dr. Barbara Stark, respectively. Archaeological evidence suggests the site was occupied between A.D. 1150 and 1500, during the Hohokam Early to Late Classic Periods. After these field seasons, the collection was curated by the then Department of Anthropology, now School of Human Evolution and Social Change, at ASU's Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (CASR).
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is clearly identified by the information available about the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Arizona State University (ASU) Center for Archaeology and Society Repository (CASR) has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 38 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed intentionally with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a connection between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ak-Chin Indian Community; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation . . .
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the ASU Center for Archaeology and Society Repository must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The ASU Center for Archaeology and Society Repository is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Kansas State Historical Society (KSHS) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Dr. Nicole Klarmann, Kansas State Historical Society, 6425 SW 6th Avenue, Topeka, KS 66615-1099, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the KSHS and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of eight cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The eight sacred objects are a beaded pouch, bags, and jar, a whistle, leg cuffs, hair pipes, and an eagle feather. The beaded pouch (1962.34.12) and the beaded jar (1962.34.52) were transferred from the KSHS museum collections to the archeological collections in 1962. No other provenience information is available. The beaded saddle bag (1973.120.10) was donated to KSHS in 1973 by a resident from Clyde, KS who was asked to clean out an elderly person's garage and found many Native American items. The buckskin bag with quillwork (1934.9.18) was donated to KSHS in 1934 with no other provenience information. The eagle bone whistle (1990.G.1) was purchased at an antique shop in Colorado in the 1960s and donated to KSHS in 1990. Duso cement was used to re-glue two sections of the whistle. The quilled leg cuffs (1959.66.3 A-B) were donated to KSHS in 1959 with no other provenience information. The bone and brass hair pipes (1956.32.26) were purchased by KSHS from the Logan Museum at Beloit College in Wisconsin in 1956. The eagle feather (1976.52.01A) was donated by a former KSHS museum director in 1976 and described as part of a Siouan affiliated hairpiece from circa 1890. Unless noted here, we have no known knowledge of hazardous substances being used to treat any of these cultural items.
The KSHS has determined that:
• The eight sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the KSHS must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The KSHS is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Los Angeles County Dept. of Medical Examiner (LAC DME) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Inv. Deanne Morrell, 1104 N Mission Road, Los Angeles, CA 90033, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the LAC DME, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in its inventory or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
Human remains representing five individuals have been identified. No associated funerary objects are present. The five skulls were recovered by the LAC DME after a community member reported the findings to L.A. Police Department. The community member claimed that the five skulls were purchased by his father (who passed away in 2024) at an antique shop in Memphis, Tennessee in the 1980s. The skulls were reportedly found near a local construction site, according to the antique shop worker. The community member's father transported the five skulls back to his home in Woodland Hills, CA where they remained until his death.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation with the Cherokee Nation, The Chickasaw Nation, and The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains described in this notice.
The LAC DME has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and The Chickasaw Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with cultural affiliation.
Repatriation of the human remains described in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the LAC DME must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. The LAC DME is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of California, Riverside intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of sacred objects and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 17, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Megan Murphy, University of California, Riverside, 900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA 92517-5900, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the University of California, Riverside, and additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A total of three cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The three sacred objects are one large Red Abalone shell (Haliotis rufescens), one large Pink Abalone shell (Haliotis corrugata), and one small Black Abalone shell (Haliotis cracherodii).
At an unknown date three abalone shells were donated to the University of California, Riverside Anthropology Department and housed with a collection of other cultural materials used for teaching archaeological laboratory courses. Labels adhered to the interior of the shells indicated that they were removed from the waters near Santa Catalina Island, Los Angeles county. Through tribal consultation with the UCR NAGPRA Program, the
The University of California, Riverside has determined that:
• The three sacred objects described in this notice are specific ceremonial objects needed by a traditional Native American religious leader for present-day adherents to practice traditional Native American religion, according to the Native American traditional knowledge of a lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians, California; Pala Band of Mission Indians; Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation, California; Pechanga Band of Indians (
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 17, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of California, Riverside must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of California, Riverside is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice and to any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
The National Park Service (NPS) is hereby giving notice that the Aniakchak National Monument Subsistence Resource Commission (SRC), the Cape Krusenstern National Monument SRC, the Lake Clark National Park SRC, the Kobuk Valley National Park SRC, the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park SRC, and the Gates of the Arctic National Park SRC will meet for the purpose of commenting on the limited review of the Federal Subsistence Management Program the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) are undertaking, as indicated below. The goal of the limited review is to ensure the Federal Subsistence Management Program is meeting the needs of subsistence users and the Secretaries' obligations under title VIII, section 808 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3118). The Secretaries will benefit from the SRCs review. These special meetings ensure the SRC will have the opportunity to comment during the 60-day public scoping period that began on December 15, 2025, with the publication of a notice in the
The
The
The
The
The
The
The NPS is holding meetings pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 10). The NPS SRC program is authorized under title VIII, section 808 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3118).
SRC meetings are open to the public and will have time allocated for public testimony. The public is welcome to present written or oral comments to the SRC. SRC meetings will be recorded, and meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the completion of the meeting.
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
SRC meeting dates may change based on inclement weather or exceptional circumstances, including public health advisories or mandates. If meeting dates are changed, the Superintendent will issue a press release and use local newspapers and/or radio stations to announce the rescheduled meeting.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
January 13, 2026.
Jordan Harriman (202-205-2610), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On September 16, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the preliminary phase of the subject investigations (90 FR 45245, September 19, 2025). On November 17, 2025, due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission revised its schedule (90 FR 52094, November 19, 2025). Subsequently, the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extended the deadline for its initiation determination from December 15, 2025 to January 2, 2026 (90 FR 60059, December 23, 2025). The Commission, therefore, is revising its schedule to conform with Commerce's new schedule.
The Commission must reach preliminary determinations within 25 days after the date on which the Commission receives notice from Commerce of initiation of the investigations, and the Commission's views must 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company; RAI Services Company; and Reynolds Marketing Services Company on January 13, 2026. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3875”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 15, 2025, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Englewood, New Jersey. A supplement to the complaint was filed on December 31, 2025, and an amended complaint was filed on January 5, 2026. The complaint, as supplemented and amended, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain wearable devices by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,642,359 (“the '359 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,945,677 (“the '677 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,231,675 (“the '675 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 10,978,789 (“the '789 patent”). The complaint, as supplemented and amended, further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Susan Orndoff, The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 20 of the '359 patent; claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-20 of the '677 patent; claims 13-20 of the '675 patent; and claims 7-10 of the '789 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “wearable devices, specifically wearable biosignal interfaces and an operation method thereof as well as wearable electronic devices for detecting biometric information”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Siegfried USA, LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 17, 2026. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 17, 2026.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 27, 2025, Siegfried USA, LLC, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070-3244, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for internal use as intermediates and for sale to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Civil Division, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Civil Division, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until February 17, 2026.
If you have additional comments, especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jason C. Bougere, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 146, Ben Franklin
The proposed information collection was previously published in the
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
DOJ seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOJ notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before February 17, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
PTE 77-4, which was originally granted on April 8, 1977, exempts from the prohibited transaction restrictions the purchase and sale by an employee benefit plan of shares from a registered, open-end investment company (mutual fund) when a fiduciary of the plan (
There are three disclosure requirements incorporated within the class exemption. The first requirement is intended to put the plan on notice of possible fees associated with the redemption of open-end mutual fund shares. It requires disclosure of any redemption fees in the current prospectus of the open-end mutual fund (the prospectus in effect at the time of the plan's acquisition or disposal of such shares). The class exemption permits a plan to pay a redemption fee on the sale, by redemption, of open-end mutual fund shares only if the fee is paid to the open-end mutual company and the above noted disclosure is made.
The second requirement is that, at the time of the purchase or sale of such mutual fund shares, an independent fiduciary receive a copy of the current prospectus issued by the open-end mutual fund and full written disclosure of the investment advisory fees charged to or paid by the plan and the open-end mutual fund to the investment advisor. Pursuant to advisory opinion 2013-04A, the Department interprets the term “prospectus” in PTE 77-4 to include a “summary prospectus” if the summary prospectus meets the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission's revised disclosure provisions for mutual funds including a summary prospectus rule that were published in 2009 Pursuant to the SEC's revised disclosure provisions, mutual funds also are required to send the full
The third requirement is that the independent fiduciary be notified of any changes in the fees and approves in writing the plan's purchase or sale of affected mutual fund shares, or the plan's continued possession of any such mutual fund shares that it had acquired before the fee changes. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This program helps to ensure that 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 on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the “Report on Occupational Employment and Wages.” A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the Addresses section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the Addresses section of this notice on or before March 17, 2026.
Send comments to Morgan Scheinin, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, by email to
Morgan Scheinin, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number). (See
The Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey is a Federal/State establishment survey of wage and salary workers designed to produce data on current detailed occupational employment and wages for each Metropolitan Statistical Area and Metropolitan Division as well as by detailed industry classification. OEWS survey data assist in the development of employment and training programs established by the Perkins Vocational Education Act of 1998 and the Wagner-Peyser Act.
The OEWS program operates a periodic mail survey of a sample of establishments conducted by all fifty States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Over three-year periods, data on occupational employment and wages are collected by industry at the four- and five-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) levels. The Department of Labor uses OEWS data in the administration of the Foreign Labor Certification process under the Immigration Act of 1990.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought to continue collection of the OEWS survey. The OEWS program will also submit an OMB non-substantive change request for the anticipated expansion of agriculture industry coverage to be collected in upcoming panels. It is estimated that there will be an increase of 25,000 agricultural units over the 6 semi-annual panels for the span of this 3-year package. Occupational employment data obtained by the OEWS survey are used to develop information regarding current and projected employment needs and job opportunities. These data assist in the development of State vocational education plans. OEWS wage data provide a significant source of information to support a number of different Federal, State, and local efforts.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics 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.
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice, correction.
Deep Space Food Challenge: Mars to Table is open, and teams that wish to compete may now register. NASA initiated Centennial Challenges in 2005 to create public prize competitions that stimulate revolutionary research, technology development, and prototype demonstrations. These challenges strive to be audacious and inspirational with a focus on long-range NASA goals while addressing complex mission needs. Challenges also encourage hands-on, grassroots approaches to identifying and cultivating communities of innovators, including small businesses, student groups, and individuals. Centennial Challenges are part of NASA's Prizes, Challenges, and Crowdsourcing program withing the agency's Space Technology Mission Directorate. NASA's Deep Space Food Challenge: Mars to Table is a prize competition with a total prize purse of $750,000 USD, (seven hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) to be awarded to competitor teams that develop a complete space food system for a planetary surface that integrates a variety of food sources and associated technologies, and that meets 100% of the crew's variable nutritional needs within the constraints of a Martian habitat.
To register or for additional information regarding NASA's Deep Space Food Challenge: Mars to Table, please visit:
Questions and comments regarding the Challenge should be addressed to Jennifer Edmunson, 256-544-4071, Centennial Challenges Acting Program Manager, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812. Email address:
In the
“January 13, 2026”
Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts; National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and Artifacts Domestic Indemnity Panel.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, February 26, 2026, from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. or until adjourned.
The meeting will be held by videoconference originating at the National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506.
Daniel Beattie, Committee Management Officer, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20506, 202-682-5688 or
The purpose of the meeting is for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities that were submitted at the December 8, 2025 application deadline, for exhibitions beginning in late 2026. Because the meeting will consider proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified and the methods of transportation and security measures confidential. In accordance with the determination of the Chair of March 11, 2022, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 10.
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, “Cooperation With States at Commercial Nuclear
Submit comments by February 17, 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, NRC Acting Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0856; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0211 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, “Cooperation With States at Commercial Nuclear Power Plants and Other Nuclear Production and Utilization Facilities.” 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.
Weeks of January 19 and 26, and February 2, 9, 16, and 23, 2026. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 19, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 26, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 2, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 9, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 16, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 23, 2026.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Annual notice.
Notice is given of the appointment of members to the Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.
Membership is effective on January 16, 2026.
Michelle Huffman, Human Resources Specialist, U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 1120 20th Street, NW—Ninth Floor, Washington, DC 20036-3457, (202) 606-5393.
The Review Commission, as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5), has established a Senior Executive Service PRB. The PRB reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor and makes recommendations to the Chairman of the Review Commission regarding performance ratings, performance awards, and pay-for-performance adjustments. Members of the PRB serve for a period of 24 months. In the case of an appraisal of a career appointee, more than half of the members shall consist of career appointees, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(5). The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows:
• Fred B. Jacob, Solicitor, National Labor Relations Board;
• Maria-Kate Dowling, General Counsel, National Mediation Board;
• Reggie James, Associate Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
The name and title of the alternate PRB member is as follows:
• Jebby Rasputnis, Director of Programs, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
None. See Section II for public proceedings.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges (the “Fee Schedule”) regarding annual fees applicable to Exchange Traded Products. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule regarding annual fees for Exchange Traded Products (“ETPs”).
The proposed change responds to the current extremely competitive environment for ETP listings, in which issuers can readily favor competing venues or transfer their listings if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or discount opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In response to the competitive environment for listings, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to (1) modify certain annual fees for ETPs set forth in the tables in Sections 6.a., 6.b. and 6.c. of the Annual Fee section of the Fee Schedule, and (2) modify the alternate definition of a “High Volume Product” and the discounts for such products set forth in Section 9, romanette (iii).
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective January 2, 2026.
Annual fees are assessed each January in the first full calendar year following the year of listing. Currently, the Exchange's annual fees for ETPs are based on the number of shares outstanding per issue and then are further differentiated based on whether or not the ETP tracks an index, has a maturity date, or provides an expected return over a specific outcome period.
Currently, Section 6.a. provides for annual fees as follows for ETPs (excluding Managed Fund Shares, Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, Managed Trust Securities, and Managed Portfolio Shares) and Exchange-Traded Fund Shares listed under Rule 5.2-E(j)(8) that track an index, have a maturity date, or provide an expected return over a specific outcome period:
Section 6.b. sets forth the following annual fees for Managed Fund Shares, Managed Trust Securities, Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, Managed Portfolio Shares, and Exchange-Traded Fund Shares listed under Rule 5.2-E(j)(8) that do not track an index:
The Exchange proposes to amend the annual fees reflected in Sections 6.a. and 6.b by lowering the annual fee for ETPs between 199,999,999 shares outstanding and 249,999,999 shares outstanding and providing a lower fee for all ETPs with 250 million shares or more outstanding. The proposed change is intended to simplify the Fee Schedule by harmonizing the annual fees set forth in Sections 6.a. and 6.b. for ETPs with more than 200 million shares outstanding.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees set forth in Section 6.a. as follows:
The Exchange similarly proposes to amend Section 6.b. as below (proposed additions underlined and proposed deletions bracketed):
The Exchange believes the proposed change would simplify and lower annual fees applicable to ETPs above 200 million shares outstanding. As proposed, the annual fee for ETPs with between 200 million and 249,999,999 million shares outstanding would be lowered to $25,000. In addition, by creating a single annual fee for ETPs with 250 million or more shares outstanding, the annual fee for ETPs with between 250 million up to 599,999,999 million shares outstanding would be lowered to $30,000 while the annual fee for ETPs with 600 million or more shares outstanding would remain unchanged. The Exchange believes that the proposed simplified fee structure could further incentivize issuers to list multiple series of certain securities on the Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees would continue to encourage issuers to list ETPs on the Exchange and represents a reasonable effort by the Exchange to respond to the competitive environment for ETP listings, particularly in conjunction with the incentives proposed below that would offer issuers opportunities to qualify for lower annual fees.
In addition, Section 6.c. sets forth alternative methods through which ETPs can qualify for reduced annual fees. Specifically, ETPs with at least $50 billion in assets under management at the time the annual fee is billed are subject to an annual fee of $5,000 (regardless of number of shares outstanding). Alternatively, ETPs can qualify for reduced annual fees by achieving certain primary listing market
The Exchange proposes to simplify the reduced annual fees set forth in Section 6.c.ii. As proposed, the ADV buckets and corresponding annual fee would be reduced from five to three and would provide streamlined annual fees, as follows:
In addition, the Exchange proposes to streamline and simplify the High Volume Products Discount in Section 9 (Additional Annual Fee Discounts for Exchange Traded Products and Structured Products) of the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange proposes to amend the required amount of CADV executed in opening and closing auctions averaged over 12 months in the second definition. As proposed, an eligible Product would be considered a “High Volume Product” if it has 60,000 CADV executed in opening and closing auctions averaged over 12 months or, if the Product is listed less than 12 months, 1,000,000 shares CADV averaged since the date of listing. The requirement in the second definition for Products listed less than 12 months as well as the first alternative definition of a High Volume Product would remain unchanged.
In addition, an issuer that lists multiple High Volume Products is currently eligible for the following discounts, which are a discount on the aggregate calculated annual fee for each Product from such issuer:
The Exchange proposes to simplify and streamline the discounts available to High Volume Products. As proposed, an issuer that lists multiple High Volume Products would be eligible for the following discounts, which will remain a discount on the aggregate calculated annual fee for each Product from such issuer:
• An issuer listing between 2-9 High Volume Products would be eligible for a 10% discount for each Product;
• An issuer listing between 10 and 24 High Volume Products would be eligible for a 15% discount for each Product; and
• An issuer listing 25 or more High Volume Products would be eligible for a 17.5% discount for each Product.
The Exchange believes these proposed discounts on annual fees could incentivize issuers to continue to list or transfer to list ETPs on the Exchange, thereby promoting competition among exchanges that list ETPs, to the benefit of market participants, and, together with the proposed changes to annual fees described above, represent an effort by the Exchange to compete with other venues that list ETPs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market for the listing of ETPs. Specifically, ETP issuers can readily favor competing venues or transfer listings if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or discount opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange believes that the ongoing competition among the exchanges with respect to new listings and the transfer of existing listings among competitor exchanges demonstrates that issuers can choose different listing markets in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange listing fees. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange listing fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for new listings and retain existing listings.
Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract new issuers and retain listings on the Exchange. The Exchange's current annual fees for ETPs are based on the number of shares outstanding per issuer and provide incentives for issuers to list multiple series of certain securities on the Exchange. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to the annual fees set forth in Sections 6.a. and 6.b. are reasonable because they are intended to simplify the Fee Schedule and lower annual fees applicable to ETPs above 200 million shares outstanding. The Exchange proposes that, as currently, annual fees would generally increase as the number of shares outstanding increases (which would continue to reduce the barriers to entry and incentivize enhanced competition among issuers of ETPs), but proposes that the annual fee for ETPs with between 200 million and 249,999,999 million shares outstanding would be lowered to $25,000. In addition, by creating a single annual fee for ETPs with 250 million or more shares outstanding, the annual fee for ETPs with between 250 million up to 599,999,999 million shares outstanding would be lowered to $30,000 while the annual fee for ETPs with 600 million or more shares outstanding would remain unchanged. The Exchange believes that the proposed simplified fee structure is reasonable because it could further incentivize issuers to list multiple series of certain securities on the Exchange. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable effort by the Exchange to respond to the competitive environment for ETP listings, particularly in conjunction with the proposed changes to the method for ETPs to qualify for lower annual fees by achieving primary listing market auction volume that would largely lower reduced annual fees by streamlining and simplifying the ADV requirements. Finally, the proposed changes to the High Volume Products discounts are also reasonable because by simplifying and streamlining the number of qualifying products and the corresponding discount, the proposal would either not change or increase the discount available to High Volume Products, and are thus designed to continue to encourage issuers to add additional such products to the Exchange. Increasing the CADV required to be executed in opening and closing auctions averaged over 12 months to meet one of two definitions of High Volume Products is also reasonable given the overall increase in Exchange volumes since the discount was adopted in 2019.
The Exchange believes that the proposal, taken together, would reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize issuers to list new products and transfer existing products to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes will enhance competition both among ETP issuers and listing venues, to the benefit of investors. The Exchange believes the proposed changes are a reasonable effort by the Exchange to respond to the current competitive environment in which it operates.
The Exchange believes the proposal equitably allocates its fees among its market participants. In the prevailing competitive environment, issuers can readily favor competing venues or transfer listings if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or discount opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable because the proposed annual fees and discounts for High Volume Products would apply uniformly to all similarly situated issuers. The proposal is an equitable allocation of fees because all issuers would continue to be eligible to qualify for the same or reduced annual fees and High Volume Product discounts by meeting the same qualifying criteria. Moreover, the proposed fees would be equitably allocated among issuers because issuers would continue to qualify for an annual fee or discount under criteria applied uniformly to all such issuers. For the same reasons, the proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of market participant.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, issuers are free to list elsewhere if they believe that alternative venues offer them better value. The Exchange believes the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it is intended to provide for simplified annual fees that would generally apply equally to all ETPs listed on the Exchange, based on the number of shares outstanding. The proposed methods through which an issuer could qualify for reduced annual fees are also not unfairly discriminatory, as all issuers would be eligible to qualify for reduced annual fees based on the same criteria. Finally, the proposed discounts for High Volume Products would incentivize all issuers to list or transfer additional such products to the Exchange in order to qualify for the discounts.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSEARCA-2025-91 and should be submitted on or before February 6, 2026.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 7, 2025, and pursuant to section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)
On May 28, 2025, the Participants filed Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Amendment (“Amendment No. 1”).
On September 11, 2025, to provide sufficient time to consider the changes set forth in Amendment No. 1 and any comments received on Amendment No. 1, the Commission designated a longer period within which to conclude proceedings.
The Commission is approving the Proposed Amendment, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter, the “Proposed Amendment” unless otherwise noted), and as modified by the Commission. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that the Proposed Amendment, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, and as modified by the Commission, is 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 Exchange Act.
On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required the SROs to submit a national market system (“NMS”) plan to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS securities.
On November 15, 2016, the Commission approved the CAT NMS Plan, and, among other things, concluded that the CAT would improve the completeness, accuracy, accessibility, and timeliness of the data available to regulators, and that these improvements would significantly improve regulatory efforts by the SROs and the Commission, including market surveillance, market reconstructions, enforcement investigations, and examinations of market participants, thereby strengthening the integrity and efficiency of the markets.
At the inception of CAT, customer information was considered important to enable regulators to more quickly and reliably identify the customers associated with potentially unlawful trading activity and to facilitate the reconstruction of important market events.
In 2020, in light of concerns raised by market participants, industry representatives and the Participants, the Commission granted exemptive relief that limited the personal customer information that must be reported to CAT to name, address, and birth year
In February 2025, the Commission provided an exemption from the requirement to report other personal customer information not covered by the CCID Exemption Order (collectively, “Name, Address, and YOB”) for natural persons with social security numbers or tax-payer identification numbers (the “CAIS Exemption Order”).
The Participants now propose to amend the CAT NMS Plan to: (i) incorporate and codify the CCID Exemption Order; (ii) incorporate and codify the CAIS Exemption Order; (iii) expand upon the CAIS Exemption Order's relief by eliminating the reporting requirements relating to Names, Addresses, and YOBs for all customers, including foreign natural persons and legal entities; (iv) make other modifications related to the elimination of personally identifying information from the CAT; and (v) and require CAT LLC to direct the Plan Processor to delete from CAIS previously reported customer data currently stored in the CAT. These amendments would have the effect of eliminating all CAT NMS Plan requirements to report Names, Addresses, YOBs, SSNs/ITINs, and EINs to the CAT and to remove such previously reported customer information stored in the CAT, as well as codify the Participants' current method of generating anonymized customer identifiers without requiring the receipt or storage of individual SSNs/ITINs in the CAT.
Section 11A of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission, by rule or order, to authorize or require the self-regulatory organizations to act jointly with respect to matters as to which they share authority under the Exchange Act in planning, developing, operating, or regulating a facility of the national market system.
For the reasons described below, the Commission finds that the Proposed Amendment, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, and by the Commission as described below in Part III.C, meets the required standard.
The Proposed Amendment codifies the CCID Exemption Order, which, as described above, allows the Participants to implement a two-phase CCID creation process and also provided exemptive relief from CAT NMS Plan requirements related to the reporting of SSNs/ITINs, dates of birth, and account numbers to the CAT.
To effectuate this change, the Proposed Amendment adds several new defined terms in section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan: “CCID Subsystem,”
Commenters discussed the CAIS database
One commenter, representing a group of Participants, states that CCIDs are needed for the Participants to comply effectively with their SRO obligations, and that transitioning to a CAT without CCIDs would bring further increased costs to both the SROs and the industry to allow for changes to the CAT system and to meet new reporting requirements.
The Participants state that under the Proposed Amendment, as currently designed, the Reference Database would be maintained to facilitate the mapping of unique CCIDs to FDIDs and would preserve the CCID enrichment of transaction data.
One commenter raises potential security and privacy concerns with the retention of TID values, which the commenter understands is retained by the Plan Processor.
In response, the Participants state that if TIDs were not retained, the CCID could not be used for its intended purpose of conducting cross-market, cross-broker, and cross-account surveillance of a single customer's trading activity, nor could it even be used for surveillance of the same broker or same account.
Another commenter stated that its members have raised concerns about whether CCID could be viewed as another form of PII due to the current operation of the CAT system.
It is appropriate for the Proposed Amendment to incorporate the relief granted in the CCID Exemption Order into the CAT NMS Plan, which, among other things, codifies the current CCID creation process into the CAT NMS Plan. As described above in Part II, the CCID process (or CCID alternative) allows the Participants to generate a unique CCID using a two-phase transformation process that avoids having SSNs/ITINs reported to or stored in the CAT. This process was the product of coordination between the Participants and security experts from member firms of SIFMA,
The Commission agrees that the CCID process should be maintained and codified in the Plan. The proposed modifications to the CAT NMS Plan, including the proposed new definitions to be added to the CAT NMS Plan, are reasonably designed to codify this existing process. The ability to link information about order events throughout the national market system to a unique customer identifier is one of the core regulatory advances of the CAT over the fragmented regulatory data sources that preceded it.
In addition, the CAT NMS Plan imposes numerous requirements related to data security, access, and logging, that are reasonably designed to prevent a regulator from using CCIDs for non-regulatory purposes.
The Commission also agrees with the Participants' approach with respect to the TID and maintenance of TID information in an isolated, secure database within the CCID Subsystem.
With respect to questions about the future of the Reference Database (formerly the CAIS system), CCID functionality, and the CAT more generally,
One commenter states that the Proposed Amendment also should eliminate reporting requirements for a large trader field on FDID records, stating that it is unnecessary because the Commission can track activity based on CCID, and should also eliminate the existing requirement to report legal entity identifiers (“LEIs”) for legal entities.
While there may be further cost savings that could be achieved with the elimination of large trader and LEI reporting, the Proposed Amendment does not propose to eliminate the reporting requirements associated with large trader and LEI, and the Commission declines to decide that issue in this Order. The Proposed Amendment retains such reporting requirements, which is reasonable, as large trader and LEI reporting could allow regulators to more easily identify legal entities in CAT in the absence of a legal entity name, especially in the context of legal entities with multiple sub-accounts and sub-entities.
In addition, a commenter suggests that the Commission should provide exemptive relief from large trader requirements, or otherwise evaluate large trader reporting requirements generally in light of the existence of CAT and CAIS, which should allow regulators to determine the activity level of any CCID across accounts at the same broker-dealer and across accounts at different broker dealers.
Two commenters call for the retirement of electronic blue sheets (“EBS”), and replacement of the system with a request-response system using CCIDs and FDIDs.
CAT LLC states that whether or not a request-response system is appropriate or desirable is outside the scope of the Proposed Amendment and outside the purview of CAT LLC.
The Proposed Amendment codifies and expands upon the CAIS Exemption Order, which provides exemptive relief from the reporting of Name, Address, and YOB for certain natural person Customers to the CAT.
The Participants propose the deletion of the definition of the term “PII,” and modification of numerous provisions of the CAT NMS Plan to replace references to “PII” or “Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information” to references to “Reference Data,” or otherwise remove the concept of “PII” from relevant portions of the CAT NMS Plan.
The Participants also propose revising certain definitions in the CAT NMS Plan. The definition of “Customer Account Information” would be modified to be “Account Reference Data,” and specifically remove account number and customer type as elements of Customer Account Information.
The Participants also propose additional modifications to the definition of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality,” to add footnotes to make clear that the Proposed Amendment is not meant to change the meaning of defined terms that are being modified by the Proposed Amendment for purposes of the Financial Accountability Milestones (“FAM”).
Certain provisions of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan would be revised to incorporate the CAIS Exemption Order, CCID Exemption Order, and to remove references to Name, Address, and YOB.
In addition, the Participants propose to modify section 4.1.4 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan to state that the Plan Processer must record all access to, and all queries of, data stored in the Reference Database and generate periodic reports of all access to, and all queries of, data stored in the Reference Database.
Proposed section 9.1 of Appendix D would state that the Plan Processor “will design and implement a robust data validation process for submitted Firm Designated IDs and must continue to process orders while investigating Firm Designated ID mismatches,” which the Participants state is to confirm that the Proposed Amendment is making no change to current FDID validation procedures.
In addition, section 9.4 of Appendix D would be revised to eliminate the requirement that the Plan Processor design and implement procedures and mechanisms to handle minor and material inconsistencies in Customer information. The Participants state that the Plan Processor currently validates whether a TID value is associated with different years of birth, and the query tool currently accounts for minor inconsistencies in how CAT Reporters report data to the CAT; for example, a query including the word “Street” would include results including both “Street” and “St.,” but because the Proposed Amendment would eliminate Customer addresses and years of birth, the proposed change to section 9.4 of Appendix D is appropriate.
The Participants state that the Proposed Amendment would allow CAT LLC to achieve an overall cost savings of between $7 million and $9 million per year as compared to the 2024 actual budget.
Several commenters support the Proposed Amendment and the elimination of the reporting requirements for Names, Addresses, and YOBs from the CAT.
This commenter explains that the security benefits of removing PII from the CAT outweigh the costs based on several considerations.
Another commenter states that it supported the CAIS Exemption Order and similarly support the Proposed Amendment as it furthers the goal of eliminating the collection and storage of individual investors' PII in the CAT.
Another commenter, a Plan Participant, states that it approves of the passage of the Proposed Amendment because the systemic and prospective collection of names, addresses, and years of birth for all customers is not necessary for effective oversight of the securities markets.
In contrast to the commenters above, one commenter opposes the Proposed Amendment, stating that it would frustrate the purposes of the CAT and make it harder for the SEC to detect misconduct and identify the perpetrators.
Another commenter “strongly” recommends that the Proposed Amendment be disapproved for different reasons.
This commenter also raises various issues that are beyond the scope of the Proposed Amendment. This commenter broadly recommends changes to the structure of CAT, stating that they suggest a “more effective and efficient real-time analytics approach,” that refusal to “make a concrete and complete overhaul to the out-of-date technical design of CAT since 2012” means that the “CAT project is and will continue to be a Money Pit,” and that “trade reporting” is “outdated.”
In addition, one commenter, who generally supports the Proposed Amendment,
Another commenter, representing a group of Participants, states that since the issuance of the CAIS Exemption, the exchanges have reverted to using blue sheet requests to broker-dealers to obtain customer data for regulatory purposes.
In response to a commenter that objects to the Proposed Amendment,
The Participants state that the Proposed Amendment would have “no impact on the creation or regulatory function of the CCID.”
The Participants state that in their view, the Commission already considered the issue of requesting Customer information directly from Industry Members in the CAIS Exemption Order and concluded that requesting such information from Industry Members would pose less risk than collecting, transmitting, and/or requesting such information via the CAT.
For reasons discussed in greater detail below, the proposed modifications to the CAT NMS Plan to eliminate the reporting of Names, Addresses, and YOBs for all customers is reasonable and appropriate. The Commission acknowledges that there are some regulatory benefits that will be lost by ending the collection and storage of customer names, addresses, and birth years in the CAT. However, the Commission no longer believes that the collection and storage of this information is justified in light of heightened security risks and the prospect of relatively efficient indirect access to customer information, which could mitigate at least some of the loss in regulatory efficiency, and that the Proposed Amendments preserve the CAT's ability to advance the key regulatory objectives for which it was intended.
As discussed in greater detail below, the Proposed Amendment codifies and expands upon the relief granted by the CAIS Exemption Order. The CAIS Exemption Order granted exemptive relief from certain sections of the CAT NMS Plan relating to the reporting of Name, Address and YOB from natural persons with transformed CCIDs, but it did not require that such information no longer be reported and did not apply to all Customers. The Proposed Amendment would go further and eliminate the reporting requirements for natural persons with transformed CCIDs and would also eliminate the reporting requirements for all natural persons and entities, instead of just U.S. natural persons. Unlike the relief provided in the CAIS Exemption Order, which was optional so broker-dealers could choose not to take advantage of it and continue reporting the customer information, the Proposed Amendment would result in the CAT system no longer including fields for reporting these data points.
Importantly, the Proposed Amendment would preserve key elements of the CAT as it currently functions. In particular, it would not impact the creation of CCIDs for most CAT customers, which are identifiers that have proven to be an effective means of uniquely and consistently identifying customers. The Commission stated, in approving the CAT NMS Plan, the importance of the CCID approach, as it “constitutes a significant improvement relative to the Baseline because it would consistently identify the Customer responsible for market activity, obviating the need for regulators to collect and reconcile Customer Identifying Information from multiple broker-dealers.”
The Commission disagrees that the Proposed Amendment would “frustrate the purposes of the CAT,” or unduly hinder the Commission's ability to accomplish the goals of CAT.
The Commission acknowledges, however, that removing additional PII from the CAT will negatively impact regulatory efficiency.
The Commission further recognizes that removal of PII from the CAIS system will mean regulators will be unable to immediately link transaction data to customer PII, and will instead have to seek Customer identifying information from broker-dealers, which may result in increased requests through EBS.
The Commission also recognizes that because the Proposed Amendment would eliminate the requirements relating to reporting of Names, Addresses, and YOBs of foreign Customers, there is a risk that the CAT may not reliably generate unique CCIDs for foreign Customers, as a unique foreign Customer may have multiple government issued IDs used across multiple broker-dealers to generate multiple TIDs and thus multiple CCIDs. The potential existence of multiple CCIDs for one Customer may make it
Regulators may also be able to take steps in response to this issue. Importantly, the CAT will maintain a “foreign” flag to identify which trades are associated with foreign Customers. Also, broker-dealers are obligated to collect certain information about their customers pursuant to various recordkeeping rules, Know Your Customer Rules, and anti-money laundering rules, and thus key foreign Customer information will be available to regulators upon request. Thus, if a regulator needs to determine the identity of the individual behind a particular CCID, the regulator would be able to use one or more of the FDIDs associated with the CCID and contact the broker-dealer(s) who reported the FDID(s) and request the Name, Address, and YOB for the individual Customer.
The security benefits of eliminating the requirement to report PII to the CAT support approval of the Proposed Amendment, as modified herein, despite the loss of some regulatory efficiency. From the CAT's inception, the Commission has sought to continually balance the regulatory benefits of the CAT with the risks associated with a security breach. In the CAT NMS Plan Approval Order, the Commission recognized that “because some of the CAT Data stored in the Central Repository will contain PII such as names, [and] addresses . . . a security breach could raise the possibility of identity theft. . ., ” and it emphasized that the Plan contained provisions designed to mitigate the risks of such a breach.
As one commenter noted,
The risks of maintaining personal information in the CAT include potential harm to all market participants, including the Participants, Industry Members, and Customers. For Customers, a cybercriminal with knowledge of a person's Name, Address, and YOB may be able to impersonate a customer or broker-dealer to gain access to a Customer's account or attempt to defraud the Customer directly. For Participants and Industry Members, a breach involving PII could result in significant financial harm from legal fines, penalties, and lawsuits, as well as significant reputational harm and loss of consumer confidence and trust. In addition, any legal costs and damages suffered by the Participants or Industry Members due to a security breach could ultimately be borne by Customers. While it is true that wrongdoers could do things beyond the Participants' control, such as hacking personal information from checking accounts, credit card accounts, or brokerage accounts that are placing retail trades, the Proposed Amendment addresses risks that are within the Participants' control—the risks of maintaining personal information in the CAT.
In light of these risks and the increasing sophistication of cybercriminals and bad actors, it is appropriate to approve the Participants' proposal to eliminate the requirement
The Commission finds that the proposed modifications to the CAT NMS Plan are reasonably designed to implement the CAIS Exemption Order and CCID Exemption Order and to remove references to Name, Address, and YOB. This includes modifications to sections 9.1 and 9.2 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, which would modify the CAT to capture and store the more limited Reference Data in the Proposed Amendment, state that TIDs must be accepted by the CAT, and eliminate reporting requirements inconsistent with reduced reporting of Customer information. The modification of the term “Firm Identifier Number” to “Firm Designated ID” is also reasonable, as this more accurately defines a number that is currently reported by CAT reporters on all orders generated for a particular account.
In addition, proposed changes in the Proposed Amendment designed to maintain current processes are reasonable and should be approved. Specifically, maintaining the process for monitoring and documenting access to the Reference Database and FDID validations processes is appropriate and would help ensure the security of the Reference Database and the accuracy of FDID data.
The proposed modifications to definitions in the CAT NMS Plan are also reasonable. Specifically, it is appropriate to modify the definition of “Customer Account Information” to “Account Reference Data,” and remove account number and customer type as elements of Customer Account Information, because pursuant to the Proposed Amendment these elements would no longer be reportable to the CAT.
The removal of the defined term PII, as well as changes throughout the CAT NMS Plan to replace references to “PII” or “Customer Account Information and Customer Identifying Information” to references to “Reference Data,” or otherwise remove the concept of “PII” from relevant portions of the CAT NMS Plan, is reasonable.
In addition, the proposed addition of footnotes to the definition of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality”
The removal of reporting requirements relating to EINs is likewise reasonable. The Commission agrees with the reasoning of the Participants that requiring the reporting of EINs, in plain text and with the same number of digits as SSNs, increases the risk of improper reporting of SSNs. The Participants state that even in the absence of EIN reporting, the Plan Processor's ability to create a unique CCID would not be affected as Industry Members would continue to report a translated TID value (based on EIN) to the CCID Subsystem.
The elimination of the requirement that the Plan Processor design and implement procedures and mechanisms to handle minor and material
Although one commenter raises concerns regarding statutory authority and the Fourth Amendment
The Proposed Amendment would add a new section 9.5 to Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, “Deletion from CAIS of Certain Reported Customer Data,” which would require CAT LLC to direct the Plan Processor to delete from CAIS all existing Customer data and information contemplated by the Proposed Amendment,
Commenters generally support the deletion of previously reported customer data information.
The Participants state that deleting all historical customer information would improve operational efficiency and would be the most straightforward and efficient way to remove sensitive information that is currently held in the customer information database.
The Participants' proposal to eliminate existing Customer data information from CAIS is reasonable and should be approved. Merely eliminating the prospective reporting of customer data and information would leave a significant amount of older Customer data and information in CAIS and thus only partially address the risks of a security breach. Moreover, such information would no longer be subject to updates or corrections and thus become less reliable and useful over time in any event. And, according to the Participants, eliminating the data will result in substantial cost savings. The Commission also believes that the requirement that the Plan Processor document all deletions of Customer information and provide reports to the CAT Operating Committee will help ensure that the Participants are effectively monitoring the Plan Processor's elimination of Customer information and ensure that customer information is deleted in a thoughtful and appropriate manner. The Commission disagrees with the commenter that believes that Customer account information, once deleted, could be “reverse-engineered” through other information maintained by the CAT to “reconstruct the entire [Customer Account Information] and [Customer Identifying Information] privacy information..
In conjunction with proposed section 9.5 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan, the Participants specifically request, “[t]o the extent that the Commission deems it necessary,” exemptive relief from Rule 17a-1 under the Exchange Act with respect to existing Customer data and information in CAIS on a retroactive and prospective basis.
However, pursuant to Rule 608(b)(2),
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan or this Appendix D, CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to develop and implement a mechanism to delete from CAIS, or otherwise make inaccessible to regulatory users, the following data attributes: Customer name, Customer address, account name, account address, authorized trader names list, account number, day of birth, month of birth, year of birth, and ITIN/SSN. CAT LLC or the Plan Processor shall be permitted to delete any such information that has been improperly reported by an Industry Member to the extent that either becomes aware of such improper reporting through self-reporting or otherwise. CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to document all deletions of Customer information from the Reference Database and provide periodic reports of all such deletions to the Operating Committee.
In comparison to proposed section 9.5 of the CAT NMS Plan in the Proposed Amendment, as modified by Amendments No. 1 and 2, the following changes would apply. Deletions are shown through [brackets], and additions are shown with
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan[,]
The Participants state that the Proposed Amendment will save between $7 million and $9 million annually after an implementation cost of $4.5 million to $5.5 million. In order to achieve these savings, the Participants state that the Plan Processor would need to eliminate the software that is required to support regulatory queries of Name, Address, and YOB.
The Participants responded to this commenter to provide more detailed information regarding how the Proposed Amendment would be implemented, if approved.
In their response, the Participants state that any implementation schedule will be designed to allow the Plan Processor and Industry Members adequate time to finalize Technical Specifications and guidance, and to develop, test and implement the necessary changes to firm systems in order to comply with the Proposed Amendment.
• Stop providing visibility to regulators of existing Names, Addresses, and YOBs in CAT—approximately 3 months from effective date;
• Continue to accept submissions from Industry Members that include Names, Addresses, and YOBs, but stop processing any such information in CAT (such Customer information would remain on the as-submitted file)—approximately 3 months;
• Reject any submissions from Industry Members that continue to include Names, Addresses, and YOBs (
• Delete all existing Names, Addresses, and YOBs (as well as any other sensitive Customer data and information contemplated by the Proposed Amendment) from the CAT—approximately 9-12 months after the data migration is completed and verified; it will take approximately 2-3 months to permanently remove old data.
The Commission agrees that a phased implementation schedule is appropriate, to help assure that the removal of PII from the CAT is implemented in a careful and efficient manner, with minimal impact on other CAT Data.
In determining whether to approve an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan and whether that amendment is in the public interest, Rule 613 requires the Commission to consider the impact of that amendment on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
In analyzing the impact of the Proposed Amendment on efficiency, competition and capital formation, the Commission considered the current reporting, use, and state of CAIS Data as the baseline. Specifically, the baseline consists of the characteristics
The baseline takes into account the exemptive relief that has been granted since the implementation of the CAT NMS Plan, which has changed the information that is reported to and maintained within CAIS.
The changes to CAIS data resulting from the CAIS Exemption Order have resulted in, and would have continued to result in, changes to the manner in which regulators perform regulatory duties that require identifying individual customers who might be U.S. natural persons, or linking trading activity to customer data in CAIS when the trading data might be from U.S. natural persons. These changes have reduced regulatory efficiency,
The Participants stated that the CAIS Exemptive Relief would not result in cost savings for the Plan Processor.
Because the CAIS Exemption Order forms part of the baseline with respect to the reporting and use of CAIS data, the economic effects of the CAIS Exemption Order are discussed in greater detail in the following sections of the baseline. The discussion of effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation below considers the incremental effects of the Proposed Amendment beyond the effects of the CAIS Exemption Order.
CAT Data was intended to improve regulators' ability to perform analysis and reconstruction of market events,
CAT maintains transaction data in the Central Repository, separate from customer and account information, which is maintained in CAIS. In CAT data, customers are uniquely identified by a CAT Customer ID (“CCID”), which is attached to all of a customer's account records in CAIS (allowing regulators to connect together all of a customer's accounts, even those held with different Industry Members) and to all transaction records pertaining to the customer (allowing regulators to obtain all of a customer's transaction records across all accounts).
Access to CAT data by default does not confer access to CAIS data; regulators must separately request and be approved for access to CAIS data.
Customer records in CAIS can be used to establish elements of the identity of customers in CAT transaction data. Customer information currently stored in CAIS for customers that are natural persons includes (but is not limited to) names, addresses, YOBs, and customer types; and for customers that are legal entities, such information includes (but is not limited to) legal names, addresses, EINs, LEIs, and customer types. Customer records can be linked to transaction records by two unique identifiers, the FDID and the CCID. FDID is a unique identifier for accounts, determined and reported by Industry Members. Each FDID may be linked to one or more entities that are holders of an account, and potentially to one or more other entities that are authorized traders on an account, but not account holders. Customers may have multiple FDIDs assigned to them by different Industry Members with whom they hold accounts. CCID is a unique identifier for customers and is computed from identifiers reported to CAIS by Industry Members.
CAIS is useful for regulatory activities that involve connecting customer or account data with transaction data. It is useful in quickly establishing such connections in either direction: it can be used either to run queries of CCIDs or FDIDs obtained from CAT transaction data to obtain the corresponding customer information (“Queries of CCID”) or to run queries of customer information for a particular customer to obtain that customer's CCID or FDID (“Queries of Customer Information”), enabling regulators to query the CAT transaction data for that customer's transaction information. The ability to quickly establish these connections is important for many regulatory activities, although some regulatory functions predominantly require establishing a connection only in one direction; Queries of Customer Information are particularly useful when attempting to obtain transaction information for a customer identified only by name or address, as may be the case when investigating tips, complaints, and referrals. CAIS aids in establishing these connections for customers that are U.S. natural persons, non-U.S. natural persons, and legal entities alike.
On occasion, investigations are resolved in early stages, using only CAIS information and the CAT transaction information linked to a CCID retrieved from CAIS. Resolution of matters using CAIS data without making data requests to other regulators or Industry Members is cost effective and efficient. However, often investigations involve contacting Industry Members for additional information even when CAIS data are available, for example to verify the completeness of information obtained from CAT before proceeding further with an investigation of potentially violative behavior indicated by the CAT data, or to obtain information about related activity not required to be reported to CAT such as ETF creations and redemptions.
The CAIS Exemption Order provides optional relief from the requirement that Industry Members report customer names, addresses and YOBs for U.S. natural persons (
Under the CAIS Exemption Order, address data for U.S. natural persons would likely become unreliable more quickly than name data, since changes of addresses are generally more common than name changes. YOB data for U.S. natural persons would largely remain reliable until they were removed from CAIS at the end of the data retention period, since the only reason that this data should change is if it were incorrectly reported and a subsequent correction was made.
Regulators have used CAT to identify the trading of individuals or accounts, and many times CAT Data queries using CCIDs obtained from CAIS formed a viable substitute for data that regulators would previously have obtained through EBS or ad hoc data requests. The CAIS Exemption Order reduces the effectiveness of Queries of CCID, which seek to obtain the identity of customers using the CCID or FDID of transactions of interest, and particularly the efficacy of Queries of Customer Information, which seek to obtain a CCID or FDID using specified customer information.
First, the CAIS Exemption Order would result in it gradually becoming more difficult to determine the identity of U.S. natural person customers associated with transactions of interest using Queries of CCID, such as to follow-up when an SRO surveillance identifies transactions for particular FDIDs or CCIDs in exception reports. Because CAT transaction records identify customers in the transaction using their CCID and FDID, the real-world identity of such customers is not immediately apparent from the transaction record. It is currently generally possible for regulators to obtain U.S. natural person customers' name, address, and/or YOB from CAIS, but as this information would become less reliable in CAIS, identifying the customer associated with a CCID would, with increasing frequency, require regulators to request information from other sources, such as a broker-dealer with a relationship to the customer.
Second, when a regulator needs to investigate the trading of a specified U.S. natural person,
One commenter stated, “[s]ince the Commission exempted reporting of certain personally identifiable information (`PII') from the CAT, the NYSE Exchanges have reverted to using blue sheet requests to broker-dealers to obtain customer data for regulatory uses.”
The purpose of the CCID is to act as a unique identifier for customers, bridging multiple accounts, possibly at multiple broker-dealers, that belong to the same customer. CCID thus allows regulators to easily obtain all of a customer's transaction information, rather than just the transaction information for a single known account belonging to the customer. The Participants have described the CCID as “one of the critical innovations of CAT” and noted that it allows regulators “the ability to identify a Customer's market activity across multiple exchanges, broker-dealers, and accounts.”
The Commission understands the CCID to be generally reliable as a unique customer identifier. The Participants have stated that the Plan Processor performs certain validation checks upon information submitted to CAIS
As name, address, and YOB data for U.S. natural persons would become less reliable and/or available in CAIS under the baseline due to the CAIS Exemption, any inaccuracies in their CCIDs would become more difficult to identify, and analyses using CAT data would be more frequently affected by such inaccuracies. Currently, the presence of name, address, and YOB data in CAIS makes it possible for regulators to perform certain spot-checks that would indicate some types of CCID inaccuracy early in the course of an investigation.
In the CAT NMS Plan Approval Order, the Commission discussed how the CAT would aid regulators in performing market surveillance,
One type of CAT Customer that Industry Members are required to report to CAIS is “[a]ny person from whom the broker-dealer is authorized to accept trading instructions for such account, if different from the account holder(s)” (“Authorized Traders”).
However, CAIS requires that CAT Customers who are natural persons be reported with certain required data, including a TID.
Because of the CAIS Exemption Order, Industry Members currently have three options when reporting a U.S. NPAT to CAIS: (1) where they have all the required information to report the U.S. NPAT as a CAT Customer, they may do so, reporting the U.S. NPAT's name, address, and/or YOB even though this is optional following the CAIS Exemption Order; (2) they may report the U.S. NPAT as a CAT Customer while not reporting name, address, or YOB, due to the optionality granted due to the CAIS Exemption Order; or (3) they may use the ATNL to report only the U.S. NPAT's name. Under the baseline—that is, under the CAIS Exemption Order, in the absence of the Proposed Amendment—the Commission expects the first two of these options would remain available following the eventual retirement of the ATNL at some future date, as the retirement of the ATNL would not be anticipated to affect the information that the NMS CAT Plan would require to be reported when reporting a Natural Person CAT Customer, nor would it be anticipated to affect the CAIS Exemption Order.
For those U.S. NPATs currently reported to CAIS as CAT Customers, name, address, and YOB data on these entities would become less reliable and/or accessible over time, as for U.S. natural persons in general. However, until the retirement of the ATNL, name data on other U.S. NPATs would continue to be updated via this list, to the extent that Industry Members would continue to report U.S. NPATS using the ATNL. Once this list is retired, it is uncertain whether name data previously reported as part of this list would be retained in CAIS or would be deleted. If these data were retained, they would become gradually less reliable and/or available in the same manner as name data for U.S. natural persons, and would do so more rapidly than name data in general, since changes to authorized traders on an account would be likely to occur more frequently than changes of or corrections to the legal names of customers.
Because the CAIS Exemption Order provided relief from requirements to report names, addresses, and YOBs of U.S. natural person customers, including U.S. NPATs reported as CAT Customers, the only circumstance in which an Industry Member currently must report the name of a U.S. NPAT to CAIS is when reporting them via the ATNL. As such, to the extent that U.S. NPATs continue to be reported via the
Under the baseline, the Commission expects that, over time, Industry Members would likely modify their systems to systematize the information required to report NPATs (including non-U.S. NPATs) to CAIS as CAT Customers, in anticipation of the eventual retirement of the ATNL requiring such modifications, and would thus be required to report NPATs as CAT Customers instead of using the ATNL. These modifications, coupled with modifications to reporting systems to no longer report name, address and YOB data for U.S. Natural Person CAT Customers following the CAIS Exemption Order, would result in name data for U.S. NPATs reported via the ATNL becoming less reliable in the manner of name data for U.S. natural persons generally. This would require regulators to connect such Authorized Traders to transaction data using the same methods employed for U.S. natural persons in general, as discussed above.
The degree to which regulatory activities such as investigations or market analysis focus on particular customer types is likely related to the relative trading volume of different customer types. Between 2021 and 2025, in both equity and options markets, trading activity of legal entities increased substantially. In particular, legal entities have come to have disproportionately larger shares in dollar values of trade compared to retail.
Legal entities account for the majority of trading in both equities and options. Table 1 presents the trade shares by retail and legal entities as identified by account holder type designation in CAT from 2021 to 2025. Although retail trades have captured a lot of attention,
CAIS-related costs account for a non-trivial share of the Plan Processor's operating costs. Table 2 presents some of the publicly available CAT cost information and estimates. According to the Participants' 2025 budget estimate and their May response letter, the total CAIS-related costs of $32.5 million to $33.5 million are approximately 21 percent of total operating expenses;
Although CAIS-related cloud hosting fees and CAIS licensing fees (payable to the Plan Processor) for the year 2024 are not separately reported in the
By contrast, Table 3 shows that the message traffic in equities and options markets between Q2-2024 and Q2-2025 increased by 120 percent and 69 percent, respectively. Table 3 also shows the growth of message traffic since the beginning of CAT reporting:
Some of CAT's operating costs are cybersecurity costs associated with maintaining the security of CAT including preventing breaches of transaction data, and customer and account information. CAIS currently presents cybersecurity risks in relation to two broad areas of activities: transmission (when information is sent from Industry Members to CAIS or from CAIS to regulators and other users of CAIS data),
Participants and Industry Members compete in the market for trading services and the market for broker-dealer services.
Participants and Industry Members compete in the market for trading services, which is served by exchanges, ATSs, and liquidity providers (internalizers and others).
Industry Members compete in the Market for Broker Dealer Services which covers many different markets for a variety of services, including, but not limited to, managing orders for customers and routing them to various trading venues, holding customer funds and securities, handling clearance and settlement of trades, intermediating between customers and carrying/clearing brokers, dealing in government bonds, private placements of securities, and effecting transactions in mutual funds that involve transferring funds directly to the issuer.
The market for broker-dealer services relies on competition among broker-dealers to provide the services listed above to their customers at efficient levels of quality and quantity. This market includes a small set of large broker-dealers and thousands of small broker-dealers competing for niche or regional segments of the market. To limit costs and make business more viable, small broker-dealers often contract with larger broker-dealers or service bureaus to handle certain functions, such as clearing and execution, or to update their technology. Large broker-dealers typically enjoy economies of scale over small broker-dealers and compete with each other to service the smaller broker-dealers, who are both their competitors and their customers.
Of the extant 3,284
Some broker-dealers may offer specialized services in one line of business mentioned above, while other broker-dealers may offer diversified services across many different lines of businesses. As such, the competitive dynamics within each of these specific lines of business for broker-dealers is different, depending on the number of broker-dealers that operate in the given segment and the market share that the broker-dealers occupy.
The Proposed Amendment involves tradeoffs between operational efficiency and regulatory efficiency. In particular, the Proposed Amendments will cause reductions in regulatory efficiency for certain types of regulatory activities. At the same time, the Proposed Amendment will likely result in modest improvements to operational efficiency. It is unlikely to impact market efficiency.
Economically, operational efficiency refers to the effective use of resources to generate a given output. In the case of CAT, the output refers to the CAT Data, which is generated for regulatory purposes. Even though the output, CAT Data, under the proposal is not the same as that in the absence of the proposal, the analysis of operational efficiency is simplified by focusing on the use of resources as measured by the cost savings, net of implementation costs; the efficiency effects of changes in CAT Data are discussed separately (as impacts on regulatory efficiency).
The Participants estimate that the Proposed Amendment is expected to save approximately $7 to $9 million in overall costs annually.
One commenter stated, “[w]e do [not] believe the proposed amendments if adopted would achieve its stated [`]cost savings and efficiency.['] Referencing to 2022 CAT Budget, $118.7 million
The primary source of these cost savings is the $5 million reduction in CAIS operating fees (payable to the Plan Processor). In addition, the Participants estimate $2-4 million in incremental cloud savings that arise from a reduction in CAIS-related cloud hosting services fees.
The magnitude of cost savings is driven by two aspects of the Proposed Amendment—elimination of customer information across all Customer accounts and elimination of all customer information. Operationally, cost savings arise from elimination of PII for all Customer accounts.
Elimination of all PII from CAIS, as opposed to some PII under the CAIS Exemption Order, also has operating cost implications.
Given these cost drivers the timing of these cost savings will depend on the implementation schedule. The Participants outline a potential phased implementation schedule that will more than a year for full implementation.
The actual cost savings could differ from the Participants' estimates because of uncertainty in several factors, particularly the changes in the cost of cloud computing. The estimates of potential savings apply to the first year following the full implementation of the Amendment, but are based on assumptions that today's costs will be the same in the one year plus when the Proposed amendment is fully implemented.
The Proposed Amendment would likely increase ad hoc requests by regulators for name, address, and/or YOB that will entail costs.
The need for additional ad hoc requests is likely to vary depending on whether the required information is for a U.S. natural person, a non-U.S. national person, or a legal entity;
The Commission cannot estimate the cost transfers resulting from additional ad hoc data requests because it lacks estimates of typical ad hoc data request response costs and cannot estimate the number of additional data requests Industry Members would need to fulfill.
In analyzing how the Proposal will impact regulatory efficiency, the Commission assessed how the Proposal will impact regulatory activities.
The Proposed Amendment will eliminate requirements related to reporting and delete from CAIS all data previously reported for the fields “Customer name, Customer address, account name, account address, authorized trader names list, account number, day of birth, month of birth, year of birth, and ITIN/SSN.”
With respect to U.S. natural persons, the Proposed Amendment will reduce regulatory efficiency by causing name, address, and YOB data for U.S. natural persons to become unavailable in CAIS sooner, as such data already reported to CAIS and maintained therein will be deleted. Such data otherwise would have eventually become unreliable under the baseline, as a result of the CAIS Exemption Order. Thus, instead of it gradually becoming more difficult to connect U.S. natural person customers to their transaction data using CAT and CAIS data, it will instead become more difficult to do so upon implementation of the Proposed Amendment. As a result, it will be necessary upon implementation for regulators to rely on alternate sources of data to connect U.S. natural persons to their transaction information, which will be less efficient.
With respect to data on non-U.S. natural persons, the Proposed Amendment will reduce regulatory efficiency by causing name, address, and YOB data for non-U.S. natural persons to become unavailable in CAIS. Connecting non-U.S. natural person customers to their transaction information using CAT and CAIS data will be more difficult for regulators. This will, in turn, require regulators to use alternative sources of customer and account data as discussed. It will also cause inaccuracies in CCIDs to more frequently go undetected since spot checks will no longer be feasible to perform, and this will increasingly affect the quality of analyses conducted using CAT data that depend on linking
With respect to data on legal entities, the Proposed Amendment will reduce regulatory efficiency by causing name, address, and EIN data for legal entities to become unavailable in CAIS. It will be more difficult for regulators to connect legal entities to their transaction information using CAT and CAIS data. This will, in turn, require regulators to use alternative sources of customer and account data. It will also cause inaccuracies in CCIDs to go undetected more often, due to spot checks that will no longer be feasible to perform, and this will increasingly affect the efficiency of regulatory activities conducted using CAT data that depend on linking together a customer's multiple accounts, such as market reconstructions and enforcement investigations, as discussed above for U.S. natural person customers.
However, these reductions in regulatory efficiency may also be ameliorated for legal entities for whom certain alternative identifiers such as EIN, LEI and LTID are available in CAIS and accessible to regulators.
The Participants state that when the EIN field is eliminated, regulators will retain the ability to search by EIN to retrieve a CCID for a legal entity.
In addition, the loss in regulatory efficiency could be reduced if regulators are able to use LEI or LTID to connect legal entities to their transaction information without issuing data requests to Industry Members. For those legal entities that possess an LEI or LTID, regulators can obtain this identifier from a non-CAT source
Federal financial regulators including the Commission have proposed joint standards that would default to using LEI in those agencies' rulemakings.
With respect to analyses that focus on Authorized Traders, such as an investigation into violative behavior on the part of an Authorized Trader for multiple, otherwise unconnected accounts, the Proposed Amendment will reduce regulatory efficiency because the Proposed Amendment will also implement the planned retirement of the ATNL.
The Participants state that “the difference in the amount of time it takes to access the name of an investor in CAT versus the time it takes to request and obtain a name from an Industry Member would be relevant in only very limited scenarios and would not materially impede examinations and investigations.”
One commenter, who is a regulator, stated that the Proposal “would [not] unduly compromise[e] regulatory effectiveness,” noting that “the systemic and prospective collection of names, addresses, and years of birth for all customers is not necessary for effective oversight of the securities markets.”
In the CAT NMS Plan Approval Order, the Commission discussed how the CAT would aid regulators in performing analysis and reconstructions of market events, market analysis and research, enforcement investigations, and triage of tips and complaints.
When conducting analysis and reconstructions of market events, which tend to be large analyses conducted less often than other regulatory activities, it may be necessary for regulators to make numerous requests for information, to numerous Industry Members.
In performing examinations and enforcement investigations,
The Proposed Amendments will particularly reduce the efficiency of regulatory activities that rely on Queries of Customer Information if regulators do not know which broker-dealers service the customers of interest and such customers do not have alternative identifiers in CAIS. This is commonly necessary for purposes such as triaging tips, complaints, and referrals that identify a possible victim or violator by their customer information, but do not also identify broker-dealers servicing this customer. When initially triaging a low-information tip, complaint, or referral such as this, regulators would have been able to quickly query CAIS using customer information and thus determine not just the broker-dealers servicing the customer, but the customer's CCID, enabling regulators to also obtain transaction data to further investigate the tip, complaint, or referral.
Based on the experience of Commission staff, these anticipated changes will most frequently affect regulatory uses of CAT related to investigations (but will only rarely materially impede them
Because the Proposed Amendment's deletion of information retained in CAIS will cause information to become unavailable, it may cause additional short-term transitory reductions in regulatory efficiency until regulators can adjust. Regulators will have a short timeframe in which to develop modified procedures for using CAT and CAIS in regulatory tasks, which may require temporarily drawing resources away from other regulatory activities.
The Proposed Amendment could have an adverse impact on market efficiency that is not likely to be large. While a potential positive impact on market efficiency due to certain reduced transaction costs is possible, it is not likely to be consequential. The impact on market efficiency, in this analysis, is second order to regulatory efficiency, which the Commission expects to decline with the Proposed Amendments.
The Proposed Amendment could reduce market efficiency if it were to result in a reduction in the deterrence of violative behaviors or in an increase in the persistence of violative behaviors. However, as stated by the Participants, the changes to availability of customer identifying information, including that associated with legal entity and non-U.S. national persons in CAIS, would only rarely materially impede examinations or investigations.
The cost savings associated with the Proposed Amendments might contribute to lowering transaction costs, however, the contribution is unlikely to be large enough to meaningfully affect market efficiency. CAT costs related to the operation and maintenance of CAIS and costs related to reporting to CAIS on the part of the Industry Members, in principle, likely contribute to the overall transaction costs in the market.
The Proposed Amendment may have a small positive effect on competition in the markets for trading services and broker-dealer services in which Industry Members and Participants compete. As discussed above, the Proposed Amendment is likely to reduce the costs of operating and maintaining CAT. These cost savings will marginally reduce the competitive advantages and disadvantages inherent in the CAT funding model that may impact competition in the market for trading services and the market for broker-dealer services.
In the market for trading services, the Proposed Amendment is likely to have mixed effects upon competition. The Proposed Amendment may provide a small disadvantage to broker-dealers that have customers and participate in the market for trading services because these broker-dealers are likely to be burdened with additional ad hoc data requests related to customer information that was formerly reported to CAIS. However, these same broker-dealers currently operate under a competitive disadvantage due to potential liability in the event that their customers' data is exposed if there were a CAT data breach; the Proposed Amendment is likely to provide a significant reduction to this disadvantage by reducing the potential costs to broker-dealers if their customers experience such a breach. Market centers without customers, such as exchanges, would not experience such cost savings.
In the CAT NMS Plan Approval Order, the Commission stated its belief that the operational requirements of the plan (excluding effects arising from the funding model) would likely not reduce competition and efficiency in the overall market for broker-dealer services, although it recognized that there might be competitive effects between broker-dealers that did and did not have CAT reporting obligations.
The Commission expects that Industry Members will incur one-time implementation costs related to modifying their systems to cease the reporting of customer information that will no longer be collected under the Proposed Amendment.
In conclusion, the Proposed Amendment is likely to have small mixed effects upon competition in the market for broker-dealer services. Furthermore, the Proposed Amendment is unlikely to have an adverse effect on competition in the markets for broker-dealer or trading services in which Industry Members compete.
The Proposed Amendment is unlikely to result in a significant effect on capital formation. In the CAT NMS Plan Approval Order, the Commission discussed its belief that concerns regarding data security were unlikely to
For the reasons discussed, the Commission, pursuant to section 11A of the Exchange Act,
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission finds that the proposed changes to the CAT NMS Plan, as set forth in the Proposed Amendment, as modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, and as modified herein, meet the required standard.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to amend the Franklin Bitcoin ETF (the “Fund”), shares (“Fund Shares”) of which have been approved by the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4) under an approval order, to permit the Fund to list and trade under the generic listing standards of that rule.
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 Commission has previously approved the listing and trading of shares for the Fund under Rule 14.11(e)(4),
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 the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest because it would provide for the transition of the Fund from being listed pursuant to the Bitcoin ETP Approval Order to Amended Rule 14.11(e)(4) instead. The proposed change would allow the Fund Shares to continue listing and trading on the Exchange and permit the Fund to operate in reliance on the generic listing standards in Amended Rule 14.11(e)(4) instead of the terms of the Bitcoin ETP Approval Order, thereby facilitating the continued listing and trading of exchange-traded products that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. The Fund will meet the requirements of Amended Rule 14.11(e)(4) and will be required to comply with the continued listing standards set forth in Amended Rule 14.11(e)(4).
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 purpose of the Act. As discussed above, the proposed change is intended to facilitate the continued listing and trading of the Fund on the Exchange, thereby promoting competition among exchange-traded products to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to update various non-transaction fees that have not been changed in a number of years to be comparable to fees charged by other like exchanges for similar products.
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 first launched operations in December 2012 to attract order flow and encourage market participants to experience the high determinism and resiliency of the Exchange's trading Systems.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the following non-transaction fees: (1) monthly Trading Permit
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the amount of the monthly Trading Permit fees assessed to EEMs and Market Makers.
The Exchange notes that Trading Permit fees for EEMs have not been amended since January 1, 2015.
The monthly Trading Permit fees for Market Makers have not been amended since May 1, 2015.
Currently, the Exchange assess the following Trading Permit fees to Market Makers:
• $7,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by national ADV;
• $12,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV;
• $17,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $22,000 for Market Maker registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX.
The Exchange also assesses an alternative lower Trading Permit fee to Market Makers who fall within the 3rd and 4th levels of the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table, which levels are described immediately above, if certain volume thresholds are met. This alternative lower Trading Permit fee for Market Makers is set forth in footnote “*” that is included in the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table and provides that if the Market Maker's total monthly executed volume during the relevant month is less than 0.060% of the total monthly executed volume reported by OCC in the market maker account type for MIAX-listed option classes for that month, then the fee will be $15,500 instead of the fee otherwise applicable to such level.
The Exchange now proposes to increase the Trading Permit fees assessed to Market Makers, which, as described above, were last amended over ten years ago in May 2015. In particular, the Exchange proposes to assess the following Trading Permit fees to Market Makers:
• $9,500 for Market Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by national ADV;
• $16,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV;
• $23,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $29,500 for Market Maker registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX.
The Exchange also proposes to increase the alternative lower Trading Permit fee to Market Makers who fall within the 3rd and 4th levels of the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table, if certain volume thresholds are met, from $15,500 to $16,000 per month by amending the footnote “*” following the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table for these monthly Trading Permit tier levels.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to increase connectivity fees to the primary/secondary and disaster recovery facilities for Members and non-Members. Currently, the Exchange assesses the same amount of connectivity fees to Members and non-Members that connect to the Exchange's primary/secondary facility and disaster recovery facility. In particular, the Exchange assesses the following connectivity fees to Members and non-Members:
• $1,400 per 1 gigabit (“Gb”) connection to the primary/secondary facility;
• $550 per 1Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility;
• $2,750 per 10Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility; and
• $13,500 per 10Gb ultra-low latency (“ULL”) connection to the primary/secondary facility.
The Exchange notes that the above fees for 1Gb connectivity and 10Gb to the disaster recovery facility, and 1Gb connectivity to the primary/secondary facilities, have not been increased since December 2019.
• $1,500 per 1Gb connection to the primary/secondary facility;
• $650 per 1Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility;
• $3,500 per 10Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility; and
• $15,000 per 10Gb ULL connection to the primary/secondary facility.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for FIX Ports, Full Service MEI Ports, Limited Service MEI Ports, Purge Ports, and FXD Ports. Some of these fees have not been increased since they were first adopted in 2015. Each port provides access to the Exchange's primary and secondary data centers as well as its disaster recovery center for a single fee.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for FIX Ports, which have not been increased since January 2017. A FIX Port allows Members to submit simple and complex orders electronically to MIAX.
• $550 for the first FIX Port;
• $350 per port for the second to fifth FIX Ports; and
• $150 per port for the sixth or more FIX Ports.
The Exchange proposes to increase monthly FIX Port fees as follows:
• $700 for the first FIX Port;
• $450 per port for the second to fifth FIX Ports; and
• $200 per port for the sixth or more FIX Ports.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Full Service MEI Port fees for Market Makers, which have not been increased since June 1, 2015.
The Exchange assesses the amount of the monthly Full Service MEI Port fees for Market Makers based on the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of total national ADV measurements. The amount of the monthly Full Service MEI Port fee is based upon the number of classes in which the Market Maker was assigned to quote on any given day within the calendar month, or upon class volume percentages. The Exchange assesses Market Makers the monthly Full Service MEI Port fee based on the greatest number of classes listed on MIAX that the Market Maker was assigned to quote in on any given day within a calendar month. The class volume percentage is based on the total national ADV in classes listed on MIAX in the prior calendar quarter. Newly listed option classes are excluded from the calculation of the monthly Full Service MEI Port fee until the calendar quarter following their listing, at which time the newly listed option classes will be included in both the per class count and the percentage of total national average daily volume. Specifically, the Exchange assesses the following Full Service MEI Port fees to Market Makers:
• $5,000 for Market Maker assignments in up to 5 option classes or up to 10% of option classes by national ADV;
• $10,000 for Market Maker assignments in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by ADV;
• $14,000 for Market Maker assignments in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by national ADV;
• $17,500 for Market Maker assignments in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $20,500 for Market Maker assignments in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX.
The Exchange also provides an alternative lower Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers who fall within the 4th and 5th levels of the Market Maker Full Service MEI Port fee table, which levels are described directly above, if certain volume thresholds are met. This alternative lower Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers is set forth in footnote “*” in the Market Maker Full Service MEI Port fee table and provides that if the Market Maker's total monthly executed volume during the relevant month is less than 0.060% of the total monthly executed volume reported by OCC in the market maker account type for MIAX-listed option classes for that month, then the fee will be $14,500 instead of the fee otherwise applicable to such level.
The Exchange now proposes to increase the Full Service MEI Port fees assessed to Market Makers as follows:
• $6,500 for Market Maker assignments in up to 5 option classes or up to 10% of option classes by national ADV;
• $13,500 for Market Maker assignments in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by ADV;
• $19,000 for Market Maker assignments in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by national ADV;
• $23,500 for Market Maker assignments in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $27,500 for Market Maker assignments in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX.
The Exchange also proposes to decrease the alternative lower Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers who fall within the 3rd, 4th and 5th levels of the proposed Market Maker Full Service MEI Port fee table, if certain volume thresholds are met, from $14,500 to $13,500 per month by amending footnote “*” following the Market Maker Full Service MEI Port fee table.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for Limited Service MEI Ports, which provide Market Makers with the ability to send simple and complex eQuotes and quote purge messages only, but not Market Maker Quotes, to the MIAX System. Limited Service MEI Ports are also capable of receiving administrative information. Market Makers currently receive four free Limited Service MEI Ports per matching engine.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for Purge Ports, which provide Market Makers with the ability to send quote purge messages to the MIAX System. Purge Ports are not capable of sending or receiving any other type of messages or information.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for FXD Ports, which have not been increased since they were first adopted in September 2015.
The Exchange issued an alert publicly announcing the proposed fees on October 14, 2025 and a reminder alert on December 19, 2025.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The proposed Trading Permit fee for EEMs is comparable to, or lower than, the trading permit fees charged by Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”) and BOX Exchange LLC (“BOX”), as summarized in the table below.
The Exchange recognizes that Cboe has slightly higher market share than the Exchange; however, Cboe also charges a higher trading permit fee for Electronic Access Permits than the Trading Permit fee proposed by the Exchange for EEMs. Cboe charges a flat $3,000 per Electronic Access Permit per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge a flat $2,000 per EEM Trading Permit per month, lower than Cboe's flat $3,000 fee.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, BOX charges comparable permit-type fees as proposed by the Exchange herein for EEMs. BOX charges Participants a flat monthly Participant fee of $1,500, while the Exchange proposes to charge a flat $2,000 per EEM Trading Permit per month, comparable to BOX's flat $1,500 fee.
The proposed Trading Permit fees for Market Makers are comparable to the Trading Permit fees charged by NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”), as summarized in the table below.
NYSE American, with comparable market share as the Exchange, charges similar trading permit fees to its ATPs as proposed by the Exchange herein for the Exchange's Market Makers. NYSE American charges all Options Market Makers
The proposed network connectivity fees to the Exchange's disaster recovery facility for Members and non-Members are comparable to, or lower than, the connectivity fees charged by Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe C2”) and MEMX LLC (“MEMX”), as summarized in the table below.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges higher 1Gb and 10Gb connectivity fees to its disaster recovery facility than the fees proposed by the Exchange herein for connectivity to the Exchange's disaster recovery facility. Cboe C2 charges monthly fees of $2,000 per 1Gb connection and $6,000 per 10Gb connection to its disaster recovery facility. Meanwhile, the Exchange proposes to charge monthly fees of $650 per 1Gb connection and $3,500 per 10Gb connection to its disaster recovery facility.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, MEMX charges similar disaster recovery connectivity fees as the fees proposed by the Exchange herein for connectivity to its disaster recovery facility. MEMX charges $3,000 per xNet Physical Connection to its Secondary Data Center per month. Meanwhile, the Exchange proposes to charge monthly fees of $650 per 1Gb connection and $3,500 per 10Gb connection to its disaster recovery facility.
The proposed network connectivity fees to the Exchange's primary and secondary facility for Members and non-Members are lower than the connectivity fees charged by Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“Nasdaq BX”) and NYSE American for connectivity to their primary data centers, as summarized in the table below.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq BX charges higher connectivity fees than the connectivity fees to the primary and secondary facilities proposed by the Exchange herein. Nasdaq BX charges all participants monthly fees of $2,750 per 1Gb connection and $18,500 per 10Gb connection to access its primary data center. Meanwhile, the Exchange proposes to charge Members and non-Members monthly fees of $1,500 per 1Gb connection and $15,000 per 10Gb ULL connection to the Exchange's primary and secondary facilities. Nasdaq BX charges an additional installation fee for each 1Gb or 10Gb connection of $1,650.
Despite having comparable market share as the Exchange, NYSE American charges higher connectivity fees as proposed by the Exchange herein. NYSE American charges all participants a
The proposed FIX Port fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe BZX”), Cboe C2 and the options trading facility of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), as summarized in the table below.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Cboe BZX charges higher Logical Port fees than the FIX Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Cboe BZX charges a monthly fee of $750 per Logical Port, while the Exchange's highest proposed tier is only $700 per FIX Port per month.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges comparable FIX Logical Port fees as proposed by the Exchange herein. Cboe C2 charges a monthly fee of $650 per FIX Logical Port, while the Exchange's highest proposed tier is $700 per FIX Port per month. Cboe C2 FIX Logical Port users may incur an additional monthly fee of $650 per port. Cboe C2 provides that for the standard monthly fee of $650 per FIX Logical Port, a user may enter up to 70,000 orders per trading day per port as measured on average in a single month. However, each incremental usage of up to 70,000 per day per FIX Logical Port will incur an additional $650 fee per month.
Nasdaq charges participants $650 per FIX Port per month, while the Exchange's highest proposed tier is $700 per FIX Port per month. Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges comparable FIX Port fees as proposed by the Exchange herein.
The proposed Limited Service MEI Port (“LSPs”) fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Nasdaq and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“Nasdaq MRX”), as summarized in the table below.
Nasdaq charges a monthly fee of $750 per QUO Port, per account number, while the Exchange provides the first four LSPs for free and proposes to charge $350 per additional LSP for each matching engine per month thereafter. Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher QUO Port fees than the fees proposed by the Exchange herein for LSPs.
Nasdaq MRX charges a monthly fee of $650 per OTTO Port, per account number (with fees for all OTTO Ports, CTI Ports, FIX Ports, FIX Drop Ports and disaster recovery ports subject to a monthly cap of $7,500), while the Exchange provides the first four LSPs for free and proposes to charge $350 per additional LSP for each matching engine per month thereafter. Despite having lower market share to the Exchange, Nasdaq MRX charges higher OTTO Port fees than the fees proposed by the Exchange herein for LSPs.
The proposed Purge Port fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Nasdaq MRX, Cboe C2 and Nasdaq, as summarized in the table below.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq MRX charges higher SQF Purge Port fees than the Purge Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Nasdaq MRX will charge (beginning January 1, 2026) SQF Purge Port fees as follows: (a) $1,620 per SQF Purge Port per month for the first 5 ports; (b) $1,080 per SQF Purge Port per month for the next 15 ports; and (c) $540 per SQF Purge Port for all ports over 20 ports. The Exchange proposes to charge $400 per Purge Port per matching engine per month. The Exchange chose to charge Purge ports on a per matching engine basis instead of a per port basis due to its System architecture, which provides two (2) Purge Ports per matching engine for redundancy purposes. Market Makers are able to select the matching engines that they want to connect to based on the business needs of each Market Maker and pay the applicable fee based on the number of matching engines and pair of ports utilized.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher Purge Port fees than proposed by the Exchange herein. Nasdaq charges tiered SQF Purge Port fees as follows: (a) $1,620 per SQF Purge Port per month for the first 5 ports; (b) $1,080 per SQF Purge Port per month for the next 15 ports; and (c) $540 per SQF Purge Port for all ports over 20 ports. The Exchange proposes to charge a flat $400 per pair of Purge Ports per matching engine per month.
The proposed FXD Port fees are comparable to the similar port fees charged by Cboe C2 and Nasdaq BX, as summarized in the table below.
Cboe C2 charges $650 per Drop Logical Port per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge $675 per FXD Port per month. Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges comparable Drop Logical Port fees as the FXD Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
Nasdaq charges $650 per FIX Drop Port per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge $675 per FXD Port per month. Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges comparable FIX Drop Port fees as the FXD Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
The proposed Full Service MEI Port fees are comparable to the similar port fees charged by Cboe C2, as summarized in the table below.
Despite Cboe C2 having lower market share, the Exchange believes that Cboe C2 charges higher bulk port fees than proposed by the Exchange herein. Cboe C2 charges $1,500 per port for the first five Bulk BOE Ports, and $2,500 per port for each Bulk BOE Port utilized in excess of five ports. The Exchange proposes to charge between $6,500 and $27,500 per month for Full Service MEI Ports for Market Makers, depending on the number of classes assigned or percentage of national ADV. The Exchange's proposed Full Service MEI Port fees for Market Makers provide two such ports for each of the Exchange's twenty-four matching engines, for a total of forty-eight total ports for the monthly fee (between $6,500 and $27,500). For a Cboe C2 member to utilize a Bulk BOE Port on each matching unit, that member would have to purchase between 31 and 35 such ports. As such, the approximated fees for doing so would be between $72,500 (($1,500 per port multiplied by the first five Bulk BOE Ports) + ($2,500 per port multiplied by the next twenty-six Bulk BOE Ports)) and $82,500 (($1,500 per port multiplied by the first five Bulk BOE Ports) + ($2,500 per port multiplied by the next thirty Bulk BOE Ports)).
Each of the above examples of other exchanges' non-transaction fees support the proposition that the Exchange's proposed fees are comparable to those of other exchanges with lower or comparable market share and are, therefore, reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated because they will apply uniformly to all Members and non-Members that choose to purchase a particular service based on their business need. Any Member or non-Member that chooses to purchase a particular product or service is subject to the same Fee Schedule, regardless of what type of business they operate, and the decision to purchase a particular product or service is based on objective differences in usage of the particular product or service among different Members and non-Member, which are still ultimately in the control of any particular Member or non-Member. The Exchange believes the proposed pricing
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory because they will apply to all Members in the same manner and are not targeted at a specific type or category of market participant engaged in any particular trading strategy.
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher Trading Permit fees to Market Makers that quote a higher number of classes or execute higher percentages of volume on the Exchange because the System requires increased performance and capacity in order to provide the opportunity for Market Makers to quote in a higher number of options classes on the Exchange. Specifically, more classes that are actively quoted on the Exchange by a Market Maker will require increased memory for record retention, increased bandwidth for optimized performance, increased functionalities on each application layer, and increased optimization with regard to surveillance and monitoring of such classes quoted. As such, basing the higher Market Maker Trading Permit fees on the greater number of classes quoted in on any given day in a calendar month is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory when considering how the increased number of quoted classes directly impacts the resources required for the Exchange to operate for all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated among anticipated users of the network connectivity as the Exchange expects that users of 10Gb ULL connections will consume substantially more bandwidth and network resources than users of 1Gb connections. It is the experience of the Exchange and its affiliated exchanges that this is the case as 10Gb ULL connection users have historically accounted for more than 99% of message traffic over the network, which drives increased capacity utilization, while the users of the 1Gb connections account for less than 1% of message traffic over the network. In the experience of the Exchange and its affiliates, users of the 1Gb connections do not have the same business needs for the high-performance network as 10Gb ULL users.
The Exchange's high-performance network and supporting infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled system throughput. To achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange built out and must now maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the overall increase in storage and network transport capabilities. The Exchange must analyze its storage capacity on an ongoing basis to ensure it has sufficient capacity to store these messages to satisfy its record keeping requirements under the Exchange Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for Limited Service MEI Ports is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to align fees with services provided, will apply equally to all Members that are assigned Limited Service MEI Ports, and minimizes barriers to entry by providing all Members with four free Limited Service MEI Ports. As a result, there are several Members that are not subject to any additional LSP fees. In contrast, other exchanges generally charge in excess of $350 per port (the fee the Exchange proposes to charge for Limited Service MEI Ports) without providing any initial ports for free.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Limited Service MEI Port fee structure is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will continue to enable Members to access the Exchange with four free ports before the proposed fees for additional Limited Service MEI Ports apply, thereby continuing to encourage order flow and liquidity from a diverse set of market participants, facilitating price discovery and the interaction of orders. The Exchange notes that a substantial majority of Members only utilize the four Limited Service MEI Ports provided for no fee. The proposed fees are designed to encourage Members to be efficient with their Limited Service MEI Port usage. There is no requirement that any Member maintain a specific number of Limited Service MEI Ports and a Member may choose to maintain as many or as few of such ports as each Member deems appropriate.
To achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers during anticipated peak market conditions. The need to support billions of messages per day consumes the Exchange's resources and significantly contributes to the overall need to increase network storage and transport capabilities. Thus, as the number of ports a Market Maker has increases, the related pull on Exchange resources may continue to increase.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, for the flat fee in each tier, the Exchange provides each Member two Full Service MEI Ports for each matching engine to which that Member is connected. Unlike other options exchanges that provide similar port functionality and charge fees on a per port basis,
The Exchange believes the proposed reduced Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers that fall within the 3rd, 4th, and 5th levels of the Full Service MEI Port fee table and certain volume thresholds are met is not unfairly discriminatory because this lower monthly fee is designed to provide a lower fixed cost to those Market Makers who are willing to quote the entire
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed Trading Permit fee for EEMs does not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fee does not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition. The proposed fee is the same for all EEMs of different sizes and business models without regard to membership status or the extent of any other business with the Exchange or affiliated entities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Permit fees for Market Makers do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the fee rates are designed in order to provide objective criteria for Market Makers of different sizes and business models that best matches their order and quoting activity on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit fees will not impose a burden on intra-market competition because, when these fees are viewed in the context of the overall activity on the Exchange, Market Makers: (1) consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network; (2) transact the vast majority of the volume on the Exchange; and (3) require the high touch network support services provided by the Exchange and its staff, including more costly network monitoring, reporting and support services, resulting in a much higher cost to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the majority of customer demand comes from Market Makers, whose transactions make up a majority of the volume on the Exchange. Further, other member types,
The Exchange believes that the increasing fees under the tiered Market Maker Trading Permit fee structure do not impose a burden on intra-market competition because the tiered structure continues to take into account the number of classes quoted by each individual Market Maker or percentage of total national ADV. The Exchange's system requires increased performance and capacity in order to provide the opportunity for each Market Maker to quote in a higher number of options classes on the Exchange. Specifically, the more classes that are actively quoted on the Exchange by a Market Maker requires increased memory for record retention, increased bandwidth for optimized performance, increased functionalities on each application layer, and increased optimization with regard to surveillance and monitoring of such classes quoted. As such, basing the Market Maker Trading Permit fee on the greatest number of classes quoted in on any given day in a calendar month, or percentage of total national ADV, does not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act when taking into account how the increased number of quoted classes directly impact the costs and resources for the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed network connectivity fees for Members and non-Members do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants or affect the ability of such market participants to compete. The proposed fees will apply uniformly to all market participants regardless of the number of 1Gb or 10Gb ULL connections they choose to purchase to the primary/secondary facility or the disaster recovery facility. The proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees for connectivity services place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the proposed connectivity pricing is associated with relative usage of the Exchange by each market participant and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants. The Exchange believes its proposed pricing is reasonable and, when coupled with the availability of third-party providers that also offer connectivity solutions, participation on the Exchange is competitive for all market participants, including smaller trading firms. The connectivity services purchased by market participants typically increase based on their additional message traffic and/or the complexity of their operations. The market participants that utilize more connectivity services typically utilize the most bandwidth, and those are the participants that consume the most resources from the network. Accordingly, the proposed fees for connectivity services do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation of the proposed connectivity fees reflects the network resources consumed by the various size of market participants and the costs to the
The Exchange believes that the proposed FIX and FXD Port fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because they will apply to all Members in the same manner and are not targeted at a specific type or category of market participant engaged in any particular trading strategy. The proposed fees for each type of port (FIX or FXD) do not depend on any distinctions between Members, customers, broker-dealers, or any other entity. The proposed fee will be assessed solely based on the number of FIX or FXD Ports an entity selects and not on any other distinction applied by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Purge Port fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because Purge Ports are completely voluntary as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality. Purge Ports enhance Members' ability to manage orders, which, in turn, improves their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. Further, the proposed fees apply uniformly to all Members that choose to use the optional Purge Ports and no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Members that voluntarily choose to utilize Purge Ports will be charged the same amount based upon the number of matching engines for each set of Purge Ports in use.
The Exchange does not believe its proposed fee for Limited Service MEI Ports will place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants. All Market Makers would be eligible to receive four free Limited Service MEI Ports and those that elect to purchase more would be subject to the same monthly fee. All Market Makers purchase the amount of Limited Service MEI Ports they require based on their own business decisions and similarly situated firms are subject to the same fee.
The Exchange does not believe proposed fees for Full Service MEI Ports will place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because they would apply to all Market Makers equally depending on the number of classes the Market Maker is registered to quote in or the percentage of national ADV. The Exchange believes the proposed fees will not result in any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, in the Exchange's experience, Market Makers that are frequently in the highest tier for Full Service MEI Ports consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees do not place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the ability of such market participants to compete because, for the flat fee in each tier, the Exchange provides each Market Maker two Full Service MEI Ports for each matching engine to which that Market Maker is connected. Further, the Exchange offers a reduced Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers that fall within the 3rd, 4th and 5th levels of the Full Service MEI Port fee table, which lower monthly fee is designed to provide a lower fixed cost to those Market Makers who are willing to quote the entire Exchange market (or substantial amount of the Exchange market), as objectively measured by either number of classes assigned or national ADV, but who do not otherwise execute a significant amount of volume on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that, by continuing to offer a lower fixed cost to Market Makers that execute less volume, the Exchange will continue to retain and attract smaller-scale Market Makers, which are an integral component of the option industry marketplace, but have been decreasing in number in recent years, due to industry consolidation and lower market maker profitability. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the reduced fee will promote competition by incentivizing these additional Market Makers to register to make markets on the Exchange to increase liquidity.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In contrast, the Exchange believes that, without the fee changes proposed herein, the Exchange is potentially at a competitive disadvantage to certain other exchanges that have in place comparable or higher fees for similar services with similar market share, as described above. The Exchange believes that non-transaction fees can be used to foster more competitive transaction pricing and additional infrastructure investment and there are other options markets of which market participants may connect to trade options that charge higher or comparable rates as the Exchange for similar services and products. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Rules to permit orders comprised of options and futures legs (“future-option orders”). 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 Rules to permit future-option orders comprised of Cboe Volatility Index (“VIX”) options (“VIX options”) (which trade on the Exchange) and VIX futures (“VX futures”) (which trade on Cboe Futures Exchange, LLC's (“CFE”)). The Exchange understands it is common for investors to engage in hedging or other investment strategies that involve VIX options and VX futures, given they both overlie the same index. However, to execute those strategies, investors must submit a VIX options order to the Exchange and separately submit a VX futures order to CFE, which is the designated contract market (“DCM”) on which the VX futures trade. For example, market participants may obtain positions in VIX options through a transaction on the Exchange and hedge those positions by entering into a separate transaction on CFE for VX futures. Separate executions of this sort create additional risks, including risk that one order will execute while the other does not and price risk resulting from the time it takes to complete both transactions. The Exchange understands that due to those risks and the complexities of multi-part transactions, market participants may instead transact in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market or not obtain a hedge at all. The proposed rule change adopts a mechanism to facilitate the execution of these cross-product transactions in a simple, efficient manner that reduces these execution and price risks.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt a definition of a future-option order. Specifically, the proposed rule change amends Rule 1.1 to define a “future-option order”
The proposed definition of a future-option order includes a risk offset requirement. A User may only submit a future-option order if it satisfies the applicable risk offset requirement. The Exchange believes a risk offset requirement will provide market participants with sufficient flexibility to execute legitimate strategies comprised of options and futures while preventing a market participant from using the proposed execution mechanism to execute a futures trade outside of the normal trading process on the applicable designated contract market by combining the future leg(s), for example, with an inexpensive out-of-the-money option leg.
Pursuant to paragraph (a) of the proposed definition of future-option order, a VIX future-option order must be comprised of “groups” of offsetting future and options legs. The future and option components of each group must have the same expiration, and the VX future leg(s) in a group must provide a risk offset to the VIX option leg(s) in that group of no less than 10% and no greater than 125%. A future-option order satisfies this risk offset requirement if the delta value of each group is no greater than −0.10 and no less than −1.25.
For example, suppose a VIX future-option order is submitted with the following components:
The 1 short Dec VX future is grouped with the 16 long Dec VIX calls, which group has a delta of/(−1 × 1,000)/(16 × .50 × 100) = −1,000/800 = −0.125. The 2 long Jan VX futures are grouped with the 35 short Jan VIX puts, which group has a delta of (2 × 1,000)/(35 × −0.60 × 100) = −2,000/2,100 = −0.9524. This order would satisfy the risk offset requirement, as both groups have a delta between −0.10 and −1.25.
If the System determines that a complex strategy comprised of VX future (at a specified price)
The proposed rule change also amends the definition of “complex order” in Rule 1.1 to provide that unless the context otherwise requires, the term complex order will include future-option orders.
The proposed rule change adds future-option order to the list of types of complex orders that may be accepted for electronic trading.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.33 to describe how future-option orders may execute electronically on the Exchange, which process is substantially similar to that for stock-option orders. As proposed in Rule 5.33(o), when a User submits to the System a future-option order:
• if the User is also a member of CFE (to which the Exchange has established electronic communication),
• if the User is not also a CFE member, the User must designate a specific futures commission merchant (“FCM”) or introducing broker (“IB”) with which it has entered into an agreement pursuant to proposed Rule 5.33, Interpretation and Policy .05 (the “designated FCM/IB”) to which the Exchange will communicate the futures component of the future-option order on behalf of the User.
Proposed Rule 5.33(o)(2) provides that a future-option order may execute against other future-option orders (or COA Responses, if applicable), but may not execute against orders in the Simple
The proposed rule change adopts rule 5.33(f)(1)(C) to provide that Users may express bids and offers for a future-option order in any decimal price the Exchange determines, which will permit the Exchange to accommodate the available pricing of futures. The minimum increment for the option leg(s) of a future-option order is $0.01 or greater, which the Exchange may determine on a class-by-class basis, regardless of the minimum increments otherwise applicable to the option leg(s),
Proposed Rule 5.33(o)(2) provides that a future-option order may only execute if the price complies with proposed subparagraph (f)(2)(C), which describes the permissible execution prices and priority of future-option orders (which are substantially similar to that of stock-option orders). Specifically, proposed Rule 5.33(f)(2)(C) states for a future-option order with one option leg, the option leg may not trade at a price worse than the individual component price on the simple Book or at the same price as a priority customer order on the Simple Book.
Unlike the stock component of stock-option orders, a future-option order may only execute if the future leg(s) is executable at the specified price(s). Therefore, while the options legs may execute at prices that satisfy the net price, the price(s) of the future leg(s) are set upon order entry, as noted above. Price competition for a future-option order exposed on the Exchange will, therefore, occur with respect to the option leg(s), and the package execution price will reflect the net price of the option leg(s) and the specified price(s) of the future leg(s).
The Exchange believes the proposed execution process for future-option orders is reasonable, because the
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.5, Interpretation and Policy .07 to describe how a future-option order may qualify as an obvious error. As proposed, future-option orders will be handled in a similar manner as stock-option orders for purposes of Rule 6.5. Specifically, if the option leg of a future-option order qualifies as an obvious error under Rule 6.5(c)(1) or catastrophic error under Rule 6.5(d)(1), then the option leg that is an obvious or catastrophic error will be adjusted in accordance with Rule 6.5(c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a customer. However, the option leg of any customer future-option order will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (lower) for buy (sell) transactions than the customer's limit price on the future-option order, and the Exchange will attempt to nullify the future leg. Whenever a DCM nullifies the futures leg(s) of a future-option order or whenever the future leg(s) cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or in accordance with Rule 6.5(c)(3). While this has the same effective as nullification of the option leg(s) transactions set forth in proposed 5.33(o)(2), the proposed nullification in Rule 6.5, Interpretation and Policy .07 occurs at a different time, in a different manner, and for different reasons. Rule 5.33(o)(2) is nearly instantaneous nullification of the execution of the option leg(s) if it is communicated to the Exchange that the futures leg(s) was unable to execute. In that situation, the customer receives no fill report as the future-option order was not fully executed. However, with respect to Rule 6.5, Interpretation and Policy .07, nullification pursuant to this provision permits nullification of the option leg(s) if an execution of future-option order occurred, but the future leg(s) execution was nullified at a later time by the DCM pursuant to the DCM's rules.
Finally, the proposed rule change adds Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule 6.6 to clarify that TPHs may update only the option component of a future-option order trade using Clearing Editor (and as permitted by Rule 6.6). Any updates to the future component would need to be done in accordance with the Rules of the applicable DCM (if permissible).
Activity related to the execution of the options components of VIX future-option orders will be subject to Commission jurisdiction, and activity related to the execution of the futures components of VIX future-option orders will be subject to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) jurisdiction.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will 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 because it will provide investors with greater opportunities to manage risk. The proposed rule change would provide investors with a more efficient mechanism to execute strategies involving VIX options and VX futures, which investors regularly trade as part of hedging, management of risk exposure, and other investment strategies. The proposed execution
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to promote just and equitable principles of trade. The proposed risk offset requirement is designed to provide market participants with sufficient flexibility to execute legitimate options strategies comprised of options and futures while preventing misuse of this mechanism, such as a market participant from using the proposed execution mechanism to execute a futures trade outside of the normal trading process on the applicable designated contract market by combining the future leg(s), for example, with an inexpensive out-of-the-money option leg. As noted above, the Exchange determined the proposed risk offset range based on experience with and feedback from market participants, as well as a review of the risk offsets of transactions involving VX futures and VIX options. As a result, we feel this range would accommodate their investment strategies. Additionally, the Exchange manually reviewed the risk offsets of executed Exchange of Contract for Related Positions (“ECRPs”) that occurred in accordance with CFE rules (which market participants engage in to exchange future positions for options positions) over a six-month period. None of those ECRP transactions had a risk offset outside of the 10% to 125% range. The Exchange believes review of the risk offsets in ECRPs is informative, as it is a common investment strategy comprised of options and futures positions.
As discussed above, the Commission and the CFTC will maintain jurisdiction over execution of the options and futures components, respectively, of future-option orders. The Exchange would not list future-option orders until the CFTC separately approves any necessary CFE rule filings, grants any necessary exemptive relief, or takes any other required action with respect to the execution of the VX futures components of these orders. Further, each of the Exchange and CFE will regulate conduct relating to future-option orders and trades with respect to compliance with its rules, including bringing disciplinary actions for violations of its rules.
The Exchange believes the proposed execution process will also promote just and equitable principles of trade. As described above, VIX future-option orders will execute in a substantially similar way as complex orders, including stock-option orders. The proposed priority for VIX future-option orders will protect customer VIX option orders in the simple Book. As proposed, the VIX option component(s) of a VIX future-option order will ultimately trade in the same manner and in accordance with the same priority principles as they would if they had been submitted without a VX future leg(s). Further, the proposed process to nullify the option component execution if the future-option order does not execute is consistent with the purpose of the future-option order. Given the option and future components of a future-option order are submitted as part of the same investment strategy, if the future component does not execute, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to expect that a User that submitted a future-option to request nullification of the options trade in accordance with current Exchange Rules. If the future component does not execute, rather than require the User that submitted the future-option order to contact the Exchange to request nullification of the option component execution, the proposed rule eliminates this requirement for the User to make such request. Instead, the proposed rule change provides that the Exchange will automatically nullify the option transaction if the future component does not execute. The Exchange believes such nullification without a request from the User is consistent with the
Additionally, the Exchange believes the availability of VIX future-option orders will 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 because it will provide investors with an alternative to the OTC market for investment strategies comprised of VX future and VIX option components. The proposed rule change will provide investors with the ability to execute these investment strategies in a listed market environment as opposed to in the unregulated OTC market. The proposed rule change may shift liquidity from the OTC market onto the Exchange (as well as shift swaps and OTC combos from the OTC market onto designated contract markets in the form of futures), which the Exchange believes would increase market transparency as well as enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow to the benefit of all investors. The Exchange believes it may be a more attractive alternative to the OTC market, because trading these strategies in an exchange environment may benefit market participants in several ways, including but not limited to the following: (1) enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions; (2) increased market transparency; and (3) heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to clearing requirements for listed options and futures.
The Commission previously determined that permitting investors to submit an order for execution to Cboe that included components subject to different regulatory jurisdictions was consistent with the Act.
• The proposed rule change would permit future-option orders in classes authorized by the Exchange, dependent upon agreements the Exchange may make with applicable DCMs, compared to the prior filing that was limited to orders comprised of two options and two related futures.
• The proposed rule change would permit electronic execution.
• The proposed rule change does not create a separate pit on the Exchange's trading floor for the related futures as the prior proposal did. Given the advances in electronic trading (and the fact that many futures exchanges no longer have open outcry trading), the Exchange believes this is no longer necessary to permit future-option orders.
These differences have no impact on the fundamental attributes of the underlying product that the Commission approved in 1988 and that the Exchange proposes in this filing, which is a multi-part order comprised of an option and a related future submitted to the Exchange for pricing as a package, with execution of each component contingent on the other. When approving the prior proposal, the Commission stated that permitting execution of inter-regulatory spreads (including for hedging purposes) on the Exchange would “contribute to the mechanism of a free and open market by enhancing . . . market makers' ability to hedge their positions with futures [and] enable market makers to better accommodate customer orders and to provide deeper and tighter markets.”
Further, as discussed above, the proposed rules regarding the handling and execution of VIX future-option orders are also substantially similar to that of stock-option orders,
Ultimately, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will 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 because it will provide investors with a competitive and efficient market mechanism for executing investment strategies comprised of VX futures and VIX options on the Exchange, which will provide a venue for order exposure and price discovery. These are bona fide investment strategies that reduce market participants' risk and facilitate hedging. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to investors' evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. When Congress charged the Commission with supervising the development of a “national market system” for securities, Congress stated its intent that the “national market system evolve through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are removed.
While a VIX future-option order contains a component that is not a security, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change may be approved as consistent with the Exchange Act. The Commission's primary purposes are to protect investors and maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because VIX future-option orders will be available to all TPHs and will execute in the same manner. VIX future-option orders will be available to all Users on a voluntary basis, and Users will not be required to use VIX future-option orders to execute investment strategies comprised of option and future components. Users may continue to
The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because other options exchanges may propose similar functionality (and previously have, as noted above). The Exchange understands investors currently execute investment strategies comprised of VIX option and VX future components today. Investors may continue to do so; however, the proposed rule change merely provides them with a simpler, more efficient, more transparent, and competitive execution mechanism for hedging and other investment strategies that contain VIX options and VX futures components.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition. The proposed rule change is designed to provide investors with a more efficient and lower risk mechanism to execute investment strategies comprised of futures and options components. The Exchange believes this is an enhancement to executing these investment strategies in a riskier and more complex manner through separate transactions or in the unregulated and opaque OTC market. The proposed rule change would make a more attractive alternative to either of these options by providing investors with the ability to execute these strategies in a single transaction in an exchange environment. This would result in increased market transparency, enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions, and heightened contra-party creditworthiness.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposal to amend Rule 14.602 (Products and Services Offered to Companies) to update, reorganize, and adopt new complimentary products and services that the Exchange offers to currently and newly listed companies (“Companies”) through its affiliate, LTSE Services, Inc. (“LTSE Services”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in
In March 2022, LTSE began offering complimentary Capital Markets Solutions to Companies following the Commission's approval of relevant amendments to Rule 14.602.
The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 14.602 to update, reorganize, and adopt new complimentary products and services available to Companies through LTSE Services. As part of these amendments, the Exchange proposes to create a new category of “Market Intelligence products and services,” which will include: (i) the existing Capital Markets Reports, retained in their current form; and (ii) a Market Intelligence Reports offering, consisting of a new investor-holding analysis together with the existing ESG focused analysis.
The Exchange also proposes to: (i) remove the LTIP, which is no longer offered;
Lastly, the rule text is being reorganized so that subsection (b) now sets forth the principal categories of offerings, while a newly numbered subsection (c) sets forth the duration of such offerings, and also consolidates rule text adopted over successive periods, that resulted in segmented timeframes, to directly state that the offerings are available for a four-year term, and adopt a new subsection (d) heading titled `Election of Services' above the existing rule text to provide consistency with the new organization of the rule, and improve clarity and usability for Companies and market participants.
The Exchange proposes to rename the prior “Capital Markets Solutions” offering with a new category titled “Market Intelligence products and services,” which consists of a suite of analytical and strategic tools designed to assist Companies in understanding and engaging with their investor base through LTSE Services. This revised category will encompass (i) the existing Capital Market Reports, which provide tailored investor and capital-markets insights for each listed Company, and (ii) new Market Intelligence Reports designed to quantify the holding behavior of all relevant investors with strategies to identify, access and engage with investors across the short-term to long-term spectrum and identify, access and engage with targeted investors. Under the revised structure, all Market Intelligence products and services will be assigned a single consolidated approximate retail value of $150,000 per year, replacing the prior component-by-component valuation.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to delete Rule 14.602(b)(2)(A), which limits newly listed Companies to a 90-day period following listing in which to request access to the Capital Markets Solutions reports. As part of the proposed amendments, the Capital Markets Solutions reports are being replaced by, and incorporated into, the newly defined Market Intelligence Reports offering. The Exchange believes the 90-day request limitation is no longer necessary or appropriate given the revised structure of Rule 14.602, under which both newly listed and currently listed Companies may elect to receive Market Intelligence Reports at any time, subject to a clearly defined four-year availability period. Removing the 90-day request limitation improves flexibility for Companies and avoids requiring Companies to make time-sensitive elections during the initial post-listing period.
The Exchange also proposes to renumber `Company-specific web page updates,' from (b)(ii) to (b)(3). This service will continue to have an approximate retail value of $5,000 per year. This change relocates the existing language to improve readability and to reflect that this service is distinct from the Market Intelligence offerings and therefore are more appropriately a separate category given these updates serve a communications and issuer-visibility function rather than an analytical or investor-based function.
The Exchange further proposes to adopt a new Investor Access Program, valued at approximately $150,000 per year, which will provide Companies with a complimentary virtual engagement program designed to facilitate direct interaction between listed issuers and investors. Following approval of the proposed rule change, the Exchange expects to make the Investor Access Program available soon thereafter. The Investor Access Program is designed to provide Companies with a direct and independent approach to investor engagement. The program will include a suite of virtual event products and services, thematic investor forums, and other virtual engagement formats, which will be described on the Exchange's website and may be updated from time to time. The Investor Access Program also allows for LTSE Services to engage and fund a third-party provider to identify potential investors and facilitate introductions for Companies, with LTSE Services having no role beyond contracting for and paying for such services. The Investor Access Program will be available for a four-year period, consistent with the 48-month issuer-services framework approved for the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”).
This represents a new complimentary offering under the Exchange's issuer-services framework. The Exchange notes that the structure and purpose of its proposed Investor Access Program are generally consistent with similar
The Exchange also proposes to delete from Rule 14.602 references to the LTIP, as the Exchange no longer intends to offer this product.
The Exchange also proposes a reorganization of Rule 14.602 to clearly delineate and categorize the complimentary products and services available to Companies. Under the prior rule text, Capital Markets Reports, Company-specific web page updates, and the former Capital Markets Solutions were grouped together in a single list. The revised rule separates these offerings into clearer categories by (i) creating two principal product groupings: Market Intelligence products and services and the Investor Access Program; (ii) relocating Capital Markets Reports into the Market Intelligence category, where they align with the other analytical tools; and (iii) renumbering Company-specific web page updates from (b)(ii) to (b)(3). This restructuring is intended to improve readability by allowing Companies and market participants to easily understand the scope and organization of each offering.
In addition, the amended rule text relocates all time-period provisions into a new subsection (c), which specifies: (i) the services that are available on a continual basis and (ii) the four-year term applicable to Market Intelligence Reports and the Investor Access Program. Centralizing these timeframes in a single subsection enhances clarity and enables Companies to readily identify when each product or service is available and for how long. These revisions are non-substantive in nature and do not alter the underlying duration of any offering.
The Exchange proposes to insert a new subsection heading `(d) Election of Services' above the existing rule text that states that Companies may elect to use the complementary products and services described in Rule 14.602. No substantive changes are being made to the underlying text; the new header is intended solely to improve organization and clarity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed amendments to Rule 14.602 are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because they are designed to promote transparency and clarity by reorganizing and updating the description of the complimentary products and services offered to Companies. As described above, the proposed changes modernize the rule to more accurately describe the current suite of issuer-support offerings available through LTSE Services by renumbering the Company-specific web page updates into their own stand-alone category, removing the unused LTIP, and reorganizing the format of the rule. The proposal also deletes the prior 90-day request limitation for newly listed Companies, while retaining the existing four-year term, thereby improving flexibility without expanding the scope, duration, or value of the services offered. Additionally, the proposal expands the offerings through the adoption of a new Market Intelligence product suite and the introduction of a new Investor Access Program. Presenting these offerings in clearly defined categories, together with a consolidated description of applicable time periods, enhances the readability of the rule and provides issuers with a clearer understanding of the services available to them.
The Exchange further believes that assigning a single consolidated retail value for all Market Intelligence products and services, rather than valuing each component individually, is consistent with Section (6)(b)(5) because it promotes clarity and aligns the rule text with how the Exchange anticipates these integrated analytical tools will be delivered to issuers.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed enhancements, including the expanded Market Intelligence products and services, the adoption of the Investor Access Program and the removal of the unused offering, represents a reasonable and appropriate competitive response to similar issuer-support programs provided by other national securities exchanges. NYSE and Nasdaq each maintain robust market-intelligence, investor-relations, and corporate-access services for their listed issuers, and exchanges compete for listings in part based on the quality and scope of these offerings. By expanding, modernizing and reorganizing its complimentary issuer-services program, the Exchange seeks to remain competitive as a listing venue and to attract and retain Companies by ensuring that they have access to services comparable to those available on other exchanges. These enhancements are designed to support issuer engagement with investors and thereby further the Exchange's mission of promoting long-term value creation and efficient capital formation. The Exchange submits that removing references to services that are no longer part of its issuer-facing offerings promotes clarity and transparency in its rules, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires that exchange rules be designed to remove impediments to and perfect the
The proposal does not introduce any discriminatory benefits or impose any obligations on Companies. All currently and newly listed Companies are eligible to receive these services on an equal basis, at no cost, and may elect whether or not to participate. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule promotes just and equitable principles of trade and does not unfairly discriminate among issuers.
The Exchange further notes that offering these complimentary products and services will have no adverse impact on the Exchange's regulatory function. The Exchange will continue to allocate sufficient resources to, and fully perform, all of its regulatory obligations, including those under Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments clarify, reorganize, and update the description of complimentary products and services provided to Companies and are only available to LTSE-listed issuers. Because the complimentary services are offered on an equal basis to all Companies listed on the Exchange, the proposal will not impose a competitive burden among issuers.
Similarly, the proposed rule change will not impose a burden on intermarket competition. Other national securities exchanges are free to adopt similar complimentary service programs, and many already do so. The proposal is therefore consistent with the competitive dynamics among listing venues and promotes fair competition by ensuring that the Exchange's offerings are described with transparency comparable to those of other exchanges.
The Exchange further notes that removing the LTIP will have no impact on intramarket competition because the offering was available only to LTSE-listed Companies, and its removal affects all such Companies equally.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to update Access Badges fees, amend the GTH Executing Agent Subsidy Program, and eliminate certain LMM Incentive Programs. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Commission's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective January 2, 2026.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Access Badges table in the Fees Schedule. Currently, the Exchange assesses a $70.00 per month fee for Clerk and other Trading Permit Holder (“TPH”) employee badges and a $130.00 per month fee for Floor Manager badges. The Exchange proposes to eliminate these two badge types and instead adopt a single Access Badge at $100.00 per month, applicable to Clerks, other TPH employees, and Floor Managers.
Further, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the replacement Access Badge fee. Currently, the Exchange assesses a replacement fee of $100 per badge for lost Access Badges. The Exchange no longer wishes to assess a fee for lost Access Badges and now proposes to eliminate this replacement Access Badge fee.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the Global Trading Hours (“GTH”) Executing Agent Subsidy Program, set forth in the Fees Schedule. The GTH Executing Agent Subsidy Program offers a monthly subsidy to TPHs with executing agent operations
To become a designated GTH executing agent, a TPH must submit a form to the Exchange no later than 3:00 p.m. on the second to last business day of a calendar month to be designated an GTH executing agent under the program, and thus eligible for the subsidy, beginning the following calendar month. The current criteria states that a TPH must include on or with the form information demonstrating it maintains an GTH executing agent operation: (1) physically staffed throughout each entire GTH trading session and (2) willing to accept and execute orders on behalf of customers. The designation will be effective the first business day of the following calendar month, subject to the Exchange's confirmation the TPH's GTH executing agent operations satisfies these two conditions and will remain in effect until the Exchange receives an email from the TPH terminating its designation or the Exchange determines the TPH's GTH executing agent operation no longer satisfies these two conditions.
The Exchange proposes to amend the GTH monthly customer volume thresholds and corresponding subsidy amounts, as shown in the table below.
The proposed changes introduce additional tiers in 25,000 contract increments between the current tiers to better incentivize GTH growth for firms at different GTH activity levels, and increases the minimum volume threshold required to qualify for subsidy payments. Such changes are designed to continue to encourage designated GTH executing agents to increase their order flow executed as agent in SPX and VIX options that trade during GTH, to meet the volume thresholds, as amended, and receive the corresponding subsidies. The Exchange notes that incentivizing TPHs to conduct executing agent operations willing to accept orders from all customers during GTH is intended to increase customer accessibility to the GTH trading session. The Exchange believes that increased order flow through designated GTH executing agents would allow the Exchange to grow participation during GTH, which may benefit all market participants, as additional liquidity to the Exchange during GTH would create more trading opportunities during GTH, and in turn attract market participants to submit additional order flow during GTH.
Finally, the Exchange propose to eliminate the MSCI, MXACW, MSUSA, and MXWLD LMM Incentive Programs (the “LMM Incentive Programs”), set forth in the Fees Schedule. By way of background, each LMM Incentive Program provides a rebate to TPHs with LMM appointments to the respective incentive program that meet certain quoting standards in the applicable series in a month. Meeting or exceeding the quoting standards in each of the LMM Incentive Program products to receive the applicable rebate is optional for an LMM appointed to a program. Rather, an LMM appointed to an incentive program is eligible to receive the corresponding rebate if it satisfies the applicable quoting standards.
The Exchange is not required to offer these LMM Incentive Programs and no longer desires to do so, as of January 2, 2026. As such, the Exchange proposes deleting each of the LMM Incentive Program details set forth in the Fees Schedule.
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 the proposed rule change to consolidate the Clerk and other TPH employee badge and Floor Manager badge types into a single Access Badge is reasonable, as it simplifies the Exchange's fee structure and streamlines the badge administration process. Further, the proposed $100.00 monthly fee, which is the midpoint between the current $70.00 and $130.00 monthly fee for Clerk and other TPH employee badges and Floor Manager badges, respectively, reflects a balanced approach that moderately increases costs for some badge holders while decreasing costs for others. The Exchange believes this pricing is reasonable given the costs associated with maintaining floor operations. The fee is designed to recover the Exchange's costs of providing and administering physical access to the trading floor. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as the proposed Access Badge fee applies uniformly to all TPHs. Further, the proposed badge fee changes align the Exchange's fee structure with at least one other options exchange, which assesses a $100.00 per month badge fee for other registered on-floor persons employed by or associated with a Floor Market Maker or Floor Broker.
The Exchange believes eliminating the replacement Access Badge fee is reasonable because it reduces administrative costs for both the Exchange and TPHs while simplifying the badge fee structure. While the Exchange originally adopted the replacement fee to incentivize badge retention, the Exchange has determined that the administrative burden of assessing replacement fees is no longer justified by the fee. The Exchange believes eliminating the replacement Access Badge fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all TPHs, in that no TPHs will be required to pay a replacement Access Badge fee and all TPHs will benefit from the elimination of a potential cost associated with lost badges.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to the GTH Executing Agent Subsidy Program are reasonable. The GTH Executing Agent Subsidy Program is overall designed to encourage designated GTH executing agents to increase their customer order flow in SPX and VIX options traded during GTH. As noted above, such changes are designed to continue to encourage designated GTH executing agents to increase their order flow executed as agent in SPX and VIX options that trade during GTH, to meet the volume thresholds, as amended, and receive the corresponding subsidies. The Exchange notes that incentivizing TPHs to conduct executing agent operations willing to accept orders from all customers during GTH is intended to increase customer accessibility to the GTH trading session. The Exchange believes that increased order flow through designated GTH executing agents would allow the Exchange to grow participation during GTH, which may benefit all market participants, as additional liquidity to the Exchange during GTH would create more trading opportunities during GTH, and in turn attract market participants to submit additional order flow during GTH.
Further, the Exchange believes such changes are reasonable, as the volume thresholds, as amended, remain commensurate with the corresponding subsidy amounts. The proposed changes effectively introduce additional tiers in 25,000 contract increments between the current tiers to better incentivize GTH growth for firms at different GTH activity levels, and increases the minimum volume threshold required to qualify for subsidy payments. The amended tiers, as proposed, present the opportunity for designated GTH executing agents submitting 50,000 to 99,999 customer contracts in SPX or VIX options to receive slightly larger subsidies than that which are currently offered by the program. While the amended tiers, as proposed, increase the minimum volume threshold required to qualify for subsidy payments (from 20,000 to 25,000 customer contracts in SPX or VIX options), the Exchange believes the proposed change is reasonable, as the proposed change is designed to encourage designated GTH executing agents to increase their order flow executed as agent in SPX and VIX options that trade during GTH. Further, the proposed changes reallocate program resources to provide enhanced subsidies to designated GTH executing agents submitting 50,000 to 99,999 customer contracts in SPX or VIX options.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule changes related to the GTH Executing Agent Subsidy Program are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. In particular, the Exchange believes that amending the volume thresholds and corresponding subsidies for the GTH Executing Agent Subsidy Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all TPHs that conduct this type of operation during GTH will continue to have the opportunity to become a designated GTH executing agent and thus eligible for the monthly subsidy commensurate with applicable customer volumes. As noted above, the proposed changes reflect the growth of the GTH trading session and are designed to continue to encourage designated GTH executing agents to increase their order flow executed as agent in SPX and VIX symbols that trade during GTH, to meet the volume thresholds, as amended, and receive corresponding subsidies. TPHs that conduct executing agent operations willing to accept orders from all customers take on additional risks and potential costs (including those related to staffing and clearing) associated with this type of business. Such TPHs also provide benefits to investors during GTH, including increased customer accessibility to the GTH trading session and increased order flow. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the changes will impact TPH activity, the Exchange anticipates that approximately two TPHs may be able to achieve the 25,000 to 49,000 contracts volume threshold, approximately one TPH may be able to achieve the 50,00 to 74,999 contracts volume threshold, no TPHs would currently meet the 75,000 to 99,999 contracts threshold, and approximately one TPH may be able to achieve the 100,000+ contracts threshold. However, all TPHs that conduct this type of operation during GTH will continue to have the opportunity to become a designated GTH executing agent and increase their order applicable order flow to meet the volume thresholds, as amended, and receive corresponding subsidies.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed change to eliminate the LMM Incentive Programs is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As noted above, the Exchange is not required to offer these LMM Incentive Programs and no longer desires to do so. The proposed change is reasonable, as the Exchange wishes to reallocate resources to its other pricing programs, as well as to developing other
The Exchange believes the proposed change is equitable and is not unfairly discriminatory, as the proposed change applies to all Market-Makers equally. While no Market-Maker will be or continue to be eligible for the eliminated LMM Incentive Programs, all Market-Makers remain eligible to participate in the Exchange's other pricing programs, including other LMM Incentive Programs offered by the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the proposed Access Badge fee applies uniformly to all TPHs. Similarly, the Exchange the proposed change to eliminate the replacement Access Badge fee applies uniformly to all TPHs, in that no TPHs will be required to pay a replacement Access Badge fee and all TPHs will benefit from the elimination of a potential cost associated with lost badges.
Further, in regard to the proposed changes to the GTH Executing Agent Subsidy Program, all TPHs that conduct executing agent operations willing to accept orders from all customers will continue to have an opportunity to be eligible for the GTH Executing Agent Subsidy program. Also, such TPHs that conduct this type of operation take on additional risks and potential costs (including those related to staffing and clearing) associated with this type of business, and may provide benefits to investors during GTH, including increased customer accessibility to, and liquidity and trading opportunities during, the GTH trading session. The proposed changes are designed to continue to encourage designated GTH executing agents to increase their order flow executed as agent in SPX and VIX symbols that trade during GTH, to meet the proposed amended volume threshold and receive the proposed corresponding subsidies.
Finally, the proposed change to eliminate the LMM Incentive Programs applies to all Market-Makers equally. While no Market-Maker will be or continue to be eligible for the eliminated LMM Incentive Programs, all Market-Makers remain eligible to participate in the Exchange's other pricing programs, including other LMM Incentive Programs offered by the Exchange.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed changes will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act. As noted above, the proposed badge fee changes align the Exchange's fee structure with at least one other options exchange, which assesses a $100.00 per month badge fee for other registered on-floor persons employed by or associated with a Floor Market Maker or Floor Broker
Further, in regard to the proposed changes to the GTH Executing Agent Subsidy Program and the LMM Incentive Programs, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the proposed changes apply only to fees and programs applicable to transactions in products that are currently exclusively listed on the Exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) applicable to MIAX Pearl Equities, an equities trading facility of the Exchange, to adopt a new Market Quoting Program (described below) to provide an enhanced rebate for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share during the Early,
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 Section 1)d) of the Fee Schedule to remove the heading “Reserved.” and replace it with “Market Quoting Program”.
Under the proposed Market Quoting Program, the Exchange will provide an enhanced rebate of ($0.0026)
The proposed Market Quoting Program is designed to encourage Equity Members, through the provision of an enhanced rebate for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange across all Tapes in all trading sessions, to promote price discovery and market quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each month in at least 750 multi-listed securities across all Tapes, thereby benefitting investors by providing improved trading conditions for all market participants through narrower bid-ask spreads and increased depth of liquidity available at the NBBO in these securities. The Exchange notes that the proposed Market Quoting Program is comparable to other quoting-based incentives offered by other exchanges, which offer pricing incentives applicable to a specific set of securities based on a member's market quality measurement over a specified period of time.
The proposed changes are effective beginning January 1, 2026.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of seventeen registered equities exchanges, and there are a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. For the month of November 2025, based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange had more than approximately 14.55% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to continue to incentivize market participants to increase their quoting at the NBBO (or better) on the Exchange, which will enhance market quality in both a broad manner and in a targeted manner with respect to the Markey Quoting Program, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Equity Members and market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to adopt the Market Quoting Program that would provide an enhanced rebate for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share during all trading sessions that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange across all Tapes when certain market quality measurements are met is reasonable because, as described above, such change is designed to encourage Equity Members to increase their order flow, including in the form of displayed, NBBO-setting orders under the required criteria, as applicable, to the Exchange. The Exchange believes, in turn, this will promote price discovery, enhance liquidity and market quality, and contribute to a more robust and well-balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Equity Members and market participants. In addition, the Exchange believes its proposal is reasonable and consistent with an equitable allocation of fees to pay a higher rebate than the base rebate for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share during all trading sessions that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange across all Tapes to Equity Members that qualify for the Market Quoting Program because of the additional commitment to market quality reflected in the associated quoting requirements.
The Exchange notes that volume and quoting-based incentives have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all Equity Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery process. Furthermore, as noted above, the proposed Market Quoting Program is similar in structure and purpose to pricing programs in place at other exchanges that are designed to enhance market quality.
For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Equity Members and other persons using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As described more fully below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition, the Exchange believes that its transaction pricing is subject to significant competitive forces, and that the proposed enhanced rebate described
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposal is intended to enhance market quality on the Exchange in a large number of securities and to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Equity Members and market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would incentivize Equity Members to promote price discovery and market quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each month in a large number of securities across all Tapes, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue. The Exchange, in turn, believes this will continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. The opportunity to qualify for the Market Quoting Program and thus receive the corresponding enhanced rebate for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share during all trading sessions that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange across all Tapes would be available to all Equity Members that meet the associated criteria for the Market Quoting Program in any month. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed change would not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes its proposal will benefit competition as the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Equity Members have numerous alternative venues they may participate on and direct their order flow to, including seventeen other equities exchanges and numerous alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 14.55% of the total market share of executed equities volume. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced to the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates generally, including with respect to executions of all orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share during all trading sessions that add displayed or non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange across all Tapes. Market participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As described above, the proposed change is a competitive proposal through which the Exchange is seeking to encourage additional order flow and quoting activity on the Exchange and to promote market quality through pricing incentives that are comparable to incentives in place at other exchanges.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Form N-14 (17 CFR 239.23) is the form for registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
The following estimates of average burden hours and costs are made solely for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with Form N-14 is mandatory. Responses to the collection of information will not be kept confidential.
We estimate that approximately 141 new registration statements and 92 amendments to a registration statement are filed on Form N-14 annually, for a total of 233 registration statements. Based on conversations with fund representatives and the Commission's experience with the filing and amending of Form N-14 and with disclosure documents generally, we estimate that the reporting burden of compliance with Form N-14 is approximately 590 hours per respondent for a new Form N-14 registration statement, and 300 hours per respondent for amending the Form N-14 registration statement. This time is spent, for example, preparing and reviewing the registration statements. Accordingly, we calculate the total estimated annual internal burden of responding to Form N-14 to be approximately 103,685 hours. In addition to the burden hours, we estimate that the total cost burden of compliance with the information collection requirements of Form N-14 is approximately $3,401,800 for the cost of goods and services purchased to prepare and update registration statements on Form N-14, such as for the services of outside counsel.
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 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 an email to:
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 15c2-5 prohibits a broker-dealer from arranging or extending certain loans to persons in connection with the offer or sale of securities unless, before any element of the transaction is entered into, the broker-dealer: (1) delivers to the person a written statement containing the exact nature and extent of the person's obligations under the loan arrangement; the risks and disadvantages of the loan arrangement; and all commissions, discounts, and other remuneration received and to be received in connection with the transaction by the broker-dealer or certain related persons (unless the person receives certain materials from the lender or broker-dealer which contain the required information); and (2) obtains from the person information on the person's financial situation and needs, reasonably determines that the transaction is suitable for the person, and retains on file and makes available to the person on request a written statement setting forth the broker-dealer's basis for determining that the transaction was suitable. The collection of information required by Rule 15c2-5 is necessary to execute the Commission's mandate under the Exchange Act to prevent fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive acts and practices by broker-dealers.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 50 respondents that require an aggregate total of 600 hours to comply with Rule 15c2-5.
Although Rule 15c2-5 does not specify a retention period or record-keeping requirement under the rule, broker-dealers are required to preserve the records for a period no less than six years pursuant to Rule 17a-4(c). The information required under Rule 15c2-5 is necessary for broker-dealers to engage in the lending activities prescribed in the Rule. Rule 15c2-5 does not assure confidentiality for the information retained under the rule.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the SEC, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the SEC's estimate of the burden imposed by the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and the assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated, electronic collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) applicable to the Exchange's options trading platform (“MIAX Pearl Options”) to update various non-transaction fees that have not been changed in a number of years to be comparable to fees charged by other like exchanges for similar products.
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 first launched operations in February 2017 to attract order flow and encourage market participants to experience the high determinism and resiliency of the Exchange's trading Systems.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the following non-transaction fees: (1) monthly Trading Permit
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the amount of the monthly Trading Permit fees assessed to EEMs and Market Makers.
The Exchange notes that Trading Permit fees for EEMs and EEM Clearing Firms
For EEMs that connect via the FIX Interface, the Exchange currently assesses the following monthly Trading Permit fees:
• $250 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 1;
• $350 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 2; and
• $450 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 3.
For EEMs that connect via the MEO Interface, the Exchange assesses the following monthly Trading Permit fees:
• $300 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 1;
• $400 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 2; and
• $500 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 3.
The Exchange assesses a flat monthly fee of $250 per Trading Permit to each EEM Clearing Firm.
The Exchange now proposes to increase the Trading Permit fees assessed to EEMs and EEM Clearing Firms, which again, have not been increased since they were first adopted in 2018. In particular, for EEMs that connect via the FIX Interface, the Exchange proposes to assess the following monthly Trading Permit fees:
• $300 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 1;
• $425 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 2; and
• $550 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 3.
For EEMs that connect via the MEO Interface, the Exchange proposes to assess the following monthly Trading Permit fees:
• $375 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 1;
• $500 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 2; and
• $625 per Trading Permit for EEMs in Tier 3.
The Exchange also proposes to assess EEM Clearing Firms $300 per month per Trading Permit.
The Exchange notes that Trading Permit fees for Market Makers have not been amended since September 2022.
Currently, the Exchange assess the following Trading Permit fees to Market Makers:
• $3,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by national ADV;
• $5,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV;
• $7,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $9,000 for Market Maker registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Pearl.
The Exchange also assesses an alternative lower Trading Permit fee to Market Makers who fall within the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table, which levels are described immediately above, if certain volume thresholds are met. This alternative lower Trading Permit fee for Market Makers is set forth in footnote “**” that is included in the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table and provides that if the Market Maker's total monthly executed volume during the relevant month is less than 0.040% of the total monthly TCV for MIAX Pearl-listed option classes for that month, then the monthly fee will be $3,500 instead of the fee otherwise applicable to such level.
The Exchange now proposes to increase the Trading Permit fees assessed to Market Makers, which, as described above, were last amended over three years ago in September 2022. In particular, the Exchange proposes to assess the following Trading Permit fees to Market Makers:
• $3,500 for Market Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by national ADV;
• $5,500 for Market Maker registrations in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV;
• $8,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $10,000 for Market Maker registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Pearl.
The Exchange also proposes to increase the alternative lower Trading Permit fee to Market Makers who fall within the 3rd and 4th levels of the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table from $3,500 to $5,500 per month by amending the footnote “**” following the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table for these Monthly Trading Permit tier levels.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to increase connectivity fees to the primary/secondary and disaster recovery facilities for Members and non-Members. Currently, the Exchange assesses the same amount of connectivity fees to Members and non-Members that connect to the Exchange's primary/secondary facility and disaster recovery facility. In particular, the Exchange assesses the following connectivity fees to Members and non-Members:
• $1,400 per 1 gigabit (“Gb”) connection to the primary/secondary facility;
• $550 per 1Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility;
• $2,750 per 10Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility; and
• $13,500 per 10Gb ultra-low latency (“ULL”) connection to the primary/secondary facility.
The Exchange notes that the above fees for 1Gb connectivity and 10Gb to the disaster recovery facility, and 1Gb connectivity to the primary/secondary facilities, have not been increased since December 2019.
• $1,500 per 1Gb connection to the primary/secondary facility;
• $650 per 1Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility;
• $3,500 per 10Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility; and
• $15,000 per 10Gb ULL connection to the primary/secondary facility.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for FIX Ports, Full Service MEO Ports (Single), Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk), Limited Service MEO Ports, MEO Purge Ports, CTD Ports, and FXD Ports. Some of these fees have not been increased since they were first adopted in March or August of 2018. Each port provides access to the Exchange's primary and secondary data centers as well as its disaster recovery center for a single fee.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for FIX Ports, which have not been increased since they were first adopted in March 2018. A FIX Port allows Members to send orders and other messages using the FIX protocol.
• $275 for the first FIX Port;
• $175 per port for the second to fifth FIX Ports; and
• $75 per port for the sixth or more FIX Ports.
The Exchange proposes to increase monthly FIX Port fees as follows:
• $350 for the first FIX Port;
• $225 per port for the second to fifth FIX Ports; and
• $100 per port for the sixth or more FIX Ports.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for Full Service MEO Ports (Single).
The Exchange proposes to amend the Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees for EEMs and Market Makers,
The Exchange assesses the amount of the monthly Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees for Market Makers based on the lesser of either the per class traded or percentage of total national ADV measurement based on classes traded by volume. The amount of monthly Market Maker Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees is based upon the number of classes in which the Market Maker was registered to quote on any given day within the calendar month, or upon the class volume percentages. Specifically, the Exchange assesses the following Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees to Market Makers:
• $5,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by national ADV;
• $7,500 for Market Maker registrations in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV;
• $10,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $12,000 for Market Maker registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Pearl.
The Exchange also provides an alternative lower Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee for Market Makers who fall within the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Market Maker Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee table, which levels are described directly above, if certain volume thresholds are met. This alternative lower Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee for Market Makers is set forth in footnote “**” in the Market Maker Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee table and provides that if the Market Maker's total monthly executed volume during the relevant month is less than 0.040% of the total monthly TCV for MIAX Pearl-listed option classes for that month, then the fee will be $6,000 instead of the fee otherwise applicable to such level.
The Exchange now proposes to increase the Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees assessed to Market Makers as follows:
• $5,500 for Market Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by national ADV;
• $8,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV;
• $11,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $13,000 for Market Maker registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Pearl.
The Exchange also proposes to increase the alternative lower Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee for Market Makers who fall within the 3rd and 4th levels of the proposed Market Maker Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee table from $6,000 to $8,000 per month by amending footnote “**” following the Market Maker Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee table.
The Exchange also proposes to amend the Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee assessed to EEMs, which entitles EEMs to two (2) Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) for each matching engine for the single monthly fee. The Exchange proposes to increase the fee accesses to EEMs that utilize Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) from $7,500 to $8,000 per month.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for Limited Service MEO Ports. Limited Service MEO Ports support all MEO input message types, but do not support bulk order entry and support the use of Immediate-or-Cancel Orders (“IOC”)
• $0.00 for the first and second Limited Service MEO Ports;
• $200 per port for the third and fourth Limited Service MEO Ports;
• $300 per port for fifth and sixth Limited Service MEO Ports; and
• $400 per port for the seventh or more Limited Service MEO Ports.
The Exchange proposes to increase the monthly Limited Service MEO Port fees as follows:
• $0.00 for the first and second Limited Service MEO Ports;
• $225 per port for the third and fourth Limited Service MEO Ports;
• $350 per port for fifth and sixth Limited Service MEO Ports; and
• $475 per port for the seventh or more Limited Service MEO Ports
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for MEO Purge Ports, which provide Members with the ability to send quote purge messages to the MIAX Pearl System. MEO Purge Ports are not capable of sending or receiving any other type of messages or information.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for CTD Ports, which provide a Member with real-time clearing trade updates that include the Member's clearing trade messages on a low latency, real-time basis. The trade messages include, among other things, the following: (i) trade date and time; (ii) symbol information; (iii) trade price/size information; (iv) Member type (for example, and without limitation, Market Maker, Electronic Exchange Member, Broker-Dealer); and (v) Exchange MPID
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for FXD Ports, which means a messaging interface that provides a copy of real-time trade execution, trade correction and trade cancellation information to FIX Drop Copy Port users who subscribe to the service. FXD Port users are those users who are designated by an EEM to receive the information and the information is restricted for use by the EEM only.
The Exchange proposes to make a minor, non-substantive cleanup edit to footnote “*” following the table of port fees in Section 5)d) of the Fee Schedule. Currently, footnote “*” below the table of port fees in Section 5)d) of the Fee Schedule provides as follows:
The rates set forth above (and below) for Full Service MEO Ports, both Bulk and/or Single, entitle a Member to two (2) such Ports for each Matching Engine for a single port fee. If a Member selects at least one Full Service MEO Port—Bulk as part of their two (2) Ports,
The Exchange now proposes to replace the word “above” in the last sentence of footnote “*” with the word “below” to accurately describe the reference location to Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk). The fees for Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) are described below that footnote,
The Exchange issued an alert publicly announcing the proposed fees on October 14, 2025 and a reminder alert on December 19, 2025.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The proposed Trading Permit fees for EEMs and EEM Clearing Firms are comparable to, or lower than, the trading permit fees charged by Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe C2”) and MEMX LLC (“MEMX”), as summarized in the table below.
Despite having comparable market share as the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges a higher trading permit fee than the Trading Permit fees proposed by the Exchange. Cboe C2 charges a flat $1,000 per Electronic Access Permit per month, while the Exchange provides tiered Trading Permit fees based on (1) the type of interface the EEM uses to connect to the Exchange and (2) certain monthly volume thresholds. Notably, the highest Trading Permit fee the Exchange proposes to assess to an EEM is $625 per Trading Permit per month, lower than Cboe C2's flat $1,000 monthly fee.
MEMX, which has slightly higher market share than the Exchange, charges higher permit-type fees than the Trading Permit fees proposed by the Exchange herein for EEMs. MEMX charges all Options Order Entry Firms a flat monthly membership fee of $1,000, while the Exchange provides tiered Trading Permit fees based on (1) the type of interface the EEM uses to connect to the Exchange and (2) certain monthly volume thresholds. Notably, the highest Trading Permit fee the Exchange proposes to assess to an EEM is $625 per Trading Permit per month.
The proposed Trading Permit fees for Market Makers are comparable to the Trading Permit fees charged by MEMX, as summarized in the table below.
Despite having slightly higher market share than the Exchange, MEMX charges comparable permit-type fees as the Trading Permit fees proposed by the Exchange herein for Market Makers. MEMX charges all Options Market Makers a flat monthly membership fee of $7,000, while the Exchange provides tiered Trading Permit fees ranging from $3,500 to $10,000 (as proposed), based the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of total national ADV measurement. The Exchange offers even greater savings to Market Makers as it provides a reduced Trading Permit fee of $5,500 (as proposed) for Market Makers if their total monthly executed volume during the relevant month is less than 0.040% of the total monthly TCV for MIAX Pearl-listed option classes for that month, which still allows these Market Makers to quote the entire market (or close to the entire market). MEMX does not offer reduced fees for Market Makers that only quote in certain classes compared to those that quote the entire market.
The proposed network connectivity fees to the Exchange's disaster recovery facility for Members and non-Members are comparable to, or lower than, the connectivity fees charged by Cboe C2 and MEMX, as summarized in the table below.
Despite having comparable market share as the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges higher 1Gb and 10Gb connectivity fees to its disaster recovery facility than the fees proposed by the Exchange herein for connectivity to the Exchange's disaster recovery facility. Cboe C2 charges monthly fees of $2,000 per 1Gb
Despite having only slightly higher market share than the Exchange, MEMX charges similar disaster recovery connectivity fees as proposed by the Exchange herein for connectivity to its disaster recovery facility. MEMX charges $3,000 per xNet Physical Connection to its Secondary Data Center per month. Meanwhile, the Exchange proposes to charge monthly fees of $650 per 1Gb connection and $3,500 per 10Gb connection to its disaster recovery facility.
The proposed network connectivity fees to the Exchange's primary and secondary facility for Members and non-Members are lower than the connectivity fees charged by Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“Nasdaq BX”) for connectivity to its primary data center, as summarized in the table below.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq BX charges higher connectivity fees than the connectivity fees to the primary and secondary facilities proposed by the Exchange herein. Nasdaq BX charges all participants monthly fees of $2,750 per 1Gb connection and $18,500 per 10Gb connection to access its primary data center. Meanwhile, the Exchange proposes to charge Members and non-Members monthly fees of $1,500 per 1Gb connection and $15,000 per 10Gb ULL connection to the Exchange's primary and secondary facilities. Nasdaq BX charges an additional installation fee for each 1Gb or 10Gb connection of $1,650.
The proposed FIX Port fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Cboe C2 and options trading facility of The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), as summarized in the table below.
Despite having comparable market share as the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges higher FIX Logical Port fees than the FIX Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Cboe C2 charges a monthly fee of $650 per FIX Logical Port, while the Exchange's highest proposed tier is only $350 per FIX Port per month. Cboe C2 FIX Logical Port users may incur an additional monthly fee of $650 per port.
Nasdaq charges participants $650 per FIX Port per month, while the Exchange's highest proposed tier is only $350 per FIX Port per month. Despite having slightly higher market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher FIX Port fees than the FIX Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
The proposed Limited Service MEO Port (“LSPs”) fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Nasdaq and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“Nasdaq MRX”), as summarized in the table below.
Nasdaq charges a monthly fee of $750 per QUO Port, per account number, while the Exchange provides the first two LSPs for free and the Exchange's highest proposed tier is $475 per LSP per month. Despite having only slightly higher market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher QUO Port fees than the LSP fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
Nasdaq MRX charges a monthly fee of $650 per OTTO Port, per account number (with fees for all OTTO Ports, CTI Ports, FIX Ports, FIX Drop Ports and disaster recovery ports subject to a monthly cap of $7,500), while the Exchange provides the first two LSPs for free and the Exchange's highest proposed tier is $475 per LSP per month. Despite having comparable market share to the Exchange, Nasdaq MRX charges higher OTTO Port fees than the LSP fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
The proposed MEO Purge Port fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Nasdaq MRX, Cboe C2 and Nasdaq, as summarized in the table below.
Despite having comparable market share to the Exchange, Nasdaq MRX charges higher SQF Purge Port fees than the MEO Purge Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Nasdaq MRX will charge (beginning January 1, 2026) SQF Purge Port fees as follows: (a) $1,620 per SQF Purge Port per month for the first 5 ports; (b) $1,080 per SQF Purge Port per month for the next 15 ports; and (c) $540 per SQF Purge Port for all ports over 20 ports. The Exchange proposes to charge $700 per MEO Purge Port per matching engine per month. The Exchange chose to charge Purge ports on a per matching engine basis instead of a per port basis due to its System architecture, which provides two (2) MEO Purge Ports per matching engine for redundancy purposes. Members are able to select the matching engines that they want to connect to based on the business needs of each Market Maker, and pay the applicable fee based on the number of matching engines and pair of ports utilized.
Despite having slightly higher market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher Purge Port fees than the MEO Purge Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Nasdaq charges tiered SQF Purge Port fees as follows: (a) $1,620 per SQF Purge Port per month
The proposed CTD Port fees are lower than the similar port fees charged by Nasdaq, as summarized in the table below.
Nasdaq charges $650 per CTI Port per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge $575 per CTD Port per month. Despite having slightly higher market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher CTI Port fees than the CTD Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
The proposed FXD Port fees are lower than the similar port fees charged by Cboe C2 and Nasdaq BX, as summarized in the table below.
Cboe C2 charges $650 per Drop Logical Port per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge $325 per FXD Port per month. Despite having comparable market share as the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges higher Drop Logical Port fees as the FXD Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
Nasdaq charges $650 per FIX Drop Port per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge $325 per FXD Port per month. Despite having slightly higher market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher FIX Drop Port fees than the FXD Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
The proposed Full Service MEO Port (Single) fees are comparable to the similar port fees charged by Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe BZX”), as summarized in the table below.
For purposes of this comparison, Cboe BZX charges the following fees for each BOE Unitized Logical Port set (on a per set basis): $2,500 per month for 1st and 2nd port set; $3,000 per month for 3rd through 14th port set; and $3,500 per month for 15th through 30th port set. The Exchange proposes to charge a flat fee of $4,500 per Full Service MEO Port (Single) set, which also provides Members with access to all matching engines. Accordingly, the Exchange believes its proposed Full Service MEO Port (Single) fees are comparable to the fees charged by Cboe BZX for its BOE Unitized Logical Port sets, with each exchange having comparable market share.
The proposed Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Cboe C2, as summarized in the table below.
Despite having comparable market share, the Exchange believes that Cboe C2 charges higher bulk port fees than proposed by the Exchange herein. Cboe C2 charges $1,500 per port for the first five Bulk BOE Ports, and $2,500 per port for each Bulk BOE Port utilized in excess of five ports. The Exchange proposes to charge between $5,500 and $13,000 per month for Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) for Market Makers, depending on the number of classes assigned or percentage of national ADV, and $8,000 per month for Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) for EEMs. The Exchange's proposed rates for Market Makers and EEMs provide two such ports for each of the Exchange's twelve matching engines, for a total of twenty-four total ports for the monthly fee (between $5,500 and $13,000). For a Cboe C2 member to utilize a Bulk BOE Port on each matching unit, that member would have to purchase between 31 and 35 such ports. As such, the approximated fees for doing so would be between $72,500 (($1,500 per port multiplied by the first five Bulk BOE Ports) + ($2,500 per port multiplied by the next twenty-six Bulk BOE Ports)) and $82,500 (($1,500 per port multiplied by the first five Bulk BOE Ports) + ($2,500 per port multiplied by the next thirty Bulk BOE Ports)).
Each of the above examples of other exchanges' non-transaction fees support the proposition that the Exchange's proposed fees are comparable to those of other exchanges with lower or comparable market share and are, therefore, reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated because they will apply uniformly to all Members and non-Members that choose to purchase a particular service based on their business need. Any Member or non-Member that chooses to purchase a particular product or service is subject to the same Fee Schedule, regardless of what type of business they operate, and the decision to purchase a particular product or service is based on objective differences in usage of the particular product or service among different Members and non-Member, which are still ultimately in the control of any particular Member or non-Member. The Exchange believes the proposed pricing is equitably allocated because of the service's or product's utility and value to market participants compared to other like exchanges' products and services.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory because they will apply to all Members in the same manner and are not targeted at a specific type or category of market participant engaged in any particular trading strategy.
The Exchange believes its proposal to assess higher Trading Permit fees to EEMs that reach Tiers 2 and 3 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tier structure in the relevant month is not unfairly discriminatory because the volume calculations and thresholds are applied equally to all MIAX Pearl Members. All similarly situated Members are subject to the same volume thresholds, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The specific volume thresholds of the Trading Permit fees were set based upon business determinations. The Exchange believes that by basing certain fees upon volume, this will permit Member firms to have the same access to the Exchange but pay fees which are proportionate to their usage of the Exchange. The same fees based upon the same volume will also be assessed to Members on an equal basis since they are assessed based upon the same volume of order flow provided. This structure has also been in place at the current volume threshold levels since the Exchange established Trading Permit fees in 2018.
The Exchange believes the proposed increased Trading Permit fee for EEM Clearing Firms is equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fee would apply to each EEM Clearing Firm in a uniform manner without regard to membership status or the extent of any other business with the Exchange or affiliated entities.
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher Trading Permit fees to Market Makers that quote a higher number of classes or execute higher percentages of volume on the Exchange because the System requires increased performance and capacity in order to provide the opportunity for Market Makers to quote in a higher number of options classes on the Exchange. Specifically, more classes that are actively quoted on the Exchange by a Market Maker will require increased memory for record retention, increased bandwidth for optimized performance, increased functionalities on each application layer, and increased optimization with regard to surveillance and monitoring of such classes quoted. As such, basing the higher Market Maker Trading Permit fees on the greater number of classes quoted in on any given day in a calendar month is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory when considering how the increased number of quoted classes directly impacts the resources required for the Exchange to operate for all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated among anticipated users of the network connectivity as the Exchange expects that users of 10Gb ULL connections will consume substantially more bandwidth and network resources than users of 1Gb connections. It is the experience of the Exchange and its affiliated exchanges that this is the case as 10Gb ULL connection users have historically accounted for more than 99% of message traffic over the network, which drives increased capacity utilization, while the users of the 1Gb connections account for less than 1% of message traffic over the network. In the experience of the Exchange and its affiliates, users of the 1Gb connections do not have the same business needs for the high-performance network as 10Gb ULL users.
The Exchange's high-performance network and supporting infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled system throughput. To achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange built out and must now maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the overall increase in storage and network transport capabilities. The Exchange must analyze its storage capacity on an ongoing basis to ensure it has sufficient capacity to store these messages to satisfy its record keeping requirements under the Exchange Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Limited Service MEO Ports is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to align fees with services provided, will apply equally to all Members that are assigned Limited Service MEO Ports, and minimizes barriers to entry by providing all Members with two free Limited Service MEO Ports. As a result, there are several Members that are not subject to any additional LSP fees. In contrast, other exchanges generally charge in excess of $475 per port (the highest fee the Exchange proposes to charge for Limited Service MEO Ports) without providing any initial ports for free.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Limited Service MEO Port fee structure is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will continue to enable Members to access the Exchange with two free ports before the proposed fees for additional Limited Service MEO Ports apply, thereby continuing to encourage order flow and liquidity from a diverse set of market participants, facilitating price discovery and the interaction of orders. The Exchange notes that a substantial majority of Members only utilize the two Limited Service MEO Ports provided for no fee. The proposed fees are designed to encourage Members to be efficient with their Limited Service MEO Port usage. There is no requirement that any Member maintain a specific number of Limited Service MEO Ports and a Member may choose to maintain as many or as few of such ports as each Member deems appropriate.
To achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers during anticipated peak market conditions. The need to support billions of messages per day consumes the Exchange's resources and significantly contributes to the overall need to increase network storage and transport capabilities. Thus, as the number of ports a Market Maker has increases, the related pull on Exchange resources may continue to increase.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, for the flat fee in each tier, the Exchange provides each Member two Full Service MEO Ports for each matching engine to which that Member is connected. Unlike other options exchanges that provide similar port functionality and charge fees on a per port basis,
The Exchange believes the proposed reduced Full Service MEO Port fee for Market Makers that fall within the 3rd and 4th levels of the Full Service MEO Port fee table and certain volume thresholds are met is not unfairly discriminatory because this lower monthly fee is designed to provide a lower fixed cost to those Market Makers who are willing to quote the entire Exchange market (or substantial amount of the Exchange market), as objectively measured by either number of classes assigned or national ADV, but who do not otherwise execute a significant amount of volume on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that, by continuing to offer a lower fixed cost to Market Makers that execute less volume, the Exchange will continue to retain and attract smaller-scale Market Makers, which are an integral component of the option industry marketplace, but have been decreasing in number in recent years, due to industry consolidation and lower market maker profitability. The Exchange believes it is beneficial to incentivize these additional Market Makers to register to make markets on the Exchange to increase liquidity. Increased liquidity from a diverse set of market participants helps facilitate price discovery and the interaction of orders, which benefits all market participants of the Exchange. Since these smaller-scale Market Makers may utilize less Exchange capacity due to lower overall volume executed, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory to offer such Market Makers a lower fixed cost. The Exchange notes that its affiliated markets, MIAX, MIAX Emerald, and MIAX Sapphire, offer a similar reduced fee for their Full Service MEO/MEI Ports for smaller-scale Market Makers.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed Trading Permit fees for EEMs do not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition. The Exchange believes the proposed fees, which are based on the type of interface that the EEM uses to access the Exchange—either FIX or MEO—and the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tier achieved by the EEM in the relevant month,
The Exchange believes the proposed increased Trading Permit fee for EEM Clearing Firms does not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fee does not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the fee rate is the same for each EEM Clearing Firm without regard to membership status or the extent of any other business with the Exchange or affiliated entities in order for each EEM Clearing Firm to clear transactions on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Permit fees for Market Makers do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the fee rates are designed in order to provide objective criteria for Market Makers of different sizes and business models that best matches their order and quoting activity on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit fees will not impose a burden on intra-market competition because, when these fees are viewed in the context of the overall activity on the Exchange, Market Makers: (1) consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network; (2) transact the vast majority of the volume on the Exchange; and (3) require the high touch network support services provided by the Exchange and its staff, including more costly network monitoring, reporting and support services, resulting in a much higher cost to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the majority of customer demand comes from Market Makers, whose transactions make up a majority of the volume on the Exchange. Further, other member types,
The Exchange believes that the increasing fees under the tiered Market Maker Trading Permit fee structure do not impose a burden on intra-market competition because the tiered structure continues to take into account the number of classes quoted by each individual Market Maker, or percentage of total national ADV. The Exchange's system requires increased performance and capacity in order to provide the opportunity for each Market Maker to quote in a higher number of options classes on the Exchange. Specifically, the more classes that are actively quoted on the Exchange by a Market Maker requires increased memory for record retention, increased bandwidth for optimized performance, increased functionalities on each application layer, and increased optimization with regard to surveillance and monitoring of such classes quoted. As such, basing the Market Maker Trading Permit fee on the greatest number of classes quoted in on any given day in a calendar month, or percentage of total national ADV, is does not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act when taking into account how the increased number of quoted classes directly impact the costs and resources for the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed network connectivity fees for Members and non-Members do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants or affect the ability of such market participants to compete. The proposed fees will apply uniformly to all market participants regardless of the number of 1Gb or 10Gb ULL connections they choose to purchase to the primary/secondary facility or the disaster recovery facility. The proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees for connectivity services place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the proposed connectivity pricing is associated with relative usage of the Exchange by each market participant and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants. The Exchange believes its proposed pricing is reasonable and, when coupled with the availability of third-party providers that also offer connectivity solutions, participation on the Exchange is competitive for all market participants, including smaller trading firms. The connectivity services purchased by market participants typically increase based on their additional message traffic and/or the complexity of their operations. The market participants that utilize more connectivity services typically utilize the most bandwidth, and those are the participants that consume the most resources from the network. Accordingly, the proposed fees for connectivity services do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation of the proposed connectivity fees reflects the network resources consumed by the various size of market participants and the costs to the
The Exchange believes that the proposed FIX, CTD and FXD Port fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because they will apply to all Members in the same manner and are not targeted at a specific type or category of market participant engaged in any particular trading strategy. The proposed fees for each type of port (FIX, CTD or FXD) do not depend on any distinctions between Members, customers, broker-dealers, or any other entity. The proposed fee will be assessed solely based on the number of FIX, CTD or FXD Ports an entity selects and not on any other distinction applied by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Purge Port fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because Purge Ports are completely voluntary as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality. Purge Ports enhance Members' ability to manage orders, which, in turn, improves their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. Further, the proposed fees apply uniformly to all Members that choose to use the optional Purge Ports and no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Members that voluntarily choose to utilize Purge Ports will be charged the same amount based upon the number of matching engines for each set of Purge Ports in use.
The Exchange does not believe its proposed fees for Limited Service MEO Ports will place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants. All market participants would be eligible to receive two free Limited Service MEO Ports and those that elect to purchase more would be subject to the same tiered rates. All market participants purchase the amount of Limited Service MEO Ports they require based on their own business decisions and similarly situated firms are subject to the same fees.
The Exchange does not believe proposed fees for Full Service MEO Ports will place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because they would apply to all EEMs and Market Makers equally, depending on whether the Member chooses to utilize a single or bulk port. The Exchange believes the proposed fees will not result in any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, in the Exchange's experience, Market Makers that are frequently in the highest tier for Full Service MEO Ports (Bulk) consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees do not place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the ability of such market participants to compete because, for the flat fee in each tier, the Exchange provides each Member two Full Service MEO Ports for each matching engine to which that Member is connected. Further, the Exchange offers a reduced Full Service MEO Port (Bulk) fee for Market Makers that fall within the 3rd and 4th levels of the Full Service MEO Port fee table, which lower monthly fee is designed to provide a lower fixed cost to those Market Makers who are willing to quote the entire Exchange market (or substantial amount of the Exchange market), as objectively measured by either number of classes assigned or national ADV, but who do not otherwise execute a significant amount of volume on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that, by continuing to offer a lower fixed cost to Market Makers that execute less volume, the Exchange will continue to retain and attract smaller-scale Market Makers, which are an integral component of the option industry marketplace, but have been decreasing in number in recent years, due to industry consolidation and lower market maker profitability. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the reduced fee will promote competition by incentivizing these additional Market Makers to register to make markets on the Exchange to increase liquidity.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In contrast, the Exchange believes that, without the fee changes proposed herein, the Exchange is potentially at a competitive disadvantage to certain other exchanges that have in place comparable or higher fees for similar services with similar market share, as described above. The Exchange believes that non-transaction fees can be used to foster more competitive transaction pricing and additional infrastructure investment and there are other options markets of which market participants may connect to trade options that charge higher or comparable rates as the Exchange for similar services and products. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend Rule 19.3, Criteria for Underlying Securities, to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3 regarding the criteria for underlying securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3(i) to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on Fund Shares
This is a competitive filing substantively identical to a proposal submitted by another options exchange that has recently been deemed approved by the Commission.
The proposed rule change would require a Commodity-Based Trust to: (1) meet the generic criteria of a U.S. equities listing exchange
Further, the Exchange has specified in proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5) that the 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.
As a result of this proposal, the proposed listing criteria would permit a Commodity-Based Trust that (a) is generically listed on a U.S. securities exchange that is the primary equities listing market for the Commodities-Based Trust and (b) holds a single crypto asset to qualify for the listing of options on that ETF, provided proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5) has also been met, as well as the listing criteria in Rule 19.3(a) and (b) or Rule 19.3(i)(1)(B).
Similar to options on any ETF, an option on a Commodity-Based Trust that meets the requirements of proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5) would also be subject to the Exchange's delisting requirements set forth in Rule 19.4(g) for Fund Shares approved for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3(i). Rule 19.4(g) provides that Fund Shares approved for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3 will not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering such Fund Shares if the security is delisted from trading as provided in Rule 19.4(b)(4) (
Consistent with current Rule 19.5, which governs the opening of options series on a specific underlying security (including ETFs), the Exchange will open at least one expiration month and one series of options on a Commodity-Based Fund Share
Pursuant to Rule 19.5, Interpretation and Policy .01, which governs strike prices of series of options on Fund Shares, the interval of strike prices for series of options on Commodity-Based Fund Shares may be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less or $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.
Options on a Commodity-Based Trust that may be listed pursuant to proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5) will 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 Fund Share options 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 will apply to the listing and trading of options on Commodity-Based Trust Shares on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the Exchange.
Position and exercise limits for options, including options on a Commodity-Based Trust Share, are determined pursuant to Rules 18.7 and 18.9, respectively. Position and exercise limits for options on ETFs vary according to the number of outstanding shares and the trading volumes of the underlying security over the past six months, where the largest in capitalization and the most frequently traded funds 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 funds 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.
The Exchange represents it has an adequate surveillance program in place for options and intends to apply those same program procedures to options on Commodity-Based Trusts that may be listed pursuant to proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5) that it applies to the Exchange's other options products.
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series of options on ETFs, including on Commodity-Based Trusts pursuant to proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5), up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Rules. The Exchange believes any additional traffic generated from the trading of options on Commodity-Based Trusts listed pursuant to proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5) would be manageable. The Exchange represents that Exchange members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposed rule change.
Further, quotation and last sale information for Commodity-Based Trusts listed pursuant to proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5) is available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high speed line. Quotation and last sale information for such securities is also available from the exchange on which such securities are listed. Quotation and last sale information for options on Commodity-Based Trusts listed pursuant to proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5) will be available via OPRA
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would allow the Exchange to immediately list and trade options on Commodity-Based Trusts, provided the initial listing criteria has been met, without requiring additional approvals from the Commission.
Specifically, the Exchange's proposed rule change allows the listing and trading of options on Fund Shares that represent interests in a Commodity-Based Trust and meet the criteria proposed and discussed herein. Listing these options will avail market participants of the opportunity to hedge their positions in the Commodity-Based Trusts in a timely manner, thereby providing investors with the ability to hedge their exposure to the underlying Commodity-Based Trust. Options on Commodity-Based Trusts benefits investors, similar to the listing of any other option on an ETF, by providing investors with a relatively lower-cost risk management tool to manage their positions and associated risk in their portfolios more easily in connection with exposure to the price of a crypto asset. Additionally, listing options on Commodity-Based Trusts provides investors with the ability to transact in such options on a listed market as opposed to the over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market, which increases market transparency and enhances the process of price discovery to the benefit of all investors.
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 Rule 19.3(i). 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 options on certain Commodity-Based Trusts to likewise list and trade once the proposed listing criteria have been met without the need for additional approvals.
As proposed, the Exchange would list options on a Commodity-Based Trust that met the generic criteria of the U.S. equities exchange that is the primary listing market for the Commodity-Based Trust, provided the Commodity-Based Trust held only a single crypto asset and satisfied the conditions in proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5). Specifically, a Commodity-Based Trust that met the requirements of proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5) would also have to satisfy the following requirements in proposed Rule 19.3(i)(5): (A) the total global supply of the underlying crypto asset held by the Commodity-Based Trust has an average daily market value of at least $700 million over the last 12 months; and (B) the 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.
These requirements are consistent with the Act and the protection of investors as they should ensure that the underlying ETF has sufficient liquidity prior to listing options, which will serve to prevent disruption to the underlying market. The Exchange believes that market supply serves as a good measure of liquidity to prevent the addition of options trading on the Commodity-Based Trust from disrupting the market for the underlying security. Requiring the 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 the rules of the primary equities listing market for the ETF, should ensure adequate liquidity prior to listing. Further, ensuring the 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 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 the initial listing standards and continued listing standards currently in the Exchange Rules, applicable to options on all ETFs, including ETFs that hold other crypto assets already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange in addition to the proposed criteria. 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 Trusts, particularly in light of the additional requirement that the crypto asset held by the Commodity-Based Trust underlies a derivatives contract that trades on a market with which the
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 Rule 19.3(i)(5),
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. Options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts would need to satisfy the initial listing standards set forth in the Exchange Rules in the same manner as any other ETF before the Exchange could list options on them. Additionally, options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options. The Rules currently applicable to the listing and trading of options on ETFs on the Exchange will apply in the same manner to the listing and trading of all options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts. Additionally, the Exchange notes that listing and trading options on qualifying Commodity-Based Trusts on the Exchange will subject such options to transparent exchange-based rules as well as price discovery and liquidity, as opposed to alternatively trading such options in the OTC market. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any 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 the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as nothing prevents the other options exchanges from proposing similar rules to list and trade options on Commodity-Based Trust Shares. Other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on Commodity-Based Trusts. As noted herein, a substantively identical proposal submitted by another options exchange has recently been deemed approved by the Commission.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 5 (Entry and Display of Orders); and Options 3, Section 7 (Types of Orders and Order and Quote Protocols).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 5 (Entry and Display of Orders) and Options 3, Section 7 (Types of Orders and Order and Quote Protocols). Each rule change will be described below.
The Exchange proposes to amend Options 3, Section 5, Entry and Display of Orders, to align the rule text at Options 3, Section 5(c) with Nasdaq Phlx LLC (“Phlx”) Options 3, Section 5(c). Today, GEMX Options 3, Section 5(c) states,
The System automatically executes eligible orders using the Exchange's displayed best bid and offer (“BBO”) or the Exchange's non-displayed order book (“internal BBO”) if the best bid and/or offer on the Exchange has been re-priced pursuant to subsection (d) below and Options 3, Section 4(b)(6) above.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to state,
The System automatically executes eligible orders using the Exchange's displayed best bid and offer (“BBO”) or the Exchange's non-displayed order book (“internal BBO”) if there are non-displayed orders on the order book or the best bid and/or offer on the Exchange has been re-priced pursuant to subsection (d) below and Options 3, Section 4(b)(6) above.
The amendment is non-substantive because, today, a non-displayed order on the order book will be executed at the best price on the Exchange whether that best price is displayed or non-displayed.
The Exchange proposes to amend the language of GEMX Supplementary .03 to Options 3, Section 7 to align with Phlx Supplementary .03 to Options 3, Section 7. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the “Financial Information eXchange” or “FIX” at Supplementary .03(a) to Options 3, Section 7 to align the rule text with Phlx Supplementary .03(a) to Options 3, Section 7 and note that the interface allows Members and their Sponsored Customers to connect, send, and receive messages related to orders and auction orders
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend the “Ouch to Trade Options” or “OTTO” at Supplementary .03(b) to Options 3, Section 7 to align the rule text with Phlx Supplementary .03(b) to Options 3, Section 7 and note that the interface allows Members and their Sponsored Customers to connect, send, and receive messages related to orders, auction orders, and auction responses to
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the “Specialized Quote Feed” or “SQF” at Supplementary .03(c) to Options 3, Section 7 to align the rule text with Phlx Supplementary .03(c) to Options 3, Section 7 and note that the interface allows Market Makers to connect, send, and receive messages related to quotes, Immediate-or-Cancel Orders, and auction responses to
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to note that the System automatically executes eligible orders using the Exchange's displayed best bid and offer (“BBO”) or the Exchange's non-displayed order book (“internal BBO”) if there are non-displayed orders on the order book or the best bid and/or offer on the Exchange has been re-priced pursuant to subsection (d) below and Options 3, Section 4(b)(6) is consistent with the Act because, today, a non-displayed order on the order book will be executed at the best price on the Exchange whether that best price is displayed or non-displayed. This rule text aligns GEMX Options 3, Section 5(c) with Phlx Options 3, Section 5(c).
The Exchange's proposal to amend FIX at Supplementary .03(a) to Options 3, Section 7 to align the rule text with Phlx Supplementary .03(a) to Options 3, Section 7 and note that the interface allows Members and their Sponsored Customers to connect, send, and receive messages related to orders and auction orders
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.
Amending Options 3, Section 5(c) does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the Exchange will automatically execute each transaction at the best price available on the Exchange.
Amending Options 3, Section 5(c) does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because all options Exchange execute at the best price available on that market regardless of the displayed price.
Amending the protocols at Supplementary .03 to Options 3, Section 7 to specify the protocols permit communications to and from the Exchange, including responses, does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because this is true for all Members.
Amending the protocols at Supplementary .03 to Options 3, Section 7 to specify the protocols permit communications to and from the Exchange, including responses, does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition because other options exchange such as Phlx have identical protocols.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Emerald Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to update various non-transaction fees that have not been changed in a number of years to be comparable to fees charged by other like exchanges for similar products.
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
The Exchange first launched operations in March 2019 to attract order flow and encourage market participants to experience the high determinism and resiliency of the Exchange's trading Systems.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the following non-transaction fees: (1) monthly Trading Permit
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the amount of the monthly Trading Permit fees assessed to EEMs and Market Makers.
The Exchange notes that Trading Permit fees for EEMs have not been amended since October 2020.
The monthly Trading Permit fees for Market Makers have not been amended since October 2020.
Currently, the Exchange assess the following Trading Permit fees to Market Makers:
• $7,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by national ADV;
• $12,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV;
• $17,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $22,000 for Market Maker registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Emerald.
The Exchange also assesses an alternative lower Trading Permit fee to Market Makers who fall within the 3rd and 4th levels of the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table, which levels
The Exchange now proposes to increase the Trading Permit fees assessed to Market Makers, which, as described above, were last amended in October 2020. In particular, the Exchange proposes to assess the following Trading Permit fees to Market Makers:
• $8,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by national ADV;
• $14,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by ADV;
• $20,000 for Market Maker registrations in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $26,000 for Market Maker registrations in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Emerald.
The Exchange also proposes to decrease the alternative lower Trading Permit fee to Market Makers who fall within the 3rd and 4th levels of the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table if certain volume thresholds are met from $15,500 to $14,000 per month by amending the footnote “▪” following the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table for these monthly Trading Permit tier levels.
Next, the Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to increase connectivity fees to the primary/secondary and disaster recovery facilities for Members and non-Members. Currently, the Exchange assesses the same amount of connectivity fees to Members and non-Members that connect to the Exchange's primary/secondary facility and disaster recovery facility. In particular, the Exchange assesses the following connectivity fees to Members and non-Members:
• $1,400 per 1 gigabit (“Gb”) connection to the primary/secondary facility;
• $550 per 1Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility;
• $2,750 per 10Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility; and
• $13,500 per 10Gb ultra-low latency (“ULL”) connection to the primary/secondary facility.
The Exchange notes that the above fees for 1Gb connectivity and 10Gb to the disaster recovery facility, and 1Gb connectivity to the primary/secondary facilities, have not been increased since December 2019.
The Exchange now propose to amend Sections 5)a)-b) of the Fee Schedule to increase connectivity fees for Members and non-Members. In particular, the Exchange proposes to assess the following connectivity fees to Members and non-Members:
• $1,500 per 1Gb connection to the primary/secondary facility;
• $650 per 1Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility;
• $3,500 per 10Gb connection to the disaster recovery facility; and
• $15,000 per 10Gb ULL connection to the primary/secondary facility.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for FIX Ports, Full Service MEI Ports, Limited Service MEI Ports, Purge Ports, CTD Ports and FXD Ports. Some of these fees have not been increased since they were first adopted in 2020. Each port provides access to the Exchange's primary and secondary data centers as well as its disaster recovery center for a single fee.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for FIX Ports, which have not been increased since October 2020.
• $550 for the first FIX Port;
• $350 per port for the second to fifth FIX Ports; and
• $150 per port for the sixth or more FIX Ports.
The Exchange proposes to increase monthly FIX Port fees as follows:
• $650 for the first FIX Port;
• $400 per port for the second to fifth FIX Ports; and
• $175 per port for the sixth or more FIX Ports.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Full Service MEI Port fees for Market Makers, which have not been increased since October 2020.
The Exchange assesses the amount of the monthly Full Service MEI Port fees for Market Makers based on the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of total national ADV measurements. The amount of the monthly Full Service MEI Port fee is based upon the number of classes in which the Market Maker was assigned to quote on any given day within the calendar month, or upon class volume percentages. The Exchange assesses Market Makers the monthly Full Service MEI Port fee based on the greatest number of classes listed on MIAX Emerald that the Market Maker was assigned to quote in on any given day within a calendar month. The class volume percentage is based on the total national ADV in classes listed on MIAX Emerald in the prior calendar quarter. Newly listed option classes are excluded from the calculation of the monthly Full Service MEI Port fee until the calendar quarter following their listing, at which time the newly listed option classes will be included in both the per class count and the percentage of total national average daily volume. Specifically, the Exchange assesses the following Full Service MEI Port fees to Market Makers:
• $5,000 for Market Maker assignments in up to 5 option classes or
• $10,000 for Market Maker assignments in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by ADV;
• $14,000 for Market Maker assignments in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by national ADV;
• $17,500 for Market Maker assignments in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $20,500 for Market Maker assignments in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Emerald.
The Exchange also provides an alternative lower Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers who fall within the 4th and 5th levels of the Market Maker Full Service MEI Port fee table, which levels are described directly above if certain volume thresholds are met. This alternative lower Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers is set forth in footnote “▪” in the Market Maker Full Service MEI Port fee table and provides that if the Market Maker's total monthly executed volume during the relevant month is less than 0.025% of the total monthly executed volume reported by OCC in the customer account type for MIAX Emerald-listed option classes for that month, then the fee will be $14,500 instead of the fee otherwise applicable to such level.
The Exchange now proposes to increase the Full Service MEI Port fees assessed to Market Makers as follows:
• $6,000 for Market Maker assignments in up to 5 option classes or up to 10% of option classes by national ADV;
• $12,000 for Market Maker assignments in up to 10 option classes or up to 20% of option classes by ADV;
• $16,500 for Market Maker assignments in up to 40 option classes or up to 35% of option classes by national ADV;
• $20,500 for Market Maker assignments in up to 100 option classes or up to 50% of option classes by ADV; and
• $24,000 for Market Maker assignments in over 100 option classes or over 50% of option classes by ADV up to all option classes listed on MIAX Emerald.
The Exchange also proposes to decrease the alternative lower Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers who fall within the 3rd, 4th and 5th levels of the proposed Market Maker Full Service MEI Port fee table if certain volume thresholds are met from $14,500 to $12,000 per month by amending footnote “▪” following the Market Maker Full Service MEI Port fee table.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for Limited Service MEI Ports, which provide Market Makers with the ability to send simple and complex eQuotes and quote purge messages only, but not Market Maker Quotes, to the MIAX Emerald System. Limited Service MEI Ports are also capable of receiving administrative information. Market Makers currently receive four free Limited Service MEI Ports per matching engine.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for Purge Ports, which provide Market Makers with the ability to send quote purge messages to the MIAX Emerald System. Purge Ports are not capable of sending or receiving any other type of messages or information.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for CTD Ports, which have not been increased since October 2020.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for FXD Ports, which have not been increased since October 2020.
The Exchange issued an alert publicly announcing the proposed fees on October 14, 2025 and a reminder alert on December 19, 2025.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The proposed Trading Permit fee for EEMs is comparable to the trading permit fee charged by Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe C2”), as summarized in the table below.
Cboe C2 charges a comparable trading permit fee as the Trading Permit fee proposed by the Exchange. Cboe C2 charges a flat $1,000 per Electronic Access Permit per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge a flat $2,000 per EEM Trading Permit per month.
The Exchange believes the proposed Trading Permit fees for Market Makers are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the fees will apply equally to all Market Makers. As such, all similarly situated Market Makers, with the same number of class registrations, or percentage of total national ADV, will be subject to the same Market Maker Trading Permit fee.
The Exchange also believes that assessing lower fees to Market Makers that quote in fewer classes is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will allow the Exchange to retain and attract smaller-scale Market Makers, which are an integral component of the options industry marketplace. Since these smaller Market Makers typically utilize less bandwidth and capacity on the Exchange network due to the lower number of quoted classes, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer such Market Makers a lower fee, designated in footnote “▪” following the Market Maker Trading Permit fee table. The Exchange also notes that the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, and MIAX Sapphire, provide lower Trading Permit fees for Market Makers who quote the entire markets of those exchanges (or substantial amount of those markets), as objectively measured by either number of classes assigned or a percentage of total national ADV, but who do not otherwise execute a significant amount of volume on MIAX, MIAX Pearl, or MIAX Sapphire,
There is no requirement, regulatory or otherwise, that any broker-dealer connect to and access any (or all of) the available options exchanges. A competing options exchange noted in a similar proposal to amend their own trading permit fees that, at the time of that filing in 2022, of the 62 market making firms that were registered as Market Makers across Cboe, MIAX, and BOX, 42 firms accessed only one of the three exchanges.
The Exchange believes that elasticity of demand for Exchange membership exists when it comes to purchasing a Trading Permit and, as evidenced by the data provided below, prior fee proposals have resulted in Members terminating their memberships. As an example, one Market Maker terminated their MIAX Pearl membership effective January 1, 2023, as a direct result of the proposed connectivity and port fee changes proposed by MIAX Pearl. As another example, two Market Makers terminated their MIAX Emerald memberships effective February 1, 2024, as a direct result of the proposed non-transaction fee changes proposed by MIAX Emerald. Other exchanges have also experienced termination of memberships if their members deem fees to be unreasonable or excessive. The Exchange notes that a BOX participant modified its access to BOX in connection with the implementation of a proposed change to BOX's permit fees.
The proposed network connectivity fees to the Exchange's disaster recovery facility for Members and non-Members are comparable to, or lower than, the connectivity fees charged by Cboe C2 and MEMX LLC (“MEMX”), as summarized in the table below.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges higher 1Gb and 10Gb connectivity fees to its disaster recovery facility than the fees proposed by the Exchange herein for connectivity to the Exchange's disaster recovery facility. Cboe C2 charges monthly fees of $2,000 per 1Gb connection and $6,000 per 10Gb connection to its disaster recovery facility. Meanwhile, the Exchange proposes to charge monthly fees of $650 per 1Gb connection and $3,500 per 10Gb connection to its disaster recovery facility.
The proposed network connectivity fees to the Exchange's primary and secondary facility for Members and non-Members are lower than the connectivity fees charged by Nasdaq BX,
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq BX charges higher connectivity fees than the connectivity fees to the primary and secondary facilities proposed by the Exchange herein. Nasdaq BX charges all participants monthly fees of $2,750 per 1Gb connection and $18,500 per 10Gb connection to access its primary data center. Meanwhile, the Exchange proposes to charge Members and non-Members monthly fees of $1,500 per 1Gb connection and $15,000 per 10Gb ULL connection to the Exchange's primary and secondary facilities. Nasdaq BX charges an additional installation fee for each 1Gb or 10Gb connection of $1,650.
The proposed FIX Port fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe BZX”), Cboe C2 and The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), as summarized in the table below.
Cboe BZX, which has slightly higher market share than the Exchange, charges slightly higher Logical Port fees than the FIX Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Cboe BZX charges a monthly fee of $750 per Logical Port, while the Exchange's highest proposed tier is only $650 per FIX Port per month.
Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges comparable FIX Logical Port fees as the FIX Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Cboe C2 charges a monthly fee of $650 per FIX Logical Port, while the Exchange's highest proposed tier is $650 per FIX Port per month. Cboe C2 FIX Logical Port users may incur an additional monthly fee of $650 per port. Cboe C2 provides that for the standard monthly fee of $650 per FIX Logical Port, a user may enter up to 70,000 orders per trading day per port as
Nasdaq charges participants $650 per FIX Port per month, while the Exchange's highest proposed tier is $650 per FIX Port per month. Accordingly, Nasdaq, with similarly market share as the Exchange, charges comparable FIX Port fees as proposed by the Exchange herein.
The proposed Limited Service MEI Port (“LSPs”) fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Nasdaq and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“Nasdaq MRX”), as summarized in the table below.
Nasdaq charges a monthly fee of $750 per QUO Port, per account number, while the Exchange provides the first four LSPs for free and proposes to charge $450 per additional LSP for each matching engine per month thereafter. Despite having comparable market share as the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher QUO Port fees than the LSP fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
Nasdaq MRX charges a monthly fee of $650 per OTTO Port, per account number (with fees for all OTTO Ports, CTI Ports, FIX Ports, FIX Drop Ports and disaster recovery ports subject to a monthly cap of $7,500), while the Exchange provides the first four LSPs for free and proposes to charge $450 per additional LSP for each matching engine per month thereafter. Despite having comparable market share as the
The proposed Purge Port fees are comparable to, or lower than, the similar port fees charged by Nasdaq MRX, Cboe C2 and Nasdaq, as summarized in the table below.
Despite having comparable market share as the Exchange, Nasdaq MRX charges higher SQF Purge Port fees than the Purge Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Nasdaq MRX will charge (beginning January 1, 2026) SQF Purge Port fees as follows: (a) $1,620 per SQF Purge Port per month for the first 5 ports; (b) $1,080 per SQF Purge Port per month for the next 15 ports; and (c) $540 per SQF Purge Port for all ports over 20 ports. The Exchange proposes to charge $700 per Purge Port per matching engine per month. The Exchange chose to charge Purge ports on a per matching engine basis instead of a per port basis due to its System architecture, which provides two (2) Purge Ports per matching engine for redundancy purposes. Market Makers are able to select the matching engines that they want to connect to based on the business needs of each Market Maker, and pay the applicable fee based on the number of matching engines and pair of ports utilized.
Despite having comparable market share as the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher Purge Port fees than the Purge Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Nasdaq charges tiered SQF Purge Port fees as follows: (a) $1,620 per SQF Purge Port per month for the first 5 ports; (b) $1,080 per SQF Purge Port per month for the next 15 ports; and (c) $540 per SQF Purge Port for all ports over 20 ports. The Exchange proposes to charge a flat $700 per set of Purge Ports per matching engine per month.
The proposed CTD Port fees are lower than the similar port fees charged by Nasdaq, as summarized in the table below.
Nasdaq charges $650 per CTI Port per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge $525 per CTD Port per month. Despite having slightly higher market share than the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher CTI Port fees than the CTD Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
The proposed FXD Port fees are comparable to the similar port fees charged by Cboe C2 and Nasdaq BX, as summarized in the table below.
Cboe C2 charges $650 per Drop Logical Port per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge $600 per FXD Port per month. Despite having lower market share than the Exchange, Cboe C2 charges higher Drop Logical Port fees than the FXD Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
Nasdaq charges $650 per FIX Drop Port per month, while the Exchange proposes to charge $600 per FXD Port per month. Despite having comparable market share as the Exchange, Nasdaq charges higher FIX Drop Port fees as the FXD Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein.
The proposed Full Service MEI Port fees are comparable to the similar port fees charged by Cboe C2, as summarized in the table below.
Despite Cboe C2 having lower market share, the Exchange believes that Cboe C2 charges higher bulk port fees than the Full Service MEI Port fees proposed by the Exchange herein. Cboe C2 charges $1,500 per port for the first five Bulk BOE Ports, and $2,500 per port for each Bulk BOE Port utilized in excess of five ports. The Exchange proposes to charge between $6,000 and $24,000 per month for Full Service MEI Ports for Market Makers, depending on the number of classes assigned or percentage of national ADV. The Exchange's proposed Full Service MEI Port fees for Market Makers provide two such ports for each of the Exchange's twelve matching engines, for a total of twenty-four total ports for the monthly fee (between $6,000 and $24,000). For a Cboe C2 member to utilize a Bulk BOE Port on each matching unit, that member would have to purchase between 31 and 35 such ports. As such, the approximated fees for doing so would be between $72,500 (($1,500 per port multiplied by the first five Bulk BOE Ports) + ($2,500 per port multiplied by the next twenty-six Bulk BOE Ports)) and $82,500 (($1,500 per port multiplied by the first five Bulk BOE Ports) + ($2,500 per port multiplied by the next thirty Bulk BOE Ports)).
Each of the above examples of other exchanges' non-transaction fees support the proposition that the Exchange's proposed fees are comparable to those of other exchanges with lower or comparable market share and are, therefore, reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated because they will apply uniformly to all Members and non-Members that choose to purchase a particular service based on their business need. Any Member or non-Member that chooses to purchase a particular product or service is subject to the same Fee Schedule, regardless of what type of business they operate, and the decision to purchase a particular product or service is based on objective differences in usage of the particular product or service among different Members and non-Member, which are still ultimately in the control of any particular Member or non-Member. The Exchange believes the proposed pricing is equitably allocated because of the service's or product's utility and value to market participants as compared to other like exchanges' products and services.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-discriminatory because they will apply to all Members in the same manner and are not targeted at a specific type or category of market participant engaged in any particular trading strategy.
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge higher Trading Permit fees to Market Makers that quote a higher number of classes or execute higher percentages of volume on the Exchange because the System requires increased performance and capacity in order to provide the opportunity for Market Makers to quote in a higher number of options classes on the Exchange. Specifically, more classes that are actively quoted on the Exchange by a Market Maker will require increased memory for record retention, increased bandwidth for optimized performance, increased functionalities on each application layer, and increased optimization with regard to surveillance and monitoring of such classes quoted. As such, basing the higher Market Maker Trading Permit fees on the greater number of classes quoted in on any given day in a calendar month is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory when considering how the increased number of quoted classes directly impacts the resources required for the Exchange to operate for all market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated among anticipated users of the network connectivity as the Exchange expects that users of 10Gb ULL connections will consume substantially more bandwidth and network resources than users of 1Gb connections. It is the experience of the Exchange and its affiliated exchanges that this is the case as 10Gb ULL connection users have historically accounted for more than 99% of message traffic over the network, which drives increased capacity utilization, while the users of the 1Gb connections account for less than 1% of message traffic over the network. In the experience of the Exchange and its affiliates, users of the 1Gb connections do not have the same business needs for the high-performance network as 10Gb ULL users.
The Exchange's high-performance network and supporting infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled system throughput. To achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange built out and must now maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the overall increase in storage and network transport capabilities. The Exchange must analyze its storage capacity on an ongoing basis to ensure it has sufficient capacity to store these messages to satisfy its record keeping requirements under the Exchange Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for Limited Service MEI Ports is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to align fees with services provided, will apply equally to all Members that are assigned Limited Service MEI Ports, and minimizes barriers to entry by providing all Members with four free Limited Service MEI Ports. As a result, there are several Members that are not subject to any additional LSP fees. In contrast, other exchanges generally charge in excess of $450 per port (the fee the Exchange proposes to charge for Limited Service MEI Ports) without providing any initial ports for free.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Limited Service MEI Port fee structure is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will continue to enable Members to access the Exchange with four free ports before the proposed fees for additional Limited Service MEI Ports apply, thereby continuing to encourage order flow and liquidity from a diverse set of market participants, facilitating price discovery and the interaction of orders. The Exchange notes that a substantial majority of Members only utilize the four Limited Service MEI Ports provided for no fee. The proposed fee is designed to encourage Members to be efficient with their Limited Service MEI Port usage. There is no requirement that any Member maintain a specific number of Limited Service MEI Ports and a Member may choose to maintain as many or as few of such ports as each Member deems appropriate.
To achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers during anticipated peak market conditions. The need to support billions of messages per day consumes the Exchange's resources and significantly contributes to the overall need to increase network storage and transport capabilities. Thus, as the number of ports a Market Maker has increases, the related pull on Exchange resources may continue to increase.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, for the flat fee in each tier, the Exchange provides each Member two Full Service MEI Ports for each matching engine to which that Member is connected. Unlike other options exchanges that provide similar port functionality and charge fees on a per port basis,
The Exchange believes the proposed reduced Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers that fall within the 3rd, 4th, and 5th levels of the Full Service MEI Port fee table and certain volume thresholds are met is not unfairly discriminatory because this lower monthly fee is designed to provide a lower fixed cost to those Market Makers who are willing to quote the entire Exchange market (or substantial amount of the Exchange market), as objectively measured by either number of classes assigned or national ADV, but who do not otherwise execute a significant amount of volume on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that, by continuing to offer a lower fixed cost to Market Makers that execute less volume, the Exchange will continue to retain and attract smaller-scale Market Makers, which are an integral component of the option industry marketplace, but have been decreasing in number in recent years, due to industry consolidation and lower market maker profitability. The Exchange believes it is beneficial to incentivize these additional Market Makers to register to make markets on the Exchange to increase liquidity as the Exchange begins operations. Increased liquidity from a diverse set of market participants helps facilitate price discovery and the interaction of orders, which benefits all market participants of the Exchange. Since these smaller-scale Market Makers may utilize less Exchange capacity due to lower overall volume executed, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory to offer such Market Makers a lower fixed cost. The Exchange notes that its affiliated
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes the proposed Trading Permit fee for EEMs does not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed fee does not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition. The proposed fee is the same for all EEMs of different sizes and business models without regard to membership status or the extent of any other business with the Exchange or affiliated entities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Trading Permit fees for Market Makers do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the fee rates are designed in order to provide objective criteria for Market Makers of different sizes and business models that best matches their order and quoting activity on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed Market Maker Trading Permit fees will not impose a burden on intra-market competition because, when these fees are viewed in the context of the overall activity on the Exchange, Market Makers: (1) consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network; (2) transact the vast majority of the volume on the Exchange; and (3) require the high touch network support services provided by the Exchange and its staff, including more costly network monitoring, reporting and support services, resulting in a much higher cost to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that the majority of customer demand comes from Market Makers, whose transactions make up a majority of the volume on the Exchange. Further, other member types,
The Exchange believes that the increasing fees under the tiered Market Maker Trading Permit fee structure do not impose a burden on intra-market competition because the tiered structure continues to take into account the number of classes quoted by each individual Market Maker or percentage of total national ADV. The Exchange's system requires increased performance and capacity in order to provide the opportunity for each Market Maker to quote in a higher number of options classes on the Exchange. Specifically, the more classes that are actively quoted on the Exchange by a Market Maker requires increased memory for record retention, increased bandwidth for optimized performance, increased functionalities on each application layer, and increased optimization with regard to surveillance and monitoring of such classes quoted. As such, basing the Market Maker Trading Permit fee on the greatest number of classes quoted in on any given day in a calendar month, or percentage of total national ADV, does not impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act when taking into account how the increased number of quoted classes directly impact the costs and resources for the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed network connectivity fees for Members and non-Members do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants or affect the ability of such market participants to compete. The proposed fees will apply uniformly to all market participants regardless of the number of 1Gb or 10Gb ULL connections they choose to purchase to the primary/secondary facility or the disaster recovery facility. The proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees for connectivity services place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the proposed connectivity pricing is associated with relative usage of the Exchange by each market participant and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants. The Exchange believes its proposed pricing is reasonable and, when coupled with the availability of third-party providers that also offer connectivity solutions, participation on the Exchange is competitive for all market participants, including smaller trading firms. The connectivity services purchased by market participants typically increase based on their additional message traffic and/or the complexity of their operations. The market participants that utilize more connectivity services typically utilize the most bandwidth, and those are the participants that consume the most resources from the network. Accordingly, the proposed fees for connectivity services do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation of the proposed connectivity fees reflects the network resources consumed by the various size of market participants and the costs to the Exchange of providing such connectivity services.
The Exchange believes that the proposed FIX, CTD and FXD Port fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because they will apply to all Members in the same manner and are not targeted at a specific type or category of market participant engaged in any particular trading strategy. The proposed fees for each type of port (FIX, CTD or FXD) do not depend on any distinctions between Members, customers, broker-dealers, or any other entity. The proposed fee will be assessed solely based on the number of FIX, CTD or FXD Ports an entity selects and not on any other distinction applied by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Purge Port fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because Purge Ports are completely voluntary as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality. Purge Ports enhance Members' ability to manage orders, which, in turn, improves their risk
The Exchange does not believe its proposed fee for Limited Service MEI Ports will place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants. All Market Makers would be eligible to receive four free Limited Service MEI Ports and those that elect to purchase more would be subject to the same monthly fee. All Market Makers purchase the amount of Limited Service MEI Ports they require based on their own business decisions and similarly situated firms are subject to the same fee.
The Exchange does not believe proposed fees for Full Service MEI Ports will place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because they would apply to all Market Makers equally depending on the number of classes the Market Maker is registered to quote in or the percentage of national ADV. The Exchange believes the proposed fees will not result in any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, in the Exchange's experience, Market Makers that are frequently in the highest tier for Full Service MEI Ports consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees do not place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the ability of such market participants to compete because, for the flat fee in each tier, the Exchange provides each Market Maker two Full Service MEI Ports for each matching engine to which that Market Maker is connected. Further, the Exchange offers a reduced Full Service MEI Port fee for Market Makers that fall within the 3rd, 4th and 5th levels of the Full Service MEI Port fee table, which lower monthly fee is designed to provide a lower fixed cost to those Market Makers who are willing to quote the entire Exchange market (or substantial amount of the Exchange market), as objectively measured by either number of classes assigned or national ADV, but who do not otherwise execute a significant amount of volume on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that, by continuing to offer a lower fixed cost to Market Makers that execute less volume, the Exchange will continue to retain and attract smaller-scale Market Makers, which are an integral component of the option industry marketplace, but have been decreasing in number in recent years, due to industry consolidation and lower market maker profitability. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the reduced fee will promote competition by incentivizing these additional Market Makers to register to make markets on the Exchange to increase liquidity.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In contrast, the Exchange believes that, without the fee changes proposed herein, the Exchange is potentially at a competitive disadvantage to certain other exchanges that have in place comparable or higher fees for similar services with similar market share, as described above. The Exchange believes that non-transaction fees can be used to foster more competitive transaction pricing and additional infrastructure investment and there are other options markets of which market participants may connect to trade options that charge higher or comparable rates as the Exchange for similar services and products. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Licenses.
Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small Business Administration under section 301(c) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, to grant Small Business Investment Company licenses under the Small Business Investment Company Program, this notice satisfies the requirement effective August 17, 2023 under 13 CFR 107.501(a) to publish in the
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, we are issuing public notice of our intent to modify an existing system of records entitled, Requests for Accommodation from Members of the Public (60-0378), last published in full on June 17, 2014. This notice publishes details of the modified system as set forth below under the caption,
The system of records notice (SORN) is applicable upon its publication in today's
We invite public comment on the routine uses or other aspects of this SORN. In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, we are providing the public a 30-day period in which to submit comments. Therefore, please submit any comments by February 17, 2026.
The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress may comment on this publication by writing to the Head of Privacy and Disclosure Policy, Law and Policy, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, or through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
Elizabeth Boorstein, Government Information Specialist, Privacy Implementation Division, Privacy and Disclosure Policy, Law and Policy, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone: (410) 966-5855, email:
We are modifying the system location to clarify where the agency will maintain records. We are modifying the system manager to clarify the offices responsible for maintaining the system. We are clarifying the categories of records maintained in the system for easier reading.
In addition, we are expanding the record source categories to include additional SSA systems of records. We are clarifying the language in existing routine use Nos. 2 and 4 for easier reading. We are adding a new routine use that will permit disclosures to third parties, when an individual involved with a request needs assistance to communicate because of a hearing impairment or a language barrier (
Lastly, we are clarifying the policies and practices for the retention and disposal of records to reflect accurate records schedules. We are modifying the administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for easier reading. We are modifying the notice throughout to correct miscellaneous stylistic formatting and typographical errors of the previously published notice, and to ensure the language reads consistently across multiple systems. We are republishing the entire notice for ease of reference.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), we have provided a report to OMB and Congress on this modified system of records.
Requests for Accommodation from Members of the Public (RAMP), 60-0378
Unclassified.
Social Security Administration, Chief Information Officer, Systems Operations and Hardware Engineering, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235.
Requests for accommodation may also be established initially and maintained in any SSA office,
Social Security Administration, Head of Human Resources, Human Resources, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410) 966-5855.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. This statute provides that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability will, solely by reason of their disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency.
We will use information in this system to process requests for both standard and non-standard accommodations from members of the public. We will also use the information to track requests, approve and deny requests, communicate with the requester, compile management information, and conduct research and statistical activities related to SSA's 504 program.
This system maintains information about members of the public with disabilities who request an accommodation from the agency in order to have access to the agency's services and programs.
This system maintains records that include, but are not limited to, personally identifying information (PII) (
We obtain information in this system of records from members of the public who request an accommodation, third parties requesting an accommodation on another's behalf, and existing SSA systems of records such as the Claims Folder System, 60-0089; Electronic Disability Claim File, 60-0320; and Appointments, Visitor Information, and Customer Service Record System, 60-0350.
We will disclose records pursuant to the following routine uses; however, we will not disclose any information defined as “return or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), unless authorized by statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.
1. To the Department of Justice (DOJ) or other Federal and State agencies when necessary for the administration or enforcement of civil rights laws or regulations.
2. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record.
3. To the Office of the President, in response to an inquiry received from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of record or a third party acting on the subject's behalf.
4. To DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before such court or tribunal, when:
(a) SSA, or any component thereof;
(b) any SSA employee in the employee's official capacity;
(c) any SSA employee in the employee's individual capacity when DOJ (or SSA, where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) the United States or any agency thereof when we determine the litigation is likely to affect SSA or any of our components, SSA is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SSA determines that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before the tribunal, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, we determine that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
5. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for us, as authorized by law, and they need access to PII in our records in order to perform their assigned agency functions.
6. To contractors and Federal, State, or local agencies, as necessary, for assisting SSA in providing accommodations to members of the public seeking access to our programs and activities, in compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. We will disclose information under this routine use pursuant only to a written agreement between SSA and that contractor or agency.
7. To Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors, as appropriate, if the information is necessary:
(a) to enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and customers, the security of the SSA workplace, and the operation of our facilities, or
(b) to assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operation of our facilities.
8. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
9. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) SSA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records;
(b) SSA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, SSA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and
(c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with SSA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
10. To contractors, grantees, other entities (
11. To Federal, State, or local agencies (or agents on their behalf) for providing accommodations to members of the public in compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, when that agency is administering cash or non-cash income maintenance or health maintenance programs (including programs under the Social Security Act).
12. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when we determine that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in:
(a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or
(b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
13. To third parties when an individual involved with a request needs assistance to communicate because of a hearing impairment or a language barrier (
We will maintain records in this system in electronic and paper form.
We retrieve records in this system by SSN, name of the requesting member of the public, or both SSN and name.
In accordance with NARA rules codified at 36 CFR 1225.16, we maintain records in accordance with agency-wide Legal Bucket, DAA-0047-2022-0003.
We retain electronic and paper records containing personal identifiers in secure storage areas accessible only by our authorized individuals, including our employees and contractors, who have a need for the information when performing their official duties. Security measures include, but are not limited to, the use of codes and profiles, personal identification numbers and passwords, and personal identification verification cards. We restrict access to specific correspondence within the system based on assigned roles and authorized users. We use audit mechanisms to record sensitive transactions as an additional measure to protect information from unauthorized disclosure or modification.
We annually provide authorized individuals, including our employees and contractors, with appropriate security awareness training that includes reminders about the need to protect PII and the criminal penalties that apply to unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, PII (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(1)). Furthermore, authorized individuals with access to databases maintaining PII must annually sign a sanctions document that acknowledges their accountability for inappropriately accessing or disclosing such information.
Individuals may submit requests for information about whether this system contains a record about them by submitting a written request to the system manager at the above address, which includes their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them. Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, a record by mail must include: (1) a notarized statement to us to verify their identity; or (2) must certify in the request that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, records in person must provide their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them, as well as provide an identity document, preferably with a photograph, such as a driver's license. Individuals lacking identification documents sufficient to establish their identity must certify in writing that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.
Same as record access procedures. Individuals should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.65(a).
Same as records access procedures. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.
None.
79 FR 34558 (June 17, 2014), RAMP.
83 FR 54969 (November 1, 2018), RAMP.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a new matching program; correction.
We published a new matching program in the
Interested parties may submit general questions to Andrea Huseth, Division Director, Privacy and Disclosure Policy, Law and Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, at telephone: (410) 965-6868, or send an email to
Correction.
On October 15, 2024, we published a new matching program in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; correction.
The FAA published a Draft FAA Transition Plan to Unleaded Aviation Gasoline in the
Paul Wrzesinski, Email:
(1) In the
Draft FAA Transition Plan to Unleaded Aviation Gasoline document can be viewed and receive comment submissions through the FAA's Aviation Safety Draft Documents website,
(2) In the
Paul Wrzesinski, Ph.D., FAA Office of Senior Technical Experts, Aircraft Certification Service, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, Email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew information collection. The FAA assesses the information collected and issues operations specifications to foreign air carriers. These operations specifications assure the foreign air carrier's ability to navigate and communicate safely within the U.S. National Airspace System.
Written comments should be submitted by March 17, 2026.
Please send written comments:
Danuta Pronczuk by email at:
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 13, 2026.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for three new information collections, which are summarized below under
Please submit comments by March 17, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 0001 by any of the following methods:
Melissa Maiefski,
The purpose of the ADCMS program is to promote, implement, deploy, demonstrate, showcase, support, and document the application of advanced digital construction management systems and practices. The program's goals include maximizing interoperability with other systems, boosting productivity, managing complexity, reducing project delays and cost overruns, and enhancing worker safety and environmental benefits through more efficient projects.
The program provides competitive grants to eligible entities, including State Departments of Transportation, applying alone or in partnership with Local Agencies, Tribes or Private Industry. The FHWA announced the availability of up to $34 million for fiscal year 2026 grants to support these workforce and technology development efforts.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT)
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA, on behalf of the Nebraska Department of Transportation, that are final. The action(s) relate to the BNSF, Bridgeport Project, located in Morrill County, Nebraska. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project. The project involves constructing a viaduct where U.S. Highway 26 (US-26)/Nebraska Highway 92 (N-92) crosses the BNSF Railway's (BNSF) railroad tracks west of the city of Bridgeport in Morrill County, Nebraska.
The FHWA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) provides details on the Selected Alternative for the proposed improvements.
A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the listed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before June 15, 2026. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing a NEPA FONSI for the BNSF, Bridgeport Project, located in Morrill County, Nebraska. The action(s) by FHWA and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the FONSI and the associated agency records. That information is available by contacting FHWA at the addresses provided above.
The purpose of the project is to eliminate conflicts between trains and vehicles at the existing at-grade BNSF railroad crossing, reduce vehicular delays at the US-26/N-92 crossing of the BNSF railroad tracks, and reduce crash costs associated with US-62/N-92 crossing of the BNSF railroad tracks. A FONSI for the project was signed on December 23, 2025.
Information about the FONSI and associated records are available from FHWA at the addresses provided above
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
This notice announces actions taken by the FHWA, on behalf of the Nebraska Department of Transportation, that are final. The action(s) relate to the Lincoln West Beltway Project, located in Lancaster County, Nebraska. The project is a subcomponent of a larger project called the “U.S. 77 Lincoln—South Expressway West and East Bypass of Lincoln, Lancaster County, Nebraska”. Those actions grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the project. This project converts at-grade intersections along US-77 in the City of Lincoln, NE at Pioneers Boulevard and Warlick Boulevard/West Denton Road to full access interchanges. Access to US-77 at the intersections of Old Cheney Road and Yankee Hill Road will be removed. The FHWA's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Record of Decision (ROD) and subsequent NEPA Re-evaluation provide details on the Selected Alternative for the proposed improvements.
A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency actions on the listed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before June 15, 2026. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions within the meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing a NEPA Re-evaluation for the Lincoln West Beltway, US-77 project, located in the City of Lincoln, Lancaster County, Nebraska. The action(s) by FHWA and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the ROD and Re-evaluation and the associated agency records. That information is available by contacting FHWA at the addresses provided above.
The purpose of the project is to establish an expressway that would meet the service requirements in the areas south, west, and east of the City of Lincoln. A ROD for the project was signed on January 21, 1976. A Re-evaluation of the project was signed on March 11, 2025.
Information about the ROD, Re-evaluation and associated records are available from FHWA at the addresses provided above or obtained by contacting the individuals listed above. This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions related to the ROD and Re-evaluation as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of application for renewal of exemption; request for comments.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) requests public comment on an application from Charles Machine Works, Inc. (CMW), a wholly owned subsidiary of The Toro Company, seeking renewal of a 5-year exemption from the Agency's prohibition against the use of gravity-fed or siphon-fed fuel systems on commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). The exemption would allow CMW's CMVs equipped with certain auxiliary equipment to use gravity-fed or siphon-fed fuel systems when the auxiliary equipment is operated only while the CMV is stationary. FMCSA requests public comment on CMW's application for renewal of this exemption.
Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2019-0069 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number (FMCSA-2019-0069) for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to
Mr. David Sutula, Chief, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, FMCSA; (202) 961-1373;
FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2019-0069), indicate the specific section of this document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble 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 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
Section 393.65 of the FMCSRs prescribes certain requirements that are applicable to all CMV fuel systems. The requirements in this section apply to systems for containing and supplying fuel for the operation of (1) motor vehicles or (2) auxiliary equipment installed on, or used in connection with, motor vehicles. Section 393.65(d) prohibits a fuel system from supplying fuel by gravity or syphon feed directly to the carburetor or injector.
On September 16, 2020, FMCSA published a notice of final disposition granting CMW's application for a 5-year exemption to allow the use of gravity or syphon-fed fuel systems for auxiliary equipment that operates only when the CMV is stationary (85 FR 57928). FMCSA determined that granting the exemption was likely to achieve a level of safety that was equivalent to or greater than that provided under existing regulations.
The exemption allowed CMVs equipped with certain auxiliary equipment to use gravity-fed or siphon-fed fuel systems, provided that the auxiliary equipment is operated only when the CMV is stationary and not being operated on a public roadway. In granting the exemption, FMCSA considered operating limitations, including that the auxiliary equipment would not be operated while the CMV is in motion, thereby reducing the potential for fuel leakage or fire-related risks during highway operation.
Based on its review, FMCSA determined that the use of gravity-fed or siphon-fed fuel systems for auxiliary equipment operating only while the CMV is stationary would not adversely affect safety. FMCSA concluded that granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption and granted the exemption for a period of five years.
In its renewal application, CMW reiterates its previous statements in support of the original exemption request. In addition, CMW reports that there have been no known incidents involving the operation of the auxiliary equipment while the CMV has been stationary during the exemption period. CMW asserts that renewal of the exemption would continue to provide a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, provided by the regulation.
A copy of CMW's application and supporting materials is available for review in the docket for this notice.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on CMW's application for an exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 393.65(d). All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the Addresses section of this notice. Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the public docket and may be considered to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine the public docket for new material.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before February 2, 2026.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: (1) Motor vehicle, (2) Rail freight, (3) Cargo vessel, (4) Cargo aircraft only, (5) Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2026.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: (1) Motor vehicle, (2) Rail freight, (3) Cargo vessel, (4) Cargo aircraft only, (5) Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has granted or denied the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2026.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Office of Acquisition and Logistics, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Office of Acquisition and Logistics (OAL), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2026.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OAL invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OAL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OAL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
Office of Acquisition and Logistics, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Office of Acquisition and Logistics (OAL), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the
Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2026.
Comments must be submitted through
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, OAL invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of OAL's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of OAL's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
• Clause 852.239-70, Security Requirements for Information Technology Resources, is required in all solicitations, contracts and orders exceeding the micro-purchase threshold that include information technology services. This clause requires the contractor to be responsible for information technology security for all systems connected to a VA network or operated by the contractor for VA, regardless of location.
• Clause 852.239-72, Information System Design and Development, is required in all solicitations, contracts, orders and agreements where services to perform information system design and development are required.
• Clause 852.239-73, Information System Hosting, Operation, Maintenance, or Use, is required in all solicitations, contracts, orders and agreements where services to perform information system hosting, operation, or maintenance are required.
Clauses 852.239-72 and 852.239-73 are intended to protect VA sensitive information and information technology by requiring contractor and subcontractor personnel to be subject to the same Federal laws, regulations, standards, and VA directives and handbooks as VA and VA personnel regarding information and information system security.
This revision changes the title from “Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation Clause 852.239-70, VA Information and Information System Security and Privacy” to “Department of Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation (VAAR)—Information Security and Privacy Contract Clauses”. The previous title implied that this OMB Control Number covered a single clause instead of multiple clauses. The title change is the only revision to the currently approved collection.
(b) I have considered the· Secretary of State's report and, after deliberating with my Cabinet, have determined that it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support to the organizations listed in section 2 of this memorandum.
(c) Consistent with Executive Order 14199 and pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct all executive departments and agencies (agencies) to take immediate steps to effectuate the withdrawal of the United States from the organizations listed in section 2 of this memorandum as soon as possible. For United Nations entities, withdrawal means ceasing participation in or funding to those entities to the extent permitted by law.
(d) My review of further findings of the Secretary of State remains ongoing.
(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the