Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Geological Survey
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad 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.
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Correcting amendment.
This document corrects the interim final rule (IFR) that published in the
Effective September 16, 2026, and applicable as of September 4, 2026.
Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746; telephone 240-721-3000 (this is not a toll-free number).
On September 9, 2026, DHS published an IFR titled
The IFR revised and reformatted the regulatory text at 8 CFR 264.2. As part of those revisions, DHS intended to revise the introductory text of 8 CFR 264.2 (c)(2), while retaining the sub paragraphs as indicated with the colon and asterisks. However, the amendatory instructions did not make that clear and the CFR was codified by removing the sub paragraphs that contained evidentiary criteria. Therefore, this document corrects the regulatory text, 8 CFR 264.2 (c)(2) to restore the inadvertently removed text, while retaining the introductory updates made by the IFR. In addition, this documents corrects the text of 8 CFR 264.2(c)(2)(v) and (vi) to recognize that children who seek to register their permanent residence when their parents were foreign government employees, but not foreign diplomatic officers, may not be required to file Form I-508, Waiver of Rights, Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities, and that they are required to submit evidence of their parent's foreign government employment rather than their diplomatic classification. These changes to the regulatory evidentiary requirements for a child of a foreign government employee to register as a lawful permanent resident were already made in the Form I-485 associated information collection published and approved with the IFR and are being added through this correction in the specified paragraphs.
This correction is applicable as if DHS had included this provision in the IFR that published on September 9, 2026. That rule had an effective date of September 4, 2026. Accordingly, the correction is applicable as of September 4, 2026. In other words, DHS will apply the corrected IFR to children born to foreign government employees on or after, September 4, 2026, same as the IFR.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires agencies to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
DHS believes there is good cause for publishing this document without prior notice and opportunity for public comment and with an effective date of less than 30 days because such procedures are unnecessary. This document corrects a technical error in the regulatory text and does not make substantive changes to the policies in the IFR. Therefore, DHS believes that it has good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements of section 553 of the APA.
Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 8 CFR part 264 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
8 U.S.C. 1103, 1201, 1302-1305; 8 CFR Part 2.
(c) * * *
(2)
(i) A completed Form I-485, with the fee required in 8 CFR 106.2 and any initial evidence required in this application form and in this section.
(ii) Form G-325A, Biographic Information.
(iii) [Reserved]
(iv) The applicant's birth certificate.
(v) An executed Form I-508, Waiver of Rights, Privileges, Exemptions, and Immunities, if applicable.
(vi) Official confirmation of the applicant's parent's foreign government employment, including occupational title and, if applicable, diplomatic classification at the time of the applicant's birth.
(vii) A list of all the applicant's arrivals in and departures from the United States.
(viii) Proof of continuous residence in the United States.
(ix) Two photographs prepared in accordance with the specifications outlined in the instructions on the application form. The immigration officer to whom the application is submitted, however, may waive the photographs for just cause.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Final rule.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is amending its rules implementing section 23 of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”). Section 23 of the CEA and the Commission's implementing regulations provide for the payment of awards, subject to certain limitations and conditions, to whistleblowers who provide the Commission with information that aids in successful enforcement efforts. The Commission is adopting amendments, which are modeled on a similar provision in the Securities and Exchange Commission's (“SEC”) regulations, to part 165 of its regulations to increase the efficiency, transparency, and predictability of whistleblower claims process, thereby protecting and enhancing the program's effectiveness in incentivizing whistleblowers to report. The amendments also include technical corrections to the whistleblower rules to reflect the Whistleblower Office's (“WBO”) move in 2025, consistent with its adjudicatory functions, to the Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”).
This rule is effective October 16, 2026.
Tyler S. Badgley, General Counsel,
The CFTC's whistleblower program (“Program”) plays an important role in promoting the fairness and integrity of the nation's derivatives markets. By rewarding individuals who come forward and provide original information about violations of the CEA or the Commission's regulations (“Regulations”), the Program enhances the Commission's enforcement efforts and helps deter illegal conduct.
Section 23 of the CEA establishes the Program,
(“Related Action”).
The Commission retains discretion in determining whistleblower award amounts.
Part 165 also defines the process by which Program awards are made, with the WBO serving as administrator. Among other duties,
Designated Claims Review Staff (“CRS”)—consisting of three to five individuals from various Commission divisions and offices—review the WBO's initial recommendation and issue a preliminary determination (“Preliminary Determination”) based on the WBO's analysis and recommendations. A Preliminary Determination reflects the CRS's assessment of whether a claim should be granted, and, if so, proposes a percentage of the collected monetary sanctions for the award in the Covered Action and any Related Actions.
By many metrics, the Program has been a success since it began operating in 2011. Through the end of calendar year 2025, whistleblower reports have contributed to successful enforcement actions resulting in over $3.3 billion in financial remedies,
Notwithstanding the Program's success, an important area for improvement remains: the time required to process and issue awards for meritorious claims. From 2012 to 2025, the average time from the deadline for prospective whistleblowers to submit award claims to the date of a Commission Final Order granting an award to meritorious claimants averaged more than 2.5 years. The delay between claim submission and award is a concern for the Commission, claimants, and members of Congress, as delays could dampen incentives for potential whistleblowers to participate in the Program.
The Commission believes the amendments adopted herein will help to improve processing time and promote transparency in the awards process. Before these amendments, Commission staff were required to analyze the factors that may increase the amount of a whistleblower's award regardless of the size of an award, including for smaller awards.
The Commission expects the rule changes adopted herein will shorten the time needed to resolve meritorious, smaller-dollar whistleblower claims by limiting the scope of analysis and intra-agency review of the appropriate award percentage. These resource savings will allow Commission staff to concentrate on larger awards, facilitating the Commission's ability to assess and pay larger award claims more quickly. And, as explained below, the Commission expects that a shortened award timeframe and more transparent, predictable process will reinforce whistleblowers' incentives to participate in the Program.
On June 15, 2026, the Commission proposed to amend part 165 of its Regulations to increase the Program's overall efficiency, transparency, and predictability (“Proposal” or “NPRM”).
The comment period for the Proposal closed on July 15, 2026. The Commission received nine responsive comments.
The Commission proposed new rule 165.9(d), which
As discussed in the Proposal, the Commission expects new rule 165.9(d) will enhance the efficiency, transparency, and predictability of the Program and will reduce the delay in processing awards, thereby incentivizing whistleblowers to report violations to the Commission. First, the Commission expects the 30 Percent Presumption will materially reduce the time for award determinations by improving Commission staff's efficiency in processing award applications and thereby enabling Commission staff to more timely process larger, complex claims.
The Commission received nine responsive comments. Most commenters generally supported proposed new rule 165.9(d) and the 30 Percent Presumption, while one criticized the proposal.
Constantine Cannon, H Street Law, Stephen Hasegawa of Phillips & Cohen LLP, the National Whistleblower Center and Kohn, Kohn, and Colapinto (“National Whistleblower Center”), Meagan Nugent, The Anti-Fraud Coalition (“TAF Coalition”), Better Markets, and an anonymous individual retail derivatives market participant supported the Commission's adoption of the 30 Percent Presumption. Constantine Cannon, a law firm that represents CFTC whistleblowers, “fully support[ed] the proposed 30% presumption,” agreeing with the Commission that “the extended delay in [the Commission's] awards determination process poses a significant disincentive for would-be whistleblowers to report violations” and noting that “potential whistleblowers . . . look to timing considerations as a significant factor in assessing whether it is worth it for them to move forward under the whistleblower program.”
Individual commenters also provided detailed support that tracked the Commission's specific rationale for the Proposal.
Despite their overall support, several commenters suggested modifications to the Proposal. The most commonly raised concern among supporting commenters was that the 30 Percent Presumption was “unlikely on its own to resolve” whistleblower award delays.
Commenters also suggested additional rule refinements.
Upon consideration of comments received, the Commission is adopting new rule 165.9(d) as proposed. As noted above, the comments received were broadly supportive of the rule and its core rationale of promoting the efficiency and transparency of the Program and reducing delay in processing whistleblower claims.
First, the Commission expects that new rule 165.9(d) will materially reduce the time for award determinations by improving the Commission staff's efficiency in processing award applications. This will enable the Commission to process claims more quickly. The reasons for the Commission's expectation are described below.
While one commenter noted that “there are still significant delays under the SEC whistleblower program,” the commenter did not deny that the SEC's 30 percent presumption has reduced delays.
Reconsideration requests require additional Commission staff time and resources to consider the issues and grounds advanced in the claimant's response, along with any supporting documentation the claimant provided.
Second, the Commission anticipates that new rule 165.9(d) will guard against erosion of whistleblowers' incentives to report violations to the Commission. As discussed in the Consideration of Benefits and Costs section, extended delays in making awards determinations following a whistleblower's claim submission diminish the overall value of the award due to the time-value of money.
Third, by designing new rule 165.9(d) to enhance Program transparency and predictability, the Commission seeks to enhance the incentives for whistleblowers to report violations to the Commission. The criteria considered in determining award amounts are enumerated in new rule 165.9 and are publicly available on the Commission's whistleblower website, making them easily accessible to potential whistleblowers and their counsel.
Fourth, new rule 165.9(d) is tailored to preserve Program integrity and avoid any conflict with the public interest.
Fifth, new rule 165.9(d) will further harmonize the CFTC and the SEC whistleblower programs, which were both enacted by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”).
Finally, the Commission is unconvinced that commenters' various suggested modifications would improve new rule 165.9(d) materially, if at all. And, in some cases, the Commission believes that alternatives offered by commenters could undermine the goals of this rulemaking. The Commission discusses its reasons for declining to adopt these commenters' recommendations below.
Because award determinations are not one-size-fits-all,
The Commission also concludes that Constantine Cannon's suggestion to model the CFTC's process on the DOJ's administration of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) is inapposite and beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
While annual inflation adjustments are a commonly used and readily automated regulatory tool, the Commission is not adopting automatic indexing for the $5 million threshold at this time. A fixed threshold promotes harmonization with the SEC's 30 percent presumption and avoids year-to-year boundary disputes in matters that span multiple calendar or fiscal years, thereby preserving the 30 Percent Presumption's goal of a simpler, faster process for small-dollar awards. The Commission believes that implementing indexing would still require recurring updates to internal guidance, forms, claimant communications, and award-calculation workflows to track which threshold applies at each stage of multi-year cases, resulting in administrative costs and complexity that run counter to those efficiencies. Because the threshold determines whether a claim receives the default 30 Percent Presumption or a full factor-by-factor analysis, annual changes would cause otherwise similar cases to toggle across index dates, invite disputes about the applicable threshold (
Hasegawa's observation presents a mathematical possibility under new rule 165.9(d). But the Commission's experience in administering whistleblower awards to date has not substantiated this concern. Indeed, in prior matters where the aggregate award was below $5 million and collections in the underlying matters were over $16.66 million, the awardee(s) would not have satisfied new rule 165.9(d)(1)(ii)-(iv)'s conditions to qualify for a 30 percent award.
Furthermore, with new rule 165.9(d) in place, awardees in matters with collections between $16.66 million and $50 million will not receive less than they merit under the standard application of the criteria and positive factors in rule 165.9(a)-(b). As noted above, the Commission has not observed instances in which a meritorious whistleblower would have received less than a whistleblower qualifying for the 30 Percent Presumption. In addition, the Commission cannot credit the concern that the new rules will result in “weaker incentives for whistleblowers to bring cases resulting in large recoveries than for whistleblowers whose information results in smaller recoveries.”
Rule 165.7(g)(1) already requires that Preliminary Determinations “set[ ] forth a preliminary assessment” of each whistleblower claim.
The Stulz Comment asserted that the Commission's rules should “protect whistleblowers from being targeted, not given money[, which incentivizes people] to make up things, or create problems that aren't actually there.”
The NPRM also proposed technical corrections to its whistleblower rules to update references in part 165 to reflect the WBO's 2025 transfer from the DOE to the OGC, in light of the WBO's adjudicatory functions.
The National Whistleblower Center expressed support for these technical corrections and the Commission's decision to locate the WBO in the OGC. It asserted that the move “reinforce[s] the impartiality of award decisions . . . and legitimates the CFTC's award decisions.”
The Commission finds TAF Coalition's arguments unavailing. As a threshold matter, the Commission retains discretion to organize its staffing in the manner most appropriate for carrying out its legal mandates under the CEA.
In addition, the Commission provided notice to the public in the NPRM and an opportunity to comment on the technical corrections designed to reflect the move of the WBO to OGC and to reflect General Counsel supervision of WBO. While rules of agency organization, practice, and procedure
For these reasons, the Commission declines to accept TAF Coalition's request to republish a notice regarding the technical corrections and is adopting these technical corrections to update references in part 165, as proposed.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”),
Only individuals are eligible for participation in the Commission's whistleblower program. The amendments would apply only to an individual, or individuals acting jointly, who provide information relating to the violation of the CEA or Commission regulations. By definition, companies and other entities cannot be whistleblowers.
Accordingly, the Chairman, on behalf of the Commission, hereby certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that the regulations, as adopted herein, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This document serves as notification to the Small Business Administration of the Commission's certification of no effect.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”)
CEA section 15(a) requires the Commission to consider the benefits and costs of its actions before promulgating a regulation under the CEA or issuing certain orders.
As described above, the Commission is adopting new rule 165.9(d) to establish a presumption that, unless certain factors that may decrease an award are present, the Commission will set the award at the statutory maximum of 30 percent in matters where the total awards in the Covered Action and any Related Actions do not exceed $5 million. This new rule will improve the efficiency, transparency, and predictability of processing whistleblower award applications and to align the Commission's approach with SEC rule 21F-6(c).
With one exception, commenters did not directly address the Commission's consideration of the benefits and costs of new rule 165.9(d).
The Commission provides below a qualitative assessment of the benefits and costs of the final amendments and considered regulatory alternatives and, where feasible, quantified estimates of those economic effects. The Commission is unable to quantify certain economic effects because the Commission does not have, and in certain cases cannot reasonably obtain, data necessary to inform Commission estimates. Further, even in cases where the Commission has data, certain economic effects cannot practicably be
The baseline against which the benefits and costs of the new rule are measured consists of the existing legal framework for the Program and the Commission's implementation of that framework.
The current regulatory framework requires an individualized, factor-by-factor review to determine the appropriate percentage award of every meritorious claim, regardless of award size. Section 23 of the CEA directs the Commission to pay awards of 10 to 30 percent of collected monetary sanctions to eligible whistleblowers whose original information leads to a successful Covered Action or Related Action.
The absence of any streamlined mechanism for small claims in part 165 contrasts with the SEC whistleblower program, which, in 2020, adopted a presumption to award qualifying claimants the statutory 30 percent maximum in matters involving total awards of $5 million or less.
Because the staff review process under part 165 is labor-intensive and time-consuming for all submissions, the average interval from claim-submission deadline to final award order has been over 2.5 years.
Based on awards the Commission issued through calendar year 2025, whistleblower submissions have contributed to legal judgments for more than $3.3 billion in financial remedies and the return of approximately $160 million to harmed customers. From 2014—the year of the Commission's first whistleblower award—through calendar year 2025, the Commission granted 73 awards across 56 orders, amounting to more than $395 million. In FY 2024, whistleblowers were involved in approximately 42 percent of the Commission's enforcement actions.
Tables 1-3, below, show Program performance metrics under the existing framework. They are labeled as follows to provide common references for the metrics presented: “awards” refers to award payments issued to individual awardees; “orders granting awards” refers to Commission actions issuing formal decisions that confer awards in specific enforcement matters where a single order may cover multiple awardees; “percent of total award dollars” refers to percentage calculated against aggregate dollars paid in whistleblower awards during the stated period. Table 1 presents the distribution of the number of whistleblower tips (received via Form TCR
Awards are concentrated at the lower end of the distribution where approximately 71 percent of awards were at or under $2 million (representing about four percent of total award dollars paid to whistleblowers). When measured by the Commission's orders granting awards, about 61 percent of these orders were for $2 million or less, making up roughly three percent of total payouts. Approximately 82 percent of awards were at or under $5 million and collectively represented about 10 percent of total award dollars paid to whistleblowers. Similarly, 77 percent of orders granting awards were for $5 million or less, accounting for about 10 percent of total payouts.
Of the 43 matters with $5 million or less in awards from the start of the Program through December 31, 2025, 12 matters had award percentages of less than 30 percent. If those 12 matters instead had awards of 30 percent of the recovered amounts, the total CPF payouts would have increased by less than $4 million over the entire period. To put that amount in context, the CPF had an available balance of over $200 million as of September 30, 2025.
Relative to the baseline and after consideration of comments, the Commission believes that amended rule 165.9 will improve the efficiency of whistleblower-award processing, by conserving Commission staff resources in processing applicants' submissions and reducing the potential for administrative and judicial contests. The amended rule will also support the effectiveness of the Program and the
Amended rule 165.9 is expected to improve the efficiency of the Program. The 30 Percent Presumption will reduce the average time and resources required for the WBO and the Commission to review smaller-dollar matters by reducing the circumstances where staff must engage in the full factor-by-factor analysis specified in rule 165.9(b) and (c). Specifically, when the 30 Percent Presumption applies, the award amount will be conditionally set at the 30 percent statutory maximum unless certain factors that may decrease an award are present.
Notwithstanding the uncertainty associated with evolving markets, the Commission's experience supports the expectation that the volume and complexity of potential enforcement matters will increase over time, making streamlined review of smaller-dollar claims progressively more important for maintaining Program effectiveness. Specifically, as new products, trading technologies, and market structures emerge, the Commission expects, based on its experience, that the number and complexity of potential enforcement matters will grow as well, expanding the potential need for whistleblower assistance in the process.
The SEC's experience with its analogous provision, SEC rule 21F-6(c), provides empirical evidence of the efficiency gains the Commission expects from new rule 165.9(d).
In addition, new rule 165.9(d) is expected to support the effectiveness of the Program and the Commission's enforcement mission. The Commission expects that new rule 165.9(d) will encourage whistleblower reporting by improving the predictability and procedural transparency of the award process. The amendments will increase reporting incentives in at least three ways. First, some meritorious whistleblowers will receive higher awards than they would under the status quo, which the Commission expects will incentivize prompt reporting. The Commission's analysis of historical award data suggests that, of the 43 matters with $5 million or less in awards, approximately 30 percent (12 matters) would have received a larger award had new rule 165.9(d) been in effect.
Second, even for those whistleblowers that would have received 30 percent under the current rule 165.9, prompt processing of smaller-dollar awards may encourage timely reporting. Economic theory and common experience suggest that shorter, more predictable timelines reinforce the incentive to report promptly by increasing the perceived value of prospective awards.
Third, harmonizing rule 165.9 with SEC rule 21F-6(c) for smaller-dollar claims should help ensure that the CFTC's Program is viewed as offering fair and comparable incentives, thereby encouraging participation and improving the overall functioning of the federal whistleblower framework. Ultimately, by strengthening incentives for individuals to provide timely, high-quality information, new rule 165.9(d) may also conserve enforcement resources by reducing the Commission resources necessary to identify possible misconduct.
Also, new rule 165.9(d) includes appropriate conditions to ensure that the 30 Percent Presumption does not result in outcomes contrary to the public interest.
Based on historical experience and subject to acknowledged uncertainty about future market conditions and enforcement activity, the Commission believes that new rule 165.9(d) will result in a limited and manageable increase in award payments from the CPF and will not impose additional burdens on whistleblowers seeking to provide tips or apply for awards or on the Commission in administering the Program. The Commission also believes that the 30 Percent Presumption is unlikely to meaningfully increase the incentives to submit meritless whistleblower claims.
With respect to the CPF, the Commission recognizes that new rule 165.9(d) will increase payments for the subset of awards at or under the $5 million threshold compared to awards calculated under existing part 165. Using Program data from 2014 through the end of calendar year 2025, the Commission identified 43 matters with $5 million or less in awards, representing approximately 10 percent of the total award dollars paid over that period. If the 30 Percent Presumption had applied to these 43 matters, the Commission's analysis indicates that total CPF payouts would have increased by less than $4 million during the entire period the Program has been operated
The Commission does not anticipate that new rule 165.9(d) will impose material claim application or processing costs on whistleblowers or the Commission. The new rule neither changes the information that whistleblowers must provide to submit a tip or apply for an award, nor does it alter the substantive eligibility requirements under part 165. Accordingly, the Commission expects no incremental burden on award claimants. Likewise, the amended rule introduces no new administrative compliance obligations for the WBO or the Commission, and therefore, should not increase administrative burden or operating costs.
A commenter expressed concern that the 30 Percent Presumption would generate adverse incentives by inducing individuals to submit meritless or manufactured claims in an effort to obtain a guaranteed maximum award.
In developing new rule 165.9(d), the Commission considered several alternatives.
The Commission considered increasing WBO staffing to accelerate processing as an alternative. While additional WBO staff is likely to improve processing capacity, this alternative standing alone would not address the procedural inefficiencies of the current framework. Moreover, staffing increases would require recurring and certain costs. For example, the Commission estimates the annual salary burden for hiring one data analyst at the CT-13 grade and two attorney-advisors at the CT-14 grade would be $512,497 per year, excluding benefits.
The Commission also considered a lower presumption threshold of $2 million.
The Commission also evaluated whether the 30 Percent Presumption should apply to matters with awards up to $15 million, consistent with a proposed whistleblower rulemaking by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
The Commission also assessed a commenter's concern that the $5 million threshold could “create weaker incentives for whistleblowers to bring cases resulting in large recoveries than for whistleblowers whose information results in smaller recoveries” because awards above a certain threshold would not be subject to the 30 Percent Presumption.
The principal cost of line-drawing in threshold-based rules is the differential outcomes at the margin and, under the new rule 165.9(d), the Commission acknowledges that it is possible that a successful claimant might receive an aggregate award of less than $5 million in a matter where collections exceed the 30 Percent Presumption threshold. However, in evaluating incentives, whistleblowers cannot know with certainty whether their information will contribute to a CFTC enforcement action, much less what amount of collections will result from a whistleblower tip at the time they submit information. And, because the Presumption will operate to provide the statutory maximum in a greater share of claims, the Commission anticipates that the Presumption likely will incentivize rather than disincentivize whistleblower assistance.
Moreover, there is insufficient evidence to suggest the circumstance identified by the commenter is likely to result in materially inequitable outcomes. All awards above the threshold would be subject to an appropriate, individualized assessment. Based on the Commission's experience to date, in every matter where collections exceeded $16.66 million but the aggregate award fell below $5 million, the awardee(s) would not have satisfied the conditions in new rule 165.9(d)(1)(ii)-(iv) necessary to qualify for a 30 percent award.
The Commission considered whether to include a predetermined adjustment mechanism in amended rule 165.9, such as indexing to inflation. As one commenter stated, the $5 million nominal threshold will erode in real value over time, causing an increasing share of cases to fall above the threshold and progressively reducing the rule's coverage.
As suggested by a commenter, the Commission considered whether to adopt specific time requirements for Preliminary and Final Award Determinations.
Another commenter suggested a requirement that Preliminary Determinations include a provision-specific written explanation when the 30 Percent Presumption is overridden.
The Commission also considered whether to make the factors considered when determining whether the 30 Percent Presumption applies more prescriptive. For example, a commenter suggested a statement that limited assistance may not be inferred solely from the absence of requests for supplemental cooperation. Because the existing framework for evaluating the degree of assistance provided by the claimant requires an individualized assessment based on the claimant's contribution to the Commission's investigation, the suggested amendment would increase complexity without altering the substantive standard and would risk generating interpretive disputes about other factors not addressed by the clarification, resulting in additional costs.
Section 15(a)(2) of the CEA requires the Commission to consider the costs and benefits of its actions in light of five factors: (1) protection of market participants and the public; (2) efficiency, competitiveness, and financial integrity of the futures markets; (3) price discovery; (4) sound risk management practices; and (5) any other public-interest considerations.
The Commission believes that new rule 165.9(d) is likely to enhance the protection of market participants and the public by improving incentives for the timely, high-quality reporting of potential violations through more predictable award-percentage outcomes and streamlined processing for matters where the statutory-maximum payout would be $5 million or less. In addition, the Commission anticipates that the amendments will promote more timely and accurate reporting, which strengthens the Commission's ability to detect, deter, and remediate violations that could harm market participants, distort market integrity, or undermine confidence in derivatives markets.
The Commission expects new rule 165.9(d) to promote efficiency by streamlining award-percentage determinations for matters in which the statutory-maximum payout would be $5 million or less, a cohort that accounts for approximately 82 percent of awards by count in historical Program data. Improved Program efficiency is likely to bolster enforcement program effectiveness, which in turn supports market competitiveness and enhances overall market integrity by increasing the likelihood that harmful conduct will be detected and addressed. Because new rule 165.9(d) does not introduce new reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance obligations, it is not expected to impose new burdens on registrants or other market participants.
Although new rule 165.9(d) would not directly impact price-formation mechanisms, the Commission anticipates potential indirect contributions to more accurate price discovery. By enhancing the Program's efficiency, transparency and predictability—thereby shortening award timelines and reinforcing whistleblower incentives to report—new rule 165.9(d) would operate in service of the Commission's enforcement mission to deter and prosecute misconduct. Misconduct that impairs market transparency, distorts prices, or affects liquidity is more likely to be identified and addressed when whistleblowers have reliable incentives and predictable award outcomes. By enhancing the Commission's ability to detect misconduct early and deploy enforcement resources more efficiently, the new rule supports the statutory objective of fostering fair, orderly, and transparent markets.
Market participants rely on the integrity of derivatives markets to hedge and manage risk effectively. The Commission believes that insofar as new rule 165.9(d), for reasons already identified, strengthens deterrence of
The Commission believes that new rule 165.9(d) is likely to advance additional public-interest considerations. First, the new rule is expected to conserve public resources by improving administrative efficiency with limited additional CPF drawdown. Second, the Commission believes that aligning the $5 million threshold with SEC rule 21F-6(c) fosters consistency across the two whistleblower programs, which serves the public interest in effective legal enforcement across financial markets, supporting market integrity, market participant protection, and public trust in regulatory systems.
CEA section 15(b)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select those regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; and distributive impacts). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, or the President's priorities.
OMB has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended, and therefore it was not subject to Executive Order 12866 review.
This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act,
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Investigations, Whistleblowing.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission amends 17 CFR part 165 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2, 5, 9, 12a(5), 13a, 13a-1, 13b, and 26.
The addition reads as follows:
(d)
(i) The statutory maximum award of 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected in any covered and related action(s), in the aggregate, is $5 million or less, and the Commission determines that it does not reasonably anticipate that future collections would cause the statutory maximum award to be paid to any whistleblower to exceed $5 million in the aggregate;
(ii) None of the negative award factors specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(3) of this section were found present with respect to the claimant's award application and the award claim does not trigger § 165.17 (concerning awards to whistleblowers who engage in culpable conduct);
(iii) The claimant did not engage in unreasonable reporting delay under paragraph (c)(2) of this section (although the Commission, in its discretion, may in certain limited circumstances determine to waive this criterion if the claimant can demonstrate that doing so based on the facts and circumstances of the matter is consistent with the public interest and the objectives of the whistleblower program); and
(iv) The Commission does not otherwise determine in its discretion that application of the enhancement afforded by this paragraph (d) would be inappropriate because either:
(A) The whistleblower's assistance in the covered action or related action (as assessed under paragraph (b)(2) of this section) was, under the relevant facts and circumstances, limited; or
(B) Providing the enhancement would be inconsistent with the public interest, or the objectives of the whistleblower program.
(2) If the Commission determines that the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) of this section are satisfied, the resulting payout to a claimant for the original information that the claimant provided that led to one or more successful covered or related action(s), collectively, will be the maximum allowed under the statute.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(2) of this section, if two or more claimants qualify for an award in connection with any covered action or related action and at least one of those claimants' award applications qualifies under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the aggregate amount awarded to all meritorious claimants will be the statutory maximum. In allocating that amount among the meritorious claimants, the Commission will consider whether an individual claimant's award application satisfies paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (iii).
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 14, 2026, by the Commission.
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
On this matter, Chairman Selig voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.
In rule document 2026-13420 beginning on page 40804 in the issue of Thursday, July 2, 2026, make the following correction:
On page 40837, in Appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404, in the second column, in the third row, “
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Final rule.
The Department of Labor (DOL or the Department) is issuing this final rule to require the disclosure of confidential unemployment compensation (UC) information to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits. This rule will ensure that Federal officials, including the Department's Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG), are able to obtain the information needed from State UC agencies to ensure proper oversight of the UC programs and to hold State UC agencies accountable for identifying and addressing fraud in UC programs.
Michelle E. Beebe, Administrator, Office of Unemployment Insurance, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room S-4524, Washington, DC 20210, Email:
The authority for this amendment is derived from the “methods of administration” provision in sec. 303(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (SSA), which requires States to provide in their laws, as a condition to be certified to receive administrative grants, such “methods of administration” as the Secretary determines to be “reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.” Title 20 CFR part 603 establishes requirements for maintaining the confidentiality of UC information along with standards for required and permissible disclosures of such information. The existing regulation at § 603.5(i), last updated in 2006 by the Department's
Amending the regulation to require these disclosures allows the Department to continue the important work of holding State UC agencies accountable for identifying and preventing fraud in the UC program. As State UC operations have evolved since this regulation was first promulgated, States have faced increased fraud incidents, including sophisticated multistate fraud schemes by organized criminals. The CARES Act created a number of new UC programs in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and during this period the program was exposed to increased fraudulent activity, costing the UC system billions of dollars according to estimates by DOL-OIG. DOL-OIG identified $45.6 billion in potentially fraudulent benefits paid in six high-risk areas under UC programs,
On August 29, 2025, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM),
The August 2025 NPRM referenced a Request for Information (RFI) entitled
The August 2025 NPRM also sought comment on a potential amendment to part 603 that would require States to submit all UC claims data on a regular basis to the ETA as part of a national UC claims database for purposes of UC program oversight and audits, including comments about appropriate safeguards and security measures to protect individual data under such a requirement.
The Department has determined it is appropriate to solicit further input on the topic of a national UC claims database. Therefore, if such a database is to be pursued, the Department will issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on this topic. The Department will consider the comments received regarding a national UC claims database in response to the August 2025 NPRM when drafting the future SNPRM on this topic. This final rule does not address the creation of a national UC claims database.
The August 2025 NPRM included a 30-day comment period for the public to provide input on the NPRM, which ended on September 29, 2025. Several commenters requested that the comment period be extended at least 30 days to allow for more time to analyze the potential impacts of the NPRM and prepare comments accordingly. An advocacy organization argued that Executive Order (E.O.) 13563,
Some commenters also offered additional suggestions for the Department to solicit further input from the public to inform the rulemaking process. An advocacy organization identified only two responses to the 2023 RFI on the subject of reducing fraudulent payment, and therefore argued for the August 2025 NPRM to have “more robust, current, and timely feedback from experts and advocates.” The commenter also critiqued the Department for setting aside the other concerns identified in public comments on the 2023 RFI. An advocacy organization asserted that the NPRM was styled as a final rule, and another asserted that the Department failed to and should consult with impacted parties, such as States, local governments, or Tribal governments. Another advocacy organization suggested the Department engage with impacted immigrant populations, provide transparency about data collection and use, and commit to privacy and accountability.
The Department declined to extend the comment period and posted a letter to the docket to inform stakeholders of this decision.
The Department is removing § 603.5(i), which permits State UC agencies to disclose confidential UC information to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits, and adding a provision requiring the disclosure of confidential UC information for purposes of UC program oversight and audits to § 603.6, which contains required disclosures. Moving the disclosure to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits to § 603.6 makes these disclosures a requirement under 20 CFR part 603. This final rule effectuates this change by redesignating paragraph (c) of § 603.6 as paragraph (d) and inserting a new paragraph (c) in § 603.6. Additionally, in response to comments, the Department is adding a new provision to § 603.10 that will require certain requestors to provide additional information to States as part of their request for confidential UC information within the scope of UC program oversight and audits. This final rule also makes conforming amendments to the introductory matter of § 603.5 and to paragraph (b) of § 603.8. Finally, this final rule updates the authority citation to more accurately reflect the Department's statutory authority for part 603.
Based on comments received in response to the August 2025 NPRM, the Department made two changes to the NPRM that are reflected below. First, if a national UC claims database is pursued, the Department will publish an SNPRM to provide a greater opportunity for input on the national UC claims database referenced in the August 2025 NPRM. This change allows for further input and policy refinement in consideration of comments received about the proposal.
Second, the Department added a new provision to § 603.10 that requires Federal officials (other than the Department, DOL-OIG, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO)) who are requesting information pursuant to § 603.6(c) to state how the information will be used and how that use is for purposes of UC program oversight and audits, and to cite to the Federal official's authority for UC program oversight and audits. This was in response to concerns from commenters over transparency, data use, and potential overreach. The Department, DOL-OIG, and GAO already have separate authority to receive confidential UC information and routinely request information for purposes of UC program oversights and audits based on their duties and statutory authority, thus a justification is not needed. The Department believes that requiring a written justification for requests from other Federal officials will address the concerns raised by commenters because it increases transparency as to the scope and use of the data requested by Federal officials. Paragraph 603.10(e) of this final rule requires that other Federal officials requesting confidential UC information must limit their use of the information to the uses stated in the written request submitted to the State UC agency, except as otherwise required by Federal law.
This change balances accountability and transparency with the important oversight facilitated by the newly required disclosures. The Department believes that the prescribed scope of these disclosures, for purposes of UC program oversight and audits, provides an important limitation on the disclosures and that such a limitation aligns these new required disclosures with those States currently make to DOL-OIG, as one example. Federal officials that seek to obtain confidential UC information for purposes other than UC program oversight and audits are outside the scope of this final rule. Public officials, as defined in § 603.2(d), may request such information pursuant to § 603.5(e), which governs disclosure of confidential UC information to public officials. Other officials may request confidential UC information for non-oversight and audit purposes based on other applicable authority that is available for that purpose. This rule is only concerned with Federal officials requesting confidential UC information for purposes of UC program oversight and audits.
The authority for this amendment is derived from the “methods of administration” requirement of sec. 303(a)(1), SSA, which requires States to provide in their laws, as a condition to be certified to receive administrative grants, such “methods of administration” as the Secretary determines to be “reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.” The Department interprets the phrase “when due” in this requirement to mean accurate payments are made to eligible individuals in addition to ensuring that the payments are timely. It also requires that a State not make payments when payments are not due,
The Department notes that part of its responsibilities under the SSA include certifying State UC programs. This responsibility can only be upheld if the Department has the ability to access certain information. The Department is not seeking to supplement its information collections at this time; however, the capacity for the Department to do so in the future is guaranteed by this rulemaking.
Pursuant to sec. 303(a)(1), SSA, the Department has long required States to disclose all information that is necessary for the proper administration of UC programs (§ 603.6(a)). The Department has also specifically recognized the critical role that oversight and audits play in the proper administration of UC programs, particularly in ensuring payments are not made when they are not due. The Department has recognized this critical role by explicitly making disclosures to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits permissible and excepting such disclosures from the confidentiality requirement under § 603.5(i).
For years, the Department has interpreted sec. 303(a)(1) as requiring the disclosure of confidential UC information to certain Federal agencies because disclosure of such data is authorized under statutes administered by those agencies, including, for example, the Internal Revenue Service for purposes of UC tax administration.
State cooperation with these requests has become critical to the effective administration of UC programs. State UC operations have evolved since the confidentiality regulation was first promulgated in 2006, as States have faced a large increase in online claims filing, as well as a stark increase in fraud incidents, particularly those involving sophisticated multistate fraud schemes by organized criminals. The CARES Act created a number of new UC programs in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and during this period the program was exposed to increased fraudulent activity, costing the UC system billions of dollars according to estimates by DOL-OIG. DOL-OIG identified $45.6 billion in potentially fraudulent UC benefits paid in six high-risk areas,
In the sections that follow, the Department summarizes and responds to the comments received about the August 2025 NPRM's proposed requirement—finalized in this rule—that State UC agencies must disclose confidential UC information to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits.
Agencies are free to change their existing policies as long as they provide a reasoned explanation for the change.
This final rule is not an instance of extraordinary agency action. As described in detail above, the Department has long interpreted the disclosure of confidential UC information to be required when necessary for proper and efficient administration of the program (
The provision of disclosing confidential UC data to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits facilitates critical efforts in holding State UC agencies accountable for identifying and preventing fraud activities in UC programs, which in turn reduces improper payments of benefits. Therefore, sec. 303(a)(1) stands as the basis for requiring disclosures to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits.
An advocacy organization argued that the Department's rule lacks the “clear notice” required by the Spending Clause and constitutes an unlawful “retroactive” grant condition. The commenter further asserted that “the proposal's undefined requirement for States to share data for unspecified `oversight and audits'” would be a “fundamental shift in the program” that the States could not anticipate and would exceed the limitations imposed by the Constitution's Spending Clause. In making this argument, the commenter referenced UC program confidentiality rules that, according to the commenter “have included only limited provisions for sharing [data] with Federal agencies,” including the original regulations from 1986 that permitted States to share information with DOL only for the purpose of determining eligibility or benefit amounts and the existing regulations, which “require disclosure only as `necessary for the proper administration of the UC program' or to specific agencies for specific purposes.” The same advocacy organization further asserted that retroactive conditioning of Federal funds would “violate anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment” because it commands States to share data as well as to build the infrastructure to do so.
This final rule meets this standard. It is clear and unambiguous. It plainly describes the disclosure in the regulatory text of 20 CFR part 603 that was permissible but is now a required condition upon which State receipt of UC administrative funding depends. Accordingly, contrary to the commenter's claim, this rule satisfies the requirement that a funding condition attached to a Federal grant program allow recipients to “knowingly” accept the provisions.
The same commenter also argues that the Department's rule is impermissibly “retroactive” under the Spending Clause and the anti-commandeering doctrine. However, counter to the commenter's assertion, this rule will not apply retroactively; administrative funding already provided to States will not be impacted by the new condition it establishes. Even after the effective date of this rule, which is 60 days after publication, the compliance date gives States 1 year to amend their State laws, if needed, to ensure they receive certification for receipt of administrative funding. Accordingly, this rule does not impose a retroactive condition and, consistent with Spending Clause jurisprudence, the publication of this rule puts States on notice of a new requirement upon which future certification for administrative funding will depend so that they may knowingly choose to accept the term going forward.
Finally, for the reasons set out above, the required disclosure imposed by this rule does not commandeer the States. Indeed, Federal grant conditions are lawful so long as the States have a genuine choice whether to accept them.
Moreover, the Department does not agree with the commenter's claim that this rule is a significant shift in the program as it currently exists. All States already provide UC information to Federal officials as requested for purposes of UC program oversight and audits under § 603.5(i), which made the disclosure permissible and excepted such disclosure from the confidentiality requirement set forth in part 603. Due to the growing need to address fraud in the UC program, the Department has determined that requiring disclosures for purposes of UC program oversight and audits is necessary for the proper administration of the program under sec. 303(a)(1), SSA, and, therefore, a condition of certification for administrative funding for the UC program. This rule is a reasonable exercise of the agency's statutory authority to determine what methods of administration are required in order for a State to be certified to receive funding to administer the UC program and does not constitute an unlawful commandeering of the States.
Another State UC agency expressed concern that the August 2025 NPRM would eliminate data-sharing agreements and safeguards that current Federal law at §§ 603.9 and 603.10 require for the disclosure of confidential UC information. The commenter asked for clarity regarding what sections of the confidentiality regulation apply to the mandated disclosure created by this rule, citing concerns about data breaches, leaks, and a loss of trust in the safety net system.
Some commenters raised concerns that the August 2025 NPRM could slow the delivery of payments under UC programs, noting that benefit processing is already slower than before the pandemic. Some pointed to recent funding disruptions and broader budget cuts as creating uncertainty about future administrative resources. Some unions and advocacy groups argued that this rule could divert critical staff and technology resources away from claims processing, potentially impacting timely payment of benefits.
Some advocacy organizations argued that the August 2025 NPRM lacked clarity regarding the data collected, preventing States from providing feedback on that collection. Similarly, some legal services providers asserted that DOL should not put burdens on State UC agencies during a time of greater workloads without sufficient clarification of the data requested and its purpose.
Commenters also highlighted confusion about how States would fund the costs associated with implementing this rule. Some noted understaffing, ongoing technology modernization, and reduced Federal support, such as through the rescission of one-time grants, as significant barriers. Commenters asked the Department to consider phased implementation, provide Federal funding or cost-sharing, and to require transparency measures to minimize administrative strain and ensure States can effectively comply.
The Department clarifies that this final rule does not alter the existing regulation on the allowable scope of such a disclosure and does not modify protections or limitations on use of data that is applicable to these disclosures. The Department does not believe there will be a significant increase in UC data disclosures and therefore does not foresee a significant increase in legal, information technology, or human capital expenditures to divert resources away from current staff functions. The Department disagrees that this final rule increases the risk of data breaches or does not provide sufficient information to States regarding data to be collected. This final rule takes what States are permitted to do currently, and all States have been doing, and makes it a requirement. States' previous disclosures have provided sufficient experience to be able to comment effectively on this rule.
The Department's addition to § 603.10(e) requires certain Federal officials, other than the Department, DOL-OIG, and GAO, to provide requests in writing to the State UC agency stating how the information will be used and how that use is for purposes of UC program oversight and audits; to limit their use of the information to the uses stated in the request, except as required by Federal law; and to cite the Federal official's authority for UC program oversight and audits under § 603.6(c). This addition provides clarity to States responsible for disclosing confidential UC information to Federal officials other than the Department, DOL-OIG, and GAO.
Additionally, the Department's amendment to § 603.8 makes clear that disclosures for purposes of UC program oversight and audits are chargeable to a State's UC administrative grant.
Any Federal official inside or outside the Department that obtains confidential UC information under this rule for purposes of UC program oversight and audits will be required to comply with all applicable Federal laws, including those concerning data security and privacy. Therefore, the Department believes this rule does not dissuade individuals from filing claims for benefits or otherwise present a realistic barrier to access.
Further, the Department's addition of § 603.10(e), requires certain Federal officials other than the Department, DOL-OIG, and GAO, to provide requests in writing to the State UC agency stating how the information will be used and how that use is for purposes of UC program oversight and audits under § 603.6(c); to limit their use of the information to the uses stated in the request, except as required by Federal law; and to cite the Federal official's authority for UC program oversight and audits. This addition provides clarity to States responsible for disclosing confidential UC information to Federal officials.
Regarding deference to State discretion over whether to provide requested information, the Department emphasizes that the UC program is a Federal-State partnership in which Federal oversight is a core statutory responsibility. Effective program integrity in the UC system increasingly depends on the ability to identify risks and fraud schemes. Responding to requests from Federal officials seeking confidential UC information for purposes of UC program oversight and audits enables nationwide analysis, coordination, and oversight that individual States, acting alone, are not positioned to perform. Federal access to this information for purposes of UC program oversight and audits supports the detection of multistate fraud patterns, the assessment of systemic vulnerabilities, and the development of targeted guidance and corrective actions that strengthen the integrity of the UC system as a whole. Requiring disclosure of this information removes any barriers to access that might arise: (1) when the requirement for such disclosure is subject to time-limited conditions of individual grants; or (2) States choosing not to disclose due to the disclosure being permissive—thus streamlining access to data now and into the future. Mandating disclosure strengthens overall program integrity by, among other things, ensuring that oversight activities are informed by complete and consistent data, thereby protecting public resources.
Further, the Department's addition to § 603.10(e), requires certain Federal officials other than the Department, DOL-OIG, and GAO to provide requests in writing to the State UC agency stating how the information will be used and how that use is for purposes of UC program oversight and audits under § 603.6(c); to limit their use of the information to the uses stated in the request, except as required by Federal law; and to cite the Federal official's authority for UC program oversight and audits. This addition provides clarity to States responsible for disclosing confidential UC information to Federal officials.
The Department does not view this final rule as inconsistent with, or a substitute for, the existing or targeted policy approaches recommended by commenters. To the contrary, many of the strategies cited, such as identity verification tools, IT modernization efforts, interstate coordination mechanisms, and the use of aggregated data to identify risk, are complementary to providing data access for purposes of UC program oversight and audits. With respect to the improper payment rate, while it has declined since the pandemic ended, the decline resulted from significant joint efforts between the States and the Federal Government, and yet the national average remains above the ten percent target.
The Department considered alternatives such as reliance on voluntary cooperation, existing policy tools, or targeted initiatives. However, those approaches alone do not provide the level of consistency and timeliness necessary for effective oversight of the UC system.
Another individual commenter noted that States vary widely in terms of their privacy laws, data storage capabilities, and technical capacities, and warned that assuming uniform readiness among the States to implement the August 2025 NPRM would lead to unattainable compliance standards and result in many agencies potentially facing penalties for circumstances beyond their control.
As explained in the August 2025 NPRM and throughout this preamble, the Department is amending part 603 to require disclosure of confidential UC information to Federal officials, including DOL-OIG, for purposes of UC program oversight and audits to ensure the UC program is being administered consistent with Federal law and to identify and prevent fraud. The Department did not identify reliance interest concerns under existing confidentiality laws as the purpose and scope of the subject disclosures have not changed. The disclosures required by this final rule, which are already permissible and occurring under existing confidentiality regulations for purposes of Federal oversight and audits, remain subject to existing confidentiality, privacy, and data-security requirements.
The statement that the Department failed to consider less intrusive alternatives is incorrect. The Department analyzed reasonable regulatory alternatives, including making no change to part 603 concerning disclosure of confidential UC information to Federal officials. Ultimately, the Department determined this final rule was necessary to ensure the UC program is being administered consistent with Federal law and to identify and prevent fraud. The Department's analysis is detailed in section IV.A.2 of this preamble.
E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits; (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions,” as defined by section 3(f) of that order, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which is part of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OIRA has determined that this final rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this final rule was submitted to OIRA for review. E.O. 13563 directs agencies
E.O. 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” was issued on January 31, 2025. This final rule is exempt from E.O. 14192 pursuant to section (5)(c) of the E.O.
Pursuant to Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
The Department amends 20 CFR part 603 to require, rather than permit, the disclosure of confidential UC information to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits. Since this regulation was first promulgated, and as State UC operations have evolved, States have faced increased fraud incidents, including sophisticated multistate fraud schemes by organized criminals. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a sizable increase in fraudulent activity costing UC programs billions of dollars according to estimates by DOL-OIG. DOL-OIG identified $45.6 billion in potentially fraudulent benefits under UC programs in six high-risk areas,
The Secretary must have the tools necessary to ensure that UC programs are administered consistent with the requirements of Federal law. Mandatory disclosure of confidential UC information to Federal officials, including DOL-OIG, for purposes of UC program oversight and audits is essential to ensure the UC program is being administered consistent with Federal law and to identify and prevent fraud. Codifying the requirement for such disclosures allows Federal officials to fully utilize UC program oversight and audits to hold State UC agencies accountable in identifying and preventing fraud in UC programs.
OMB Circular A-4, which outlines best practices in regulatory analysis, directs agencies to analyze reasonable regulatory alternatives to the proposed regulatory action. Accordingly, the Department considered two alternatives regarding disclosure of confidential UC information to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits.
The first alternative was to make comprehensive updates to part 603, including to require States to disclose confidential UC information to DOL-OIG for purposes of UC program oversight and audits. The comprehensive updates the Department considered and that were described in the Fall 2024 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions would have included additional amendments regarding issues raised by stakeholders over the years, including addressing questions around sharing information across the workforce system, the permissibility and use cases of sharing information with agencies within the Department for analysis and evaluation, the permissibility of disclosing confidential UC information to federally recognized Indian Tribes, data warehousing, and the use of contractors and subcontractors. While the Department gained valuable information from the engagement with stakeholders and the 2023 RFI, the Department ultimately decided that the most critical step needed at this time was to address fraud in UC programs by ensuring that Federal officials, including DOL-OIG, have access to data to conduct oversight and combat fraud.
Another option considered was to make no change to part 603 concerning disclosure of confidential UC information to Federal officials, including to DOL-OIG. The Department decided against maintaining the status quo because the rise of fraud incidents and sophisticated multistate fraud schemes demand immediate action by the Department to ensure that Federal officials continue to have the access now and into the future to confidential UC information for purposes of UC program oversight and audits by removing any barriers that might arise: (1) when the requirement for such disclosure is subject to time-limited conditions of individual grants; or (2) States choosing not to disclose due to the disclosure being permissive. Proceeding with this regulatory change, thus, will strengthen the overall program integrity for Federal officials to hold States accountable for ensuring benefits are paid only to eligible individuals and withheld from those who are ineligible, thus assisting with the statutory requirement for accurate and timely payments under sec. 303(a)(1), SSA.
The Department conducted an economic analysis to determine the costs of this final rule and to consider the benefits and the impact of transfers under this rule. The Department recognizes potential costs of this rule for required one-time technological upgrades, compliance costs, and recurring costs related to data submission. However, data availability prevents the Department from estimating these costs. Despite its efforts to gather information through a survey of nine States, the 2023 RFI, and the August 2025 NPRM, the Department did not receive enough data that would allow for the quantification of realistic cost estimates. State UC agencies are largely already disclosing the information that this final rule codifies to the Department and DOL-OIG, minimizing any new costs.
Additionally, this final rule imposes a one-time regulatory familiarization cost on the 53 State UC agencies. These costs are associated with State UC agency staff reviewing the new regulation and conducting internal discussions and are determined using BLS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) data and estimates of the time required to become familiar with this rule.
The Department considers the benefits of this final rule to be substantial, including ensuring program integrity and building and maintaining public trust in the UC system. Specific benefits include enhancement of fraud prevention, identification, and investigation and providing strong oversight and accountability through timely audits and evaluations. Data availability and uncertainty limit the Department's ability to quantify the benefits of this rule.
Despite its efforts to gather information through the 2023 RFI and the 2024 survey of nine States, the Department did not receive enough data to provide reasonable cost estimates. Moreover, the Department did not receive public comments or input in response to the August 2025 NPRM that would make quantification of the compliance costs feasible.
Although the implementation of new requirements may incur staffing and infrastructure costs to the Department, these investments are crucial for strengthening the integrity of the UC system. The Department anticipates that this rulemaking will provide important benefits, particularly in terms of fraud prevention and program integrity.
Regulatory familiarization costs represent direct costs to the 53 State UC agencies with UC programs that will need to review the new regulation in order to implement it. Consequently, this final rule will impose a one-time familiarization cost to those entities in the first year after promulgation. The Department anticipates that the changes introduced by this rule will be reviewed by General and Operations Managers (SOC code 11-1021), Lawyers (SOC code 23-1011), and Computer Systems Analysts (SOC code 15-1211) employed by State UC agencies within the State government.
The BLS OEWS data shows that the mean hourly wage of a State government General and Operations Manager is $63.12.
The time burden of 1 hour was multiplied by the estimated number of entities (53) and the total of the loaded hourly wage rate of the readers ($112.98 + $104.25 + $80.50 = $297.73). This calculation results in a one-time undiscounted cost of $15,780 in the first year after this rule takes effect.
This final rule may require States to update computer systems and security protocols in order to comply with Federal and State laws concerning safeguarding confidential UC information. State UC agencies already have processes and systems in place for providing information to Federal officials, including the Department and DOL-OIG. The Department is unable to quantify the number of States that may need to perform additional IT updates to accommodate the changes from this rule and determine whether updates will require upgrades to existing technology or the purchasing of new components.
Conversely, some unions expressed concern about potential costs to States to develop and maintain new IT systems or to reconfigure existing ones under this rule, especially amid Federal funding cuts.
A State UC agency said that they are currently undergoing modernization efforts and would need to consult with their vendor to determine the extent of changes and costs required to be compliant with the August 2025 NPRM.
As discussed in section II of this preamble, this final rule does not address the creation of a national UC claims database. Based on the changes in this final rule, many States will not face significant IT investment requirements, or require new IT systems, since many State UC agencies are already providing this information to Federal officials, including DOL-OIG, through permissible disclosures.
The requirements for disclosures under State law vary from State to State. This final rule establishes required disclosures for purposes of UC program oversight and audits where those disclosures were permissible under the existing regulation. All States already provide UC information to Federal officials on a regular basis for purposes of UC program oversight and audits under the existing regulation. The Department is unable to identify those State law requirements that would need to change to conform to this final rule and therefore cannot quantify any associated costs.
Grant funds may be used to cover the costs of providing required data under this rule to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits. It is not clear whether the data requests received will be the same requests for data that States already fulfill, or whether the amended rule will result in new requests. Generally speaking, the Department does not expect the number of requests for disclosures to increase significantly because the purpose of the required disclosure remains narrow; however, there is a possibility that disclosure requests may increase. Because of this ambiguity, the Department cannot quantify the magnitude of the potential increased costs to the States of responding to the data requests. Further, State UC administrative grant funds may be used by the States, where available, to offset possible increases in costs.
This final rule is expected to generate several important unquantified benefits that support the integrity and effectiveness of the UC program. Chief among these is the enhancement of fraud prevention and detection capabilities. By requiring the disclosure of confidential UC information to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits, this final rule removes any barriers that might arise: (1) when the requirement for such disclosure is subject to time-limited conditions of individual grants; or (2) States choosing not to disclose due to the disclosure being permissive. This regulatory change streamlines access to the data now and into the future, thereby strengthening overall program integrity for Federal officials to hold States accountable for ensuring that benefits are paid only to eligible individuals and withheld from those who are ineligible, thus assisting with the statutory requirement for accurate and timely payments under sec. 303(a)(1), SSA. This regulatory change also enables nationwide analysis, coordination, and oversight that individual States, acting alone, are not positioned to perform.
In addition, this final rule promotes stronger oversight and accountability by facilitating consistent and timely audits by Federal officials. This oversight helps the Federal Government to ensure that State UC programs are administered in compliance with Federal law and best practices. Federal access to this information helps identify multistate fraud patterns,
Moreover, because this rule requires disclosure of confidential UC information to Federal officials for purposes of UC program oversight and audits, this final rule supports program integrity and performance. This approach enhances the efficiency and responsiveness of the UC program. This final rule also aligns with recent executive orders aimed at reducing information silos and improving interagency collaboration to combat waste, fraud, and abuse.
Finally, by reinforcing transparency and accountability in the administration of the UC program, this final rule helps to build and maintain public trust in the system. Although these potential benefits are not readily quantifiable, they represent significant improvements in the administration, oversight, and public perception of the UC program.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. chapter 6, requires the Department to evaluate the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The RFA defines small entities to include small businesses, small organizations (including not-for-profit organizations), and small governmental jurisdictions. The Department must determine whether this rule imposes a significant economic impact on a substantial number of such small entities. The Department concludes that this rule
The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public is also not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person will be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512).
E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. E.O. 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. E.O. 13132 also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. The Department has reviewed this final rule in light of these requirements and has concluded that it meets the requirements of E.O. 13132.
Accordingly, the Department has reviewed this final rule and has concluded that the rulemaking has no substantial direct effects on States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as described by E.O. 13132. Therefore, the Department has concluded that this final rule does not have a sufficient federalism implication to require further agency action or analysis.
An advocacy organization and a union argued that by imposing uniform, required disclosure requirements, the August 2025 NPRM would undermine the balance of Federal-State authority. Further, the union asserted that the NPRM was unconstitutional, conflicted with State privacy laws, and federalism requires these conflicts to be resolved by Congress.
This final rule also does not modify the protections or limitations on use of data that are applicable to required disclosures. This rule merely changes the disclosure from one that a State is permitted to make to one that the State is required to make. As discussed above, the Department has the statutory authority to change these disclosures from permissive disclosures to mandatory disclosures
Although this rule does not have Federalism implications and does not require further consultation with State and local officials beyond the normal comment period within the rulemaking process, the Department has nevertheless pursued such consultation. The Department published the 2023 RFI, which said “[t]he Department is considering a regulatory update to 20 CFR part 603 that would incorporate a requirement for States to disclose confidential UC information to [DOL-OIG] for oversight and audits.”
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. 2 U.S.C. 1531. For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)). Relating to small governments, UMRA requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. Such plan must include an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on
The Department examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Furthermore, because this rule does not impose a Federal intergovernmental mandate, this rule does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As a result, the requirements of UMRA do not apply.
Additionally, this rule amends § 603.8 to clarify that disclosures for purposes of UC program oversight and audit are chargeable to a State's UC administrative grant.
To the commenter's concern that “[c]ertifying compliance without quantification is arbitrary and capricious under the APA,” the Department notes that the scope of this final rule is limited. All State UC agencies already provide confidential UC information for purposes of UC program oversight and audits to Federal officials, including the Department and DOL-OIG, through permissible disclosures. Regarding certification under UMRA, the Department conducted an economic analysis to determine the costs of this final rule as provided in section IV.A.3 of this preamble. Although data availability prevents the Department from fully estimating these costs, the Department does not expect this final rule to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. States are currently processing permissible disclosure requests from Federal officials, so any additional costs would arise from the change to these being required disclosures, which are expected to be roughly equivalent to the current number of permissible disclosures for purposes of UC program oversight and audits.
For these reasons, the requirements of title II of UMRA do not apply. Therefore, DOL has not prepared a statement under UMRA.
The Department has reviewed this final rule under the terms of E.O. 13175 and the Department's Tribal Consultation Policy and has concluded that the changes to regulatory text do not have Tribal implications. These changes do not have substantial direct effects on one or more federally recognized Indian Tribes, the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, nor the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Tribal governments.
Unemployment compensation, Wages.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Labor amends 20 CFR part 603 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 503(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 1302; 29 U.S.C. 3141; 29 U.S.C. 3249; 29 U.S.C. 3343; 20 U.S.C. 1232g.
The revision reads as follows:
The following are exceptions to the confidentiality requirement. Disclosure of confidential UC information is permissible under the exceptions in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section only if authorized by State law and if such disclosure does not interfere with the efficient administration of the State UC law. Disclosure of confidential UC information is permissible under the exception in paragraph (h) of this section without such restrictions.
The addition reads as follows:
(c) The Department of Labor interprets section 303(a)(1), SSA, as requiring each State UC agency to disclose confidential UC information upon request to a Federal official for purposes of UC program oversight and audits.
(b)
(e)
Department of State.
Interim final rule; correction.
The Department of State (the Department) is correcting an interim final rule that appeared in the
This rule is effective October 13, 2026.
Mr. Chris Weil, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State, email
“2. Amend § 120.54 by revising paragraphs (a)(6)(iii) and (a)(7)(iii), and adding paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9), to read as follows:”
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Clearwater Offshore National/Race World Offshore from September 26, 2026, through September 27, 2026, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Southeast Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Clearwater, FL. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.703 will be enforced for Clearwater Offshore National/Race World Offshore regulated area listed in item 7 in Table 1 to § 100.703, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on September 26 and 27, 2026.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Lieutenant Ryan McNaughton, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 813-918-7270, email
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.703 for the Clearwater Offshore National/Race World Offshore regulated area from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on September 26 and 27, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 2-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the Southeast Coast Guard District, in item 7 in Table 1 to § 100.703, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Clearwater Offshore National/Race World Offshore which encompasses portions of Clearwater Beach. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in Table 1 to § 100.703(c), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any designated representative.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the University of Pittsburgh Drone Show on September 17, 2026, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for annual fireworks displays and other events within the Heartland Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Pittsburgh, PA. During the enforcement period, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 97 will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. on September 17, 2026.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Brett Lanzel, MSU Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 206-815-6624, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.801, Table 1, Line 97 for the University of Pittsburgh Drone Show regulated area from 8:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on September 17, 2026. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for fireworks displays and other events within the Heartland Coast Guard District, § 165.801, specifies that the location of the regulated area for this event encompasses the Allegheny River Mile Markers 0-0.25, the Ohio River Mile Markers 0-0.1, and the Monongahela River Mile Markers 0-0.1. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.801(a) through (d), entry into the regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated representative, and persons and vessels authorized to enter the regulated area must comply with directions from the Captain of the Port or designated representative.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the navigable waters of Lake St. Clair for a fireworks display. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with an over water fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) or their designated representative.
This rule is effective on September 19, 2026, from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.
To view available documents go to
If you have questions about this rule, contact LT Brett Losey, Sector Detroit Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 313-347-3007, or email
The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from a barge in Lake St. Clair near 60 Lake Shore Drive in Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 560-foot radius of the fireworks launch site. Therefore, the Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel and vessels in the navigable waters within the safety zone.
Because of these potential hazards, 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. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on July 24, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by September 19, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.
For the same reason, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
This rule establishes a safety zone on September 19, 2026, from 9:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters in Lake St. Clair within a 560-foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at 42°23′12.26″ N, 82°53′36.33″ W. Vessels and persons will not be allowed to enter the zone during this time, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
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
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and DHC-8-402 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that instructions for fay, fillet, and rivet dome sealing were omitted for a bracket installed on the inboard surface of the tank rib, which could allow fuel to leak from the wing fuel tank into the wing dry bay. This proposed AD would require a detailed visual inspection of the affected bracket assembly for signs of fuel leakage and for the presence of fillet seal and fastener dome seal, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 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 Transport Canada material identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Joseph Catanzaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated 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 Joseph Catanzaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 516-228-7300; email:
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69, dated December 22, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and DHC-8-402 airplanes. The MCAI states that during the accomplishment of a previous fuel system service bulletin, it was discovered that instructions for fay, fillet, and rivet dome sealing were omitted for one bracket installed on the inboard surface of the tank rib at wing station 42.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69 specifies procedures to do a detailed visual inspection of bracket assembly part number 85714524-001 for signs of fuel leakage and for the presence of the fillet seal and the fastener dome seal, and applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include applying sealant to the bracket assembly and fasteners.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 35 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by November 2, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to De Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model DHC-8-401 and DHC-8-402 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69, dated December 22, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by a report that instructions for fay, fillet, and rivet dome sealing were omitted for a bracket installed on the inboard surface of the tank rib at wing station 42, which could allow fuel to leak from the wing fuel tank into the wing dry bay. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this fuel leakage. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in exposure of the dry bay to an unacceptable concentration of fuel vapor, which could lead to a fuel tank explosion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69 refers to hours air time, this AD requires using flight hours.
(3) Where the Corrective Actions paragraph of Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69 specifies “if required, apply”, for this AD, replace that text with “if required, before further flight, apply”.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Catanzaro, 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) Transport Canada AD CF-2025-69, dated December 22, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198. 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
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of hearing.
This document provides a notice of public hearing on the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-119986-25) published in the
The hearing is scheduled to be held on December 2, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET). To speak at the public hearing, the IRS must receive speakers' outlines of the topics to be discussed by November 3, 2026. If no outlines are received by November 3, 2026, the hearing will be cancelled.
The hearing will be conducted by teleconference only. Send an outline of topic submission electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the proposed regulations, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations, and Employment Taxes) at (202) 317-6000 (not a toll-free
The subject of the hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-119986-25) published in the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Individuals who wish to testify at the hearing must submit an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic by November 3, 2026. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each testimony.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available via
Individuals who wish to testify at the hearing must send an email to
Individuals who wish to attend the public hearing without testifying must also send an email to
Hearings will be made accessible to people with disabilities. To request special assistance during a hearing please contact the Publications and Regulations Section by sending an email to
Any additional questions regarding speaking at or attending the hearing may also be emailed to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is proposing to approve Indiana's Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) partial permit program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). After reviewing the CCR permit program application submitted by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), EPA has preliminarily determined that Indiana's CCR permit program meets the standard for partial approval under RCRA. If approved, Indiana's CCR permit program will operate in lieu of the Federal CCR program, with the exception of the specific provisions noted below. EPA is seeking comment on this proposal during a 60-day public comment period and will hold a hybrid in-person and online public hearing on EPA's preliminary approval of Indiana's partial CCR permit program.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2026-4326, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Michelle Lloyd, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Waste Identification Notice and Generators Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-0560; email address:
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2026-4326, at
EPA will begin pre-registering speakers for the hybrid public hearing upon publication of this document in the
EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. Additionally, requests to speak will be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing registration desk. EPA will make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register, although preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled.
Each commenter will have five minutes to provide oral testimony. EPA encourages commenters to provide EPA with a copy of their oral testimony electronically by emailing it to the person listed in the
EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting information presented at the public hearing.
Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing are posted online at EPA's CCR website at
If you require the services of an interpreter or special accommodations such as audio description, please pre-register for the hearing with the person listed in the
On April 17, 2015, EPA published a final rule, creating 40 CFR part 257, subpart D,
As amended, RCRA section 4005(d) also allows States to seek approval for a State CCR permit program that will operate in lieu of a Federal CCR permit program in the State. The statute provides that within 180 days after a State submits a complete application to the Administrator for approval, EPA shall approve the State permit program if the Administrator determines that the State program requires each CCR unit located in the State to achieve compliance with either the Federal requirements or other State requirements that EPA determines, after consultation with the State, are at least as protective as those included in the Federal CCR regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B).
On June 26, 2026, and supplemented on September 9, 2026, IDEM submitted its State CCR permit program application to EPA Region 5 requesting approval of the State's partial CCR permit program.
EPA has also engaged Federally recognized Tribes within the State of Indiana in consultation and coordination regarding the program approval for the determination. EPA has established opportunities for coordination and consultation. Tribal consultation has been and will continue to be conducted in accordance with the EPA policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes.
CCR are generated from the combustion of coal, including solid fuels classified as anthracite, bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, and lignite, for the purpose of generating steam to power a generator to produce electricity or electricity and other thermal energy by electric utilities and independent power producers. CCR include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials. CCR can be sent offsite for disposal or beneficial use, or disposed of in on-site landfills or surface impoundments. This section summarizes EPA's regulatory actions on CCR to date to provide relevant background on this proposed approval of Indiana's partial CCR permit program.
On April 17, 2015, EPA published a final rule creating 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, which established a comprehensive set of minimum Federal requirements for the disposal of CCR in landfills and surface impoundments (80 FR 21302). The rule created a self-implementing program that regulates the location, design, operating criteria, and groundwater monitoring and corrective action for CCR units, as well as the closure and post-closure care of CCR units. It also requires recordkeeping and notifications for CCR units. EPA has since amended 40 CFR part 257, subpart D on August 5, 2016 (81 FR 51802), July 30, 2018 (83 FR 36435), August 28, 2020 (85 FR 53516), November 12, 2020 (85 FR 72506), May 8, 2024 (89 FR 38950), November 8, 2024 (89 FR 88650), and February 10, 2026 (91 FR 5806). More information on these rules is provided in the Technical Support Document in the docket for this document.
EPA is issuing this proposed action pursuant to RCRA sections 4005(d) and 7004(b)(1). See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d) and 6974(b)(1). As amended by section 2301 of the 2016 WIIN Act, RCRA section 4005(d) instructs EPA to establish a Federal permit program similar to those under RCRA subtitle C and other environmental statutes and authorizes States to seek approval of their own CCR permit programs that, if approved, operate in lieu of the Federal permit program upon approval by EPA. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d).
Under RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A), States seeking approval of a State CCR program must submit to the Administrator “in such form as the Administrator may establish, evidence of a permit program or other system of prior approval and conditions under state law for regulation by the State of coal combustion residuals units that are located in the state.” The statute provides that EPA shall approve a State CCR permit program if the Administrator determines that the State program will require each CCR unit located in the State to achieve compliance with either: (1) The Federal CCR requirements at 40 CFR part 257, subpart D; or (2) Other State criteria that the Administrator, after consultation with the State, determines to be “at least as protective as” the Federal requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). The Administrator must make a final determination, after providing for public notice and an opportunity for public comment, within 180 days of receiving a State's complete submittal of the information specified in RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A).
As noted above, the Federal CCR regulations are self-implementing, meaning that CCR landfills and surface impoundments must comply with the terms of the regulations prior to obtaining a Federal permit or a permit issued by an approved State. Noncompliance with the Federal CCR regulations can be the subject of an enforcement action brought directly against the facility. Once a final CCR permit is issued by an approved State or pursuant to a Federal CCR permit program, however, the terms of the permit apply in lieu of the provisions of the Federal CCR regulations and/or requirements in an approved State program, and RCRA section 4005(d)(3) provides a permit shield against direct enforcement of the applicable Federal or State CCR regulations (meaning the permit's terms become the enforceable requirements for the permittee).
RCRA section 7004(b), which applies to all RCRA programs, directs that “public participation in the development, revision, implementation, and enforcement of any . . . program under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.” 42 U.S.C. 6974(b)(1). Accordingly, EPA considers permitting requirements, requirements for compliance monitoring authority, requirements for enforcement authority, and requirements for intervention in civil enforcement proceedings in evaluating State CCR permit program applications.
Once a State CCR permit program is approved, the Administrator must review the approved program no less frequently than every 12 years, no later than three years after a revision to an applicable section of 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, and no later than one year after any unauthorized significant release from a CCR unit located in the State. EPA also must review an approved State CCR permit program at the request of another State alleging that the soil, groundwater, or surface water of the requesting State is or is likely to be adversely affected by a release from a CCR unit in the approved State. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(i)(I) through (IV).
In a State with an approved State CCR permit program, EPA may commence administrative or judicial enforcement actions under RCRA section 3008, 42 U.S.C. 6928, if the State requests assistance or if EPA determines that an EPA enforcement action is likely to be necessary to ensure that a CCR unit is operating in accordance with the criteria of the State's permit program. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(4). EPA can enforce any Federal requirements that remain in effect (
EPA began working with Indiana in 2017 as the State developed its application for the State's partial CCR permit program. On February 23, 2017, Indiana submitted to EPA its adopted Indiana CCR part 256 Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment, dated February 23, 2017, which EPA conditionally approved on March 7, 2017. This approval was conditioned on Indiana completing a process to revise their CCR regulations to be consistent with the Federal minimum CCR requirements.
EPA subsequently published the Interim Final Guidance Document which provided recommendations to help States develop and submit a permit program to EPA for approval. As it has with other States, EPA discussed with Indiana the process for EPA to review and approve the State's CCR permit program, Indiana's anticipated timeline for submitting a CCR permit program application to EPA, and Indiana's regulations for issuing permits. EPA also reviewed a draft CCR permit program application. On June 26, 2026, IDEM submitted its CCR permit program Application to EPA Region 5 requesting approval of the State's partial CCR permit program. EPA sent comments to IDEM on August 20, 2026. IDEM submitted a revised Application to EPA Region 5 on September 9, 2026.
RCRA section 4005(d) requires EPA to evaluate two components of a State CCR permitting program to determine whether it meets the standard for approval: the program itself, and the technical criteria that will be included in each permit issued under the State program. This section discusses EPA's review of both requirements under RCRA section 4005(d) and the criteria EPA uses to conduct this review.
First, EPA must evaluate the permit program itself (or other system of prior approval and conditions). See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A) through (B). RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(A) directs the State to provide evidence of a State permit program's compliance with RCRA requirements in such form as determined by the Administrator. In turn, RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B) directs EPA to approve the State program based upon a determination that the program “requires each coal combustion residuals unit located in the state to achieve compliance with the applicable [Federal or State] criteria.” In other words, the statute directs EPA to determine that the State has sufficient authority to require compliance at all CCR units located within the State. See also 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(ii)(I). To make this determination, EPA evaluates the State's authority to issue permits and impose conditions in those permits, as well as the State's authority to conduct compliance monitoring and enforcement.
During this review of the State permit program, EPA also determines whether the program contains procedures consistent with the public-participation directive in RCRA section 7004(b). RCRA section 7004(b), which applies to all RCRA programs, directs that “public participation in the development, revision, implementation, and enforcement of any . . . program under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the States.” 42 U.S.C. 6974(b)(1). To make this determination, EPA evaluates the State's public participation procedures for issuing permits and for intervention in civil enforcement proceedings.
Although 40 CFR part 239 applies to the approval of State Municipal Solid Waste Landfill (MSWLF) programs under RCRA section 4005(c)(1) rather than EPA's evaluation of CCR permit programs under RCRA section 4005(d), the specific criteria outlined in that regulation provide a helpful framework to examine the relevant aspects of a State's CCR permit program. States are familiar with these criteria because all States have MSWLF programs that have been approved pursuant to these regulations, and the regulations are generally regarded as protective and appropriate.
Consequently, EPA relied on the four categories of criteria outlined in 40 CFR part 239 as guidelines to evaluate the Indiana CCR permit program: permitting requirements, requirements for compliance monitoring authority, requirements for enforcement authority, and requirements for intervention in civil enforcement proceedings.
Second, EPA must evaluate the technical criteria that will be included in each permit issued under the State CCR permit program to determine whether they are the same as the Federal criteria, or to the extent they differ, whether the modified criteria are “at least as protective as” the Federal requirements. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B). Only if both components meet the statutory requirements may EPA approve the program. See 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1). EPA makes this determination by comparing the State's technical criteria to the corresponding Federal criteria and, where necessary, evaluating whether different State criteria are at least as protective as the Federal criteria.
Upon careful review, and as discussed in more detail below, EPA has preliminarily determined that Indiana's partial CCR permit program includes all the elements of an adequate State CCR permit program. It also contains all the technical criteria in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, except for the provisions specifically discussed below that Indiana has not included in its partial permit program. Consequently, EPA is proposing to approve the majority of Indiana's partial CCR permit program. Indiana's CCR permit program does not encompass the full scope of Federal CCR requirements as presently constituted, and the provisions of the Federal CCR regulations that are not part of Indiana's approved CCR permit program will remain directly applicable to affected CCR units. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B).
EPA's full analysis of the Indiana CCR permit program, and how the Indiana regulations differ from the Federal requirements, can be found in the Technical Support Document. EPA determined that the Indiana CCR permit program application was complete and notified Indiana of its determination by letter.
Section 4005(d)(1)(A) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(A), requires a State seeking State CCR permit program approval to submit to EPA, “in such form as the Administrator may establish, evidence of a permit program or other system of prior approval and conditions under State law for regulation by the State of coal combustion residuals units that are located in the State.” Although the statute directs EPA to establish the form of such evidence, the statute does not require EPA to promulgate regulations governing the process or standard for determining the adequacy of such State programs. EPA, therefore, developed the
EPA evaluated the Indiana CCR permit program using the process and statutory and regulatory standards discussed in Units II.C. and IV.A. of this preamble. EPA's findings are summarized below and provided in more detail in the Technical Support Document.
In EPA's judgment, an adequate State CCR permit program must ensure that: (1) Existing and new facilities are permitted or otherwise approved and in compliance with either 40 CFR part 257 or other State criteria; (2) The State has the authority to collect all information necessary to issue permits that are adequate to ensure compliance with relevant 40 CFR part 257, subpart D requirements; and (3) The State has the authority to impose requirements for CCR units adequate to ensure compliance with either 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, or such other State criteria that have been determined and approved by the Administrator to be at least as protective as 40 CFR part 257, subpart D.
IDEM's CCR permit program follows the established solid waste permitting framework in Indiana code (IC) Title 13 and 329 IAC 10, with adjustments for CCR units under 329 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 14. Except to the extent that 40 CFR part 257, subpart D establishes later compliance deadlines, 329 IAC 14-2-1 requires the owner, operator, or permittee of a CCR unit that is under construction or otherwise in existence on the effective date of the permit program to submit a permit application to IDEM within 180 days of the effective date of the State program. CCR units that have received both a closure certification approval and post-closure certification approval from IDEM were not required to obtain a permit under the State permit program. IDEM represented in its Application, that all CCR units will be required to submit a permit application under its Federally approved program. As discussed in Unit V. of this preamble, since IDEM has not issued permits under 329 IAC 14, the owner or operator of a CCR unit must continue to comply with the Federal CCR regulations until a permit is issued by the State under its Federally approved program. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(3)(A), (d)(6).
Permit applications must be prepared and submitted according to the requirements in 329 IAC 14-2 and 329 IAC 10-11 through 329 IAC 10-13. One permit application may be submitted for multiple CCR units located at the same facility. IC 13-15-3-5 requires that for permits required by IC 13-15-1, which includes permits for CCR disposal in landfills and surface impoundments at IC 13-15-1-3, IDEM may issue a permit after staff have approved the plans and specifications and determined the requirements of the rule are met. IDEM will review applications for compliance with 40 CFR part 257, subpart D and 329 IAC 14. During the review of the applications, IDEM will request additional information or clarifications from the applicant necessary for IDEM to determine if the application meets the criteria. Upon issuance of a permit, the permit will contain enforceable conditions in alignment with 40 CFR part 257, subpart D and 329 IAC 14.
IDEM must approve or deny an application for a new CCR permit within 365 days in accordance with the review and public participation process outlined below. CCR units will submit applications in accordance with 329 IAC 10-11 through 329 IAC 10-13.
A CCR unit permit, including a renewal permit, may be issued for a maximum 5 years in accordance with 329 IAC 10-13-3 and IC 13-15-3-2. Depending on future changes to the State rules, IDEM may issue a permit, including renewal permits, for the statutory maximum of 10 years. Renewal permits must be submitted at least 120 days prior to the permit expiration. A complete renewal application includes information required by 329 IAC 10-11-2.1 and 329 IAC 10-11-5.1. The public process for renewal permits is described below. IDEM may deny a permit application for the reasons listed in the regulations and in the Technical Support Document. IDEM may revoke or modify a permit for the reasons listed in the regulations and in the Technical Support Document.
Following issuance of a permit, changes are made through major, minor or insignificant permit modification applications. A major modification means any increase in a CCR unit that would increase the permitted capacity to process or dispose of solid waste or change the closure plan for the lesser of: more than 10% of the area or volume of the unit; or 500,000 cubic yards; or that would increase the area within the solid waste boundary or the closure area by more than one acre. 329 IAC 14-1-4(b)(2). IDEM requires applications for major modifications to include information sufficient to support the change as required by 329 IAC 10. IDEM must review a major modification application within 365 days and in accordance with the public process outlined below. Minor modifications are any modifications of a CCR unit that are not major modifications or insignificant modifications. 329 IAC 14-1-4(b)(3). These include but are not limited to (1) An alternative daily cover for fugitive dust and runoff controls, and (2) A borrow pit that is owned by the owner, operator, or permittee and located onsite or on property adjoining the facility. IDEM must review a minor modification application within 180 days and in accordance with the public process outlined below. Insignificant modifications include a narrow set of changes related to the operation and maintenance of a CCR unit as defined under 329IAC-14-1-4(b)(1)(A) through (J). As established by 329 IAC 14-2-3, the submission and review process depends on the type of insignificant modification. For modifications listed in 329 IAC 14-1-4(b)(1)(A) through (H), the permittee shall provide notice to IDEM no later than 7 days after the modification has been made. The notice shall include a description of the project and date or anticipated date of completion. For modifications described by 329 IAC 14-1-4(b)(1)(I) or (J), the permittee must submit documentation of the proposed change to IDEM prior to making the change.
EPA has preliminarily determined that the Indiana approach to CCR permit applications and approvals is adequate, and that this aspect of the Indiana CCR permit program meets the standard for program approval.
Based on RCRA section 7004, 42 U.S.C. 6974, it is EPA's judgment that an adequate State CCR permit program will ensure that: (1) Documents for permit determinations are made available for public review and comment; (2) Final determinations on permit applications are made known to the public; and (3) Public comments on permit determinations are considered and significant comments are responded to in the permit record. EPA's review of Indiana's CCR permit program indicates that the State has adopted public participation procedures that allow interested parties to talk openly and frankly about permit issues and search for mutually agreeable solutions to differences in views. An overview of Indiana's public participation provisions is provided below.
Indiana's CCR Permit Program incorporates the permitting and public participation requirements established
EPA has preliminarily determined that Indiana's public participation for permit determinations is adequate. For new permits and major modifications, Indiana provides public notice and opportunity to comment, considers comments, and responds to significant comments in the permit record. This is consistent with the public participation directive in RCRA section 7004(b).
All documents related to permit application and permit decisions are public record and are posted to the IDEM Virtual File Cabinet (VFC) on IDEM's website at:
All final permit decisions include information on appeal rights. The applicant and any aggrieved party may seek administrative review under IC 13-15-6. 7. As specified in IC 13-15-6-1, no later than 15 days after being served notice of a permit decision, the permit applicant or any other aggrieved person may appeal the permit to the Office of Administrative Law Proceedings. A guidance document with information on the right to appeal is attached as a handout with the final permit decision. Appeals must be submitted as specified in IC 13-15-6-2. If appealed, the hearing/judicial review must be conducted as specified in IC 13-15-6.
EPA has preliminarily determined that the Indiana approach to public participation requirements provides adequate opportunities for public participation in the permitting process sufficient to meet the standard for program approval. The provisions described above meet the three criteria listed at the beginning of this section by providing several means by which documents for draft and final permit determinations are made available for public review and comment, as well as, ensuring that public comments on permit determinations are considered and significant comments are responded to in the permit record.
An adequate permit program must provide the State with the authority to gather information about compliance, perform inspections, and ensure that the information it gathers is suitable for enforcement. The State has authorities and guidelines for inspections, analysis and monitoring, which allow the State to: (1) Verify the accuracy of information submitted by owners or operators of the CCR unit; (2) Verify the adequacy of methods (including sampling) used by owners or operators in developing that information; (3) Produce evidence admissible in an enforcement proceeding; and (4) Receive and ensure proper consideration of information submitted by the public.
In accordance with IC 13-14-2-2, IDEM may have a designated agent (upon presentation of credentials) enter public or private property to inspect for and investigate possible violations of any rule adopted by the board including CCR regulations found at 329 IAC 14. IDEM's inspections include gathering supporting information, records and samples as needed to determine compliance with statutes, and rules. 329 IAC 14-3-6 requires the owner/operator of a CCR unit to comply with all recordkeeping, notification, and posting requirements in 40 CFR 257.105 through 257.107. The commissioner shall establish and administer monitoring and reporting requirements as necessary to require compliance with environmental management laws. IC 13-14-1-13. IDEM has the ability to require an affidavit from the CCR unit owner or operator to accompany any reports. IC 13-14-1-13(b).
IDEM's facility inspections typically include touring the site and reviewing any records required to be kept by law. Copies of records and photographs of the site are taken as needed to demonstrate either compliance with the rules or violation of the rules. IDEM inspectors review records required to be maintained by law and/or by permit to ensure that the records are accurate and include all required information. An inspection report is generated after the inspection and is sent to the facility and uploaded into IDEM's VFC. If needed, IC 13-14-1-2 and IC 13-14-2-2 allow IDEM staff to conduct monitoring or testing to ensure owners are in compliance and to take samples to evaluate compliance with the rules.
IC 13-14-5 specifies requirements for oral and written inspection reports to the facility. Every inspection is documented in a report including written findings and any documents, photos, and samples taken by the inspector to determine compliance with the statutes and rules adopted by the board. Reports of all inspections are placed in IDEM's VFC and are available to the public for review. Any information submitted by the facility after an inspection report is issued will also be placed in IDEM's VFC.
IDEM also conducts complaint inspections based upon complaints received from the public. Complaint inspections typically occur within 30 days of receipt of the complaint and have the same format as the other types of inspections listed above. The inspection report is also placed into VFC for public viewing. IDEM provides the complainant acknowledgement of receipt within 24 hours of receiving the complaint, unless the complainant is anonymous. IDEM notifies the complainant of the inspection findings, unless the complainant is an anonymous complaint.
Accordingly, EPA has preliminarily determined that these compliance monitoring authorities are adequate, and that this aspect of the Indiana CCR permit program meets the standard for program approval.
An adequate State CCR permit program must provide the State with adequate enforcement authority to administer its State CCR permit program, including the authority to: (1) Restrain any person from engaging in activity which may damage human health or the environment, (2) Sue to enjoin prohibited activity, and (3) Sue to
IDEM is statutorily required to seek compliance with standards and rules adopted by the board (IC 13-14-14). IDEM has several methods to achieve compliance and enforcement of Indiana statutes and rules. When noncompliance with statutes and rules including 329 IAC 14 is detected and determined, the department has a variety of enforcement options including:
•
•
•
•
•
The statutes that specify IDEM's enforcement authority are outlined below:
IDEM has authority to restrain immediately and effectively any person by administrative or court order or by suit in a court of competent jurisdiction from engaging in any activity which may endanger or cause damage to human health or the environment. Regarding administrative orders, see IC 13-14-2-7, IC 13-30-3, and IC 4-21.5-4. Regarding suits and court orders, see IC 13-14-2-6 and IC 13-30-4-1(b)(2).
IDEM has authority to sue in a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing activity which violates any statute, regulation, order, or permit which is part of or issued pursuant to the State program. See IC 13-14-2-6 and IC 13-30-4-1(b)(2).
IDEM has authority to sue in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover civil penalties for violations of a statute or regulation which is part of the State program or of an order or permit which is issued pursuant to the State program. See IC 13-14-2-6(2), IC 13-14-2-7(2), and IC 13-30-4-1.
Based on the foregoing, EPA has preliminarily determined that this aspect of the Indiana CCR permit program meets the standard for program approval.
Based on RCRA section 7004, an adequate CCR State permit program must provide an opportunity for citizen intervention in civil enforcement proceedings. Specifically, the State must either: (1) Provide for citizen intervention as a matter of right; or (2) Have in place a process to: (a) Provide notice and opportunity for public involvement in civil enforcement actions, (b) Investigate and provide responses to citizen complaints about violations, and (c) Not oppose citizen intervention when permissive intervention is allowed by statute, rule, or regulation.
Intervention is allowed in any civil action to obtain remedies by any citizen having an interest that is or may be adversely affected. Citizens of Indiana and other enumerated entities may intervene as a party in an administrative proceeding or an action for judicial review upon the filing of a verified pleading that the proceeding or action involves conduct, programs, or products that may have the effect of significantly impairing, polluting, or destroying the environment of Indiana. IC 13-30-1-5. The following parties have the right of intervention via IC 13-30-1-5: (1) The attorney general; (2) A State, city, town, county, or local agency or officer vested with the authority to seek judicial relief; (3) A citizen of Indiana; or (4) A corporation, a limited liability company, a partnership, or an association maintaining an office in Indiana.
Potential intervenors can learn of administrative enforcement proceedings through IDEM's online enforcement database at
In addition, IDEM conducts inspections based upon complaints received from the public. Inspections based on complaints typically occur within 30 days of receipt of the complaint. A complaint inspection has the same format as the other types of inspections listed above with a particular focus on the issues specified in the complaint. The inspection report is also placed into VFC for public viewing.
EPA has preliminarily determined that these authorities provide for an adequate level of citizen involvement in the enforcement process, and that this aspect of the Indiana CCR permit program meets the standard for program approval.
EPA conducted an analysis of the Indiana CCR Permit Program Application, including a thorough analysis of Indiana statutory authorities at IC 13-19-3-3(d) for the CCR program, as well as its regulations at 329 IAC 14. As noted above, Indiana has requested approval of a partial CCR permit program.
IDEM has identified 101 CCR units (14 CCR landfills, 44 CCR surface impoundments, 19 legacy CCR surface impoundments, and 24 potential CCR management units) in Indiana.
EPA has preliminarily determined that the majority of the portions of the Indiana CCR permit program that were submitted for approval meet the standard for approval under RCRA section 4005(d)(1)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B)(i). To make this preliminary determination, EPA compared the technical requirements in the Indiana CCR regulations at 329 IAC 14 to the Federal CCR regulations at 40 CFR part 257 to determine whether they differed from the Federal requirements, and if so, whether those differences met the standard in RCRA sections 4005(d)(1)(B)(ii) and (C), 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(B)(ii) and (C).
Indiana's solid waste program was established in 1971 with the Indiana Refuse Disposal Act. In 1974 the Stream Pollution Control Board Regulation SPC-18 established guidelines for sanitary landfills that included daily cover and leachate management. In 1980, Indiana published its first solid waste management plan as required by RCRA. The plan was later amended in 1991.
IDEM was created by the 1985 Indiana General Assembly. See IC 13-13-1-1. The agency began operating on July 1, 1986. Solid waste management was then regulated under 329 IAC 2 in 1988. In 1996, the Solid Waste Management Board promulgated 329 IAC 10 to replace 329 IAC 2. Article 10 incorporates RCRA Subtitle D standards along with other solid waste requirements for Indiana.
CCR in Indiana have traditionally been regulated under the Restricted Waste Site (RWS) regulations in 329 IAC 10. An RWS is essentially an industrial waste monofill. Many utilities sought to get a permitted RWS for the disposal of their CCR and other waste generated by their facility. Some utilities disposed of all or at least a portion of their CCR as a solid waste in a MSWLF. In addition, many utilities managed all or a portion of their CCR waste in surface impoundments subject to closure requirements at the end of their useful life or upon the impoundment's removal from NPDES permits. The landfills and surface impoundments must meet the requirements of Indiana's current rules.
On February 23, 2017, IDEM submitted the “Indiana Coal Combustion Residuals Part 256 Solid Waste Management Plan Amendment” to EPA for approval. The plan was limited solely to CCR and did not amend or address other parts of Indiana's previously approved solid waste management plans (dated 1980 and 1991). The plan set forth IDEM's plans to modify and expand the scope of Indiana's solid waste regulations to address the requirements of the Federal CCR regulations. The plan also described IDEM's intent to seek authorization to implement a permit program in lieu of federal regulations or a permit program implemented by EPA. An emergency rulemaking was implemented in 2016 to incorporate by reference federal CCR surface impoundment standards as an interim step in regulating CCR facilities until a full update of the regulations could be completed. EPA approved the plan on March 7, 2017.
IDEM began the rulemaking process updating 329 IAC 10 to include CCR after getting approval of its plan in 2017. During the initial stages of rule development it was determined that a new article would be needed, and work on 329 IAC 14 “Coal Combustion Residuals from Electric Utilities and Independent Power Producers” commenced. The rulemaking process continued from 2021 to 2025. All public comments received during the public comment periods of the rulemaking process were reviewed and responded to. The final rule was adopted on December 18, 2025. Pursuant to IC 13-19-3-3(d) and (g), the rule will be effective upon the effective date of the final approval of the Indiana CCR permit program by EPA under 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1).
IDEM is seeking approval of its partial CCR permit program pursuant to RCRA section 4005(d). IDEM's CCR regulations at 329 IAC 14 incorporate by reference 40 CFR part 257, subpart D, as amended through July 1, 2025; however, the Federal CCR regulations have changed since then as a result of the CCR Management Unit Deadline Extension Rule (91 FR 5806, February 10, 2026), and there are certain provisions that were remanded back to the Agency as a result of litigation. Therefore, IDEM is seeking approval of a partial CCR permit program.
The following list identifies amendments to the requirements in 40 CFR part 257, subpart D that were not included in Indiana's application. These provisions will continue to apply directly to, and remain federally enforceable for, each CCR unit in Indiana:
1. Requirements for vegetative cover for slope stability, which were vacated in 2016 and remanded back to EPA in
2. Requirements for suspending groundwater monitoring, which were remanded back to the agency for reconsideration in
3. Requirements for groundwater protection standards for constituents in appendix IV having no MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Level), which were remanded back to the agency for reconsideration in
4. Revisions from the CCR Management Unit Deadline Extension Rule (91 FR 5806, February 10, 2026), which amended certain deadlines related to legacy CCR surface impoundments and CCR management units and made a few technical corrections. This rule amended the
a. 40 CFR 257.75(c)(1), (c)(4), (d)(1), (d)(1)(xii),
b. 40 CFR 257.90(b)(3), (e),
c. 40 CFR 257.95(b)(1)(ii),
d. 40 CFR 257.100(f)(1)(iii)(A), (f)(1)(iii)(A)(
e. 40 CFR 257.101(f)(1),
f. 40 CFR 257.102(b)(2)(iii), (e)(4)(iv), (e)(4)(v), (e)(4)(vi), (e)(4)(vii), (f)(1)(ii), and
g. 40 CFR 257.104(d)(2)(iii).
In addition, IDEM's regulations contain a variance provision not found in the Federal CCR regulations, allowing hardship variances to be granted from compliance with the State's CCR provisions. These provisions are found in 329 IAC 14-1-6, which provides that the commissioner may grant variances from compliance with any requirement of the State's CCR program requirements.
Although RCRA section 4005(d) allows EPA to approve a State program that imposes different requirements than the Federal CCR regulations, the statute expressly requires EPA to determine “that the technical standards established pursuant to a State permit program or other system are at least as protective as” the Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA is required to make such a determination for any variance provision the State seeks to include as part of its Federally approved program. IDEM represented that it intends to limit consideration of variances to State-only provisions not found in the Federal regulations. But the provision does not contain any such limitation. The text says it allows hardship variances “from compliance with this article”, referring to the entirety of Title 329 Article 14, CCR Residuals From Electric Utilities and Independent Power Producers. This is incongruous with the Federal CCR program, which does not provide for hardship variances from the Federal CCR requirements. The language in 329 IAC 14-1-6(b)—“No term, condition, or requirement granted . . . may be less protective than applicable requirements of 40 CFR 257” relates to the impact of a granted variance (
In the absence of EPA approval, no modifications under 329 IAC 14-1-6 would be available for any criteria that EPA
If the State would like to seek approval for a variance process applicable to those provisions that are in addition to or more stringent than an analogue Federal CCR requirement, the State should revise the variance provisions (1) To be expressly applicable only to State-only provisions that are in addition to or more stringent than an analogue Federal CCR requirement, (2) Identify the list of eligible provisions, and (3) Submit this revised information to EPA for review.
EPA has preliminarily determined that the Indiana CCR regulations contain all of the technical elements of the Federal CCR regulations, including requirements for location restrictions, design and operating criteria, groundwater monitoring and corrective action, closure requirements and post-closure care, recordkeeping, notification, and CCR website posting requirements. The Indiana partial CCR permit program also contains State-specific language, references, definitions, and requirements that differ from the Federal CCR regulations, but which EPA has preliminarily determined to be “at least as protective as” the Federal criteria. These State-specific requirements are also discussed further in section V. of the Technical Support Document.
The effect of approving a partial State CCR permit program is that, except for the provisions for which EPA has not granted approval, the Indiana partial CCR permit program will operate in lieu of the Federal CCR regulations. For the State provisions that are not approved upon finalization, the corresponding Federal requirements will continue to apply directly to facilities, and therefore facilities must comply with both the Federal requirements and the State requirements.
The owner, operator, or permittee of a CCR unit that is under construction or otherwise in existence on the effective date of the permit program is required to submit a permit application to IDEM within 180 days of the effective date of the State CCR permit program. 329 IAC 14-2-1, Prior to an effective Indiana CCR Permit Program, IDEM has reviewed and issued closure and post-closure plan approvals for CCR units in accordance with existing State regulations at 329 IAC 10-3-1(9) and 329 IAC 10-9-1(c). The CCR units regulated by the new State Permit Program will be required to apply to the new State permit program and obtain a
Since IDEM has not issued permits under 329 IAC 14, no Indiana permits are part of the permit program record under review. In accordance with RCRA sections 4005(d)(3)(A) and 4005(d)(6), in the absence of a permit issued under an approved State program, the owner or operator of a CCR unit must continue to comply with the Federal CCR regulations until a permit is issued by the State under its Federally approved program. 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(3)(A), (d)(6). Any permits issued after approval will be subject to program review provisions required by RCRA sections 4005(d)(1)(D)(i) and 4005(d)(1)(D)(ii). 42 U.S.C. 6945(d)(1)(D)(i), (ii).
EPA has preliminarily determined that the Indiana partial CCR permit program meets the statutory standard for approval. Therefore, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6945(d), EPA is proposing to approve the Indiana partial CCR permit program.
Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of funding opportunity.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS or the Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is soliciting Letters of Interest (LOI) for loan Applications, announcing the Application process for those loans, and providing deadlines for Applications from eligible entities under the Affordable Rural Cooperative (ARC) Program for fiscal year (FY) 2026. In future years this funding opportunity will only be announced on the Agency website and
September 16, 2026.
Full funding notice is available on
Christopher A. McLean, Assistant Administrator, Electric Program, RUS, RD, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 1568, Washington, DC 20250-1560; Telephone: 202-690-4492; Email:
The full text of the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) is available on the Agency website and on
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that EEPV Corp. (EEPV) did not sell subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), February 1, 2024, through January 31, 2025.
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Catherine Bonilla, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7955.
On May 12, 2026, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) published the
The merchandise covered by the
For these final results, we determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period, February 1, 2024, through January 31, 2025.
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of a public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Because the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or
Pursuant to a refinement to Commerce's assessment practice, where sales of subject merchandise that was produced or exported by EEPV were not reported in the U.S. sales data, but the merchandise was entered for consumption into the United States during the POR, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any entries of such merchandise at the all-others rate (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for EEPV will be zero, the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by a company not covered in this administrative review but covered in a completed prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or completed prior segment of this proceeding but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 19.50 percent, the rate established in the original investigation of this proceeding.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on affirmative final determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Commerce is issuing antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on L-lysine (lysine) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Jerry Xiao (AD) at (202) 482-2273; or Grant Fuller (CVD) at (202) 482-6228, AD/CVD Operations, Offices II and IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
In accordance with sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on July 23, 2026, Commerce published its affirmative final determination of sales at less than fair value (LTFV) of lysine from China and its affirmative final determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of lysine from China.
On September 2, 2026, pursuant to sections 705(d) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of dumped imports of lysine from China, and subsidized imports of lysine from China, within the meaning of sections
The products covered by these orders are lysine from China. For a complete description of the scope of the orders,
On September 2, 2026, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of imports of lysine from China that are sold in the United States at LTFV.
Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise on all relevant entries of lysine from China. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of lysine entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 6, 2026, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 736 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation and continue the suspension of liquidation, as applicable, on all relevant entries of lysine from China, effective on September 8, 2026, the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins indicated in the tables below, adjusted by the relevant subsidy offsets. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
The estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Section 773(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request that Commerce extend the four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of lysine from China, Commerce extended the four-month period to six months.
In the underlying investigation, Commerce published the
As stated above, on September 2, 2026, the ITC notified Commerce of its final determination that an industry is materially injured within the meaning of section 705(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of lysine from China.
Therefore, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, Commerce will direct CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all relevant entries of lysine from China, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 22, 2026, the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 706 of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation and continue the suspension of liquidation, as applicable, on all relevant entries of lysine from China, effective on September 9, 2026, the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination in the
Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts indicated in the tables below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication in the
These instructions suspending liquidation and cash deposit requirements will remain in effect until further notice.
The estimated CVD subsidy rates, as published in Commerce's
Section 703(d) of the Act states that suspension of liquidation pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Commerce published the
Therefore, in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act and our practice, Commerce will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to countervailing duties, unliquidated entries of lysine from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 22, 2026, the first day provisional measures were no longer in effect, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the
On September 20, 2021, Commerce published the
In accordance with the
Interested parties who wish to be added to the annual inquiry service list for an order must submit an entry of appearance to the annual inquiry service list segment for the order in ACCESS within 30 days after the date of publication of the order. For ease of administration, Commerce requests that law firms with more than one attorney representing interested parties in an order designate a lead attorney to be included on the annual inquiry service list. Commerce will finalize the annual inquiry service list within five business days thereafter. As mentioned in the
Commerce may update an annual inquiry service list at any time as needed based on interested parties' amendments to their entries of appearance to remove or otherwise modify their list of members and representatives, or to update contact information. Any changes or announcements pertaining to these procedures will be posted to the ACCESS website.
In the
This notice constitutes the AD and CVD orders with respect to lysine from China, pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of AD and CVD orders currently in effect at
These orders are published in accordance with sections 706(a) and 736(a) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.211(b).
The scope of these orders covers animal feed grade L-lysine (lysine). Lysine is an essential amino acid added to animal feed that is used in the biosynthesis of proteins. The scope covers lysine regardless of form, including lysine monohydrochloride, also
Lysine HCL in the dry form has the molecular formula C6H14N2O2HCl. The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number for lysine HCL is 657-27-2. Lysine HCL contains a minimum of 78 percent lysine by weight, as well as additional amino acids, carbohydrates, mineral salts, and organic acids. Lysine sulfate is the sulfate salt of lysine, and in the dry form it has the molecular formula C6H16N2O6S. The CAS registry number for lysine sulfate is 60343-69-3. Lysine sulfate typically contains approximately 40-70 percent lysine by weight, as well as additional amino acids, carbohydrates, mineral salts, and organic acids. Liquid lysine is a concentrated form of lysine in an aqueous solution with the molecular formula C6H14N2O2. The CAS registry number for liquid lysine is 56-87-1. Liquid lysine normally contains at least 50 percent lysine by weight, as well as additional amino acids, carbohydrates, mineral salts, and organic acids.
The scope includes animal feed grade lysine that is combined with other products, including for example, by mixing, blending, compounding, or granulating (
Subject merchandise also includes lysine that has been processed in a third country, including by commingling, diluting, adding or removing additives, refining, converting from liquid to dry or dry to liquid form, coating or encapsulating, or performing any processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of these orders if performed in the subject country.
The merchandise covered by these orders is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2922.41.0090. Lysine may also be classified under HTSUS subheadings 2922.41.0010, 2922.49.4950, 2309.90.7000, and 2309.90.9500. Although the HTSUS subheadings and the CAS registry numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that chlorinated isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China (China) were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Dan Alexander, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4313.
On June 24, 2005, Commerce published the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates from China in the
Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days.
For a complete description of the events that occurred following the initiation of this administrative review,
The products covered by the
As noted above, we initiated this review with respect to four companies.
Under Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity,
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because China is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, normal value has been calculated in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
In the
As stated above, Commerce preliminarily determines that Heze Huayi and Kangtai have established their eligibility for a separate rate, and that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR, June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties 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).
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
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 within 30 days after the 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 issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Upon issuing the final results of this review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For each individually examined respondent in this review whose weighted-average dumping margin in the final results of review is not zero or
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or
As provided in section 782(i)(3) of the Act, Commerce intends to verify the information relied upon in its final results.
Unless extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
This notice also serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the Lao People's
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412.
On April 28, 2026, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
The products covered by this investigation are solar cells from Laos. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In the Preliminary Scope Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (
Commerce conducted verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation, as provided in section 782(i) of the Act. Specifically, in May 2026, we conducted on-site verification of the data reported by Solarspace, using standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and accounting records.
The issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
In the
Based on our review and analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Solarspace. For a discussion of these changes,
We received comments on the separate rate status of certain companies in this investigation. For a discussion of these comments,
Solarspace is the only individually examined respondent in this investigation, and Commerce calculated an estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Solarspace that is not zero,
Additionally, because we preliminarily found that the Laos-wide entity cooperated in this investigation, we preliminarily assigned the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Solarpsace as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for the Laos-wide entity. No party commented on our preliminary finding with respect to the Laos-wide entity. Therefore, we continue to assign the estimated weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Solarspace to the Laos-wide entity.
Consistent with the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations and analysis performed in this final determination to interested parties 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).
In accordance with section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after April 28, 2026, the date of publication of the
To determine the cash deposit rate, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the amount of domestic subsidy pass-through and export subsidies determined in a companion countervailing duty (CVD) proceeding when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce makes an affirmative determination for domestic subsidy pass-through or export subsidies, Commerce offsets the calculated estimated weighted-average dumping margin by the appropriate rates.
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue an antidumping duty order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 736(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above, in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the producer/exporter combinations listed in the table above will be the rate identified in the table; (2) for all combinations of Laotian producers/exporters of subject merchandise that have not established eligibility for their own separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the Laos-wide entity; and (3) for all third country exporters of subject merchandise not listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the Laotian producer/exporter combination (or Laos-wide entity) that supplied that third-country exporter.
If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this investigation is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of solar cells from Laos no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that such material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, all cash deposits posted will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
This investigation covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the investigation.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the investigation are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of the investigation: off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel; (B) a surface area of less than 5,000 square centimeters (cm
Additionally excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 180 watts per panel at 155 degrees Celsius; (B) a surface area of less than 16,000 square centimeters (cm
Further excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Small off-grid panels with glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) surface area from 3,450 mm
Additionally excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 175 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 9,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics, (A) a total power output of 220 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics:
(1) a total power output of 20 watts or less per panel;
(2) a maximum surface area of 1,000 cm
(3) does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in a subject country are covered by the investigation; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in a subject country from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the investigation.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Merchandise covered by the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8541.42.0010 and 8541.43.0010. Imports of the subject merchandise may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8501.71.0000, 8501.72.1000, 8501.72.2000, 8501.72.3000, 8501.72.9000, 8501.80.1000, 8501.80.2000, 8501.80.3000, 8501.80.9000, 8507.20.8010, 8507.20.8031, 8507.20.8041, 8507.20.8061, and 8507.20.8091. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the Lao People's Democratic Republic (Laos). The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Shane Subler or Laurel Smalley, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6241 and (202) 482-3456, respectively.
On February 26, 2026, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that followed the
The products covered by this investigation are solar cells from Laos. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In the Preliminary Scope Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in June 2026, Commerce conducted verification of the information relied upon in making the final determination in this investigation. Specifically, we conducted on-site verifications of the subsidy information reported by the Government of Laos (GOL) and mandatory respondent Solarspace Technology Sole CO LTD (Solarspace Laos).
The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by interested parties and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
In making this final determination, Commerce relied in part on facts otherwise available, including with adverse inferences, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For a full discussion of our application of adverse facts available,
Commerce preliminarily determined, in accordance with section 703(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), that critical circumstances did not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from mandatory respondent Vietnam Sunergy Joint Stock Company (VSUN), Solarspace Laos, and all other producers and/or exporters not individually examined.
For this final determination, pursuant to section 705(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we are continuing to find that critical circumstances do not exist for Solarspace Laos. However, pursuant to section 705(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we are finding that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports from VSUN and all other producers and/or exporters. For a full description of the methodology, changes to the
Based on our review and analysis of the information received during verification and comments received from interested parties, for the final determination, we made certain changes to the subsidy rate calculations for Solarspace Laos, VSUN, and all other producers and/or exporters of subject merchandise. For a discussion of these changes,
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for the participating mandatory respondent, Solarspace Laos. In addition, we have determined a subsidy rate for VSUN entirely under section 776(b)(1) of the Act.
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this final determination within five days of any public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of the publication of this notice in the
As a result of our
With respect to VSUN and all others, section 703(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. The
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Pursuant to section 705(c)(2) of the Act, if the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited, or securities posted, as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of solar cells from Laos. Because the final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of solar cells from Laos. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a countervailing order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed in the “Suspension of Liquidation” section,
This notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
This investigation covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of this investigation.
Excluded from the scope of this investigation are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Additionally, excluded from the scope of this investigation are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are:
(1) Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of the investigation: off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel; (B) a surface area of less than 5,000 square centimeters (cm
Additionally excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 180 watts per panel at 155 degrees Celsius; (B) a surface area of less than 16,000 square centimeters (cm
Further excluded from the scope of this investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Small off-grid panels with glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) surface area from 3,450 mm
Additionally excluded from the scope of this investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 175 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 9,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics, (A) a total power output of 220 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics:
(1) a total power output of 20 watts or less per panel;
(2) a maximum surface area of 1,000 cm
(3) does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in a subject country are covered by the investigation; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in a subject country from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the investigation.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8541.42.0010 and 8541.43.0010. Imports of the subject merchandise may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8501.71.0000, 8501.72.1000, 8501.72.2000, 8501.72.3000, 8501.72.9000, 8501.80.1000, 8501.80.2000, 8501.80.3000, 8501.80.9000, 8507.20.8010, 8507.20.8031, 8507.20.8041, 8507.20.8061, and 8507.20.8091. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.
This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). On December 2, 2025, August 12, 2026 and August 20, 2026, the Department of Commerce published a notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) from India. The period of investigation is April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025.
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Jinny Ahn or Amber Hodak, 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) 482-0339 or (202) 482-8034, respectively.
On February 26, 2026, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
The product covered by this investigation is solar cells from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In the Preliminary Scope Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (
In the
Because the mandatory respondents, Mundra Solar Energy Ltd. (Mundra Solar Energy) and Mundra Solar PV Limited (Mundra Solar PV), did not participate in this investigation, Commerce did not conduct verification.
The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by parties, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
Based on our review of comments received from parties, for this final determination, we made certain changes to the selection of the rates for Mundra Solar Energy and Mundra Solar PV and all other producers/exporters. For a discussion of these changes,
Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that Commerce shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and
Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, if the individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero,
In this investigation, Commerce has determined the subsidy rate for the individually examined respondents under section 776 of the Act. This is the only rate available in this proceeding for deriving the all-others rate. Consequently, as a reasonable method, pursuant to sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, Commerce established the all-others rate by applying the countervailable subsidy rate assigned to Mundra Solar Energy and Mundra Solar PV, the mandatory respondents in this investigation, as determined under section 776 of the Act.
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period, April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025:
Commerce normally discloses the calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Pursuant to section 705(c)(2) of the Act,
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and/or exporters of solar cells from India. Because the final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will determine, within 45 days, whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of solar cells from India. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
This investigation covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the investigation.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the investigation are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of the investigation: off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel; (B) a surface area of less than 5,000 square centimeters (cm
Additionally excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor
Further excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Small off-grid panels with glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) surface area from 3,450 mm
Additionally excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 175 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 9,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics, (A) a total power output of 220 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics:
(1) a total power output of 20 watts or less per panel;
(2) a maximum surface area of 1,000 cm
(3) does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in a subject country are covered by the investigation; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in a subject country from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the investigation.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Merchandise covered by the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8541.42.0010 and 8541.43.0010. Imports of the subject merchandise may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8501.71.0000, 8501.72.1000, 8501.72.2000, 8501.72.3000, 8501.72.9000, 8501.80.1000, 8501.80.2000, 8501.80.3000, 8501.80.9000, 8507.20.8010, 8507.20.8031, 8507.20.8041, 8507.20.8061, and 8507.20.8091. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) from Indonesia during the period of investigation (POI), January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Ted Pearson and Gemma Larsen, 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) 482-2631 and (202) 482-8125, respectively.
On February 26, 2026, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that followed the
The product covered by this investigation is solar cells from Indonesia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In the Preliminary Scope Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (
Commerce conducted verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Act. Specifically, we conducted on-site verifications of the subsidy information reported by PT Blue Sky Solar Indonesia (Blue Sky), PT REC Solar Energy Indonesia (REC Solar), and the Government of Indonesia (GOI) in April and May of 2026, using standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and accounting records, and original source documents provided at verification.
The subsidy programs under investigation, and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation, are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues raised by parties, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
Commerce conducted this investigation in accordance with section 701 the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce determines that there is a subsidy,
In the
Based on our review and analysis of the information received during verification and comments received from parties, for this final determination, we made certain changes to the countervailable subsidy rate calculations for Blue Sky, REC Solar, and for all other producers/exporters. For a discussion of these changes,
Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce will determine an all-others rate equal to the weighted-average countervailable subsidy rates established for those exporters and/or producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
Commerce determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this final determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
As a result of our
If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a countervailing duty (CVD) order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. Pursuant to section 705(c)(2) of the Act, if the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.
In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of solar cells from Indonesia. Because the final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 705(b) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of solar cells from Indonesia no later than 45 days after this final determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue a CVD order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, countervailing duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
This investigation covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the investigation.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the investigation are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of the investigation: off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel; (B) a surface area of less than 5,000 square centimeters (cm
Additionally excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 180 watts per panel at 155 degrees Celsius; (B) a surface area of less than 16,000 square centimeters (cm
Further excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Small off-grid panels with glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) surface area from 3,450 mm
Additionally excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 175 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 9,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics, (A) a total power output of 220 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics:
(1) a total power output of 20 watts or less per panel;
(2) a maximum surface area of 1,000 cm
(3) does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in a subject country are covered by the investigation; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in a subject country from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the investigation.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Merchandise covered by the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8541.42.0010 and 8541.43.0010. Imports of the subject merchandise may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8501.71.0000, 8501.72.1000, 8501.72.2000, 8501.72.3000, 8501.72.9000, 8501.80.1000, 8501.80.2000, 8501.80.3000, 8501.80.9000, 8507.20.8010, 8507.20.8031, 8507.20.8041, 8507.20.8061, and 8507.20.8091. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On September 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in
Applicable September 14, 2026.
Ian Riggs, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3810.
On March 7, 2024, Commerce published its
The Wind Tower Trade Coalition (the petitioner) appealed Commerce's
In its final remand redetermination, issued on February 27, 2026, Commerce reconsidered its decision to accept Dongkuk's reported conversion costs and recalculated Dongkuk's indirect conversion costs, while further explaining its basis for accepting Dongkuk's direct conversion costs.
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its
Because Dongkuk has a superseding cash deposit rate,
At this time, Commerce remains enjoined by CIT order from liquidating entries that: were produced and exported by Dongkuk, and were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 1, 2021, through July 31, 2022. These entries will remain enjoined pursuant to the terms of the injunction during the pendency of any appeals process.
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed, or, if appealed, upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise produced and exported by Dongkuk in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) from Indonesia are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025.
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Myrna Lobo, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2371.
On April 28, 2026, Commerce published the
For a complete description of the events that occurred since the
The products covered by this investigation are solar cells from Indonesia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In the Preliminary Scope Memorandum, we set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (
Commerce conducted verification of the information relied upon in making its final determination in this investigation, in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Specifically, Commerce conducted on-site verification of the sales and cost information submitted by PT REC Solar Energy Indonesia (REC Solar).
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. For a list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum,
We made certain changes since the Preliminary Determination. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Consistent with the
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero,
In the
In accordance with section 735(a)(3) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce has made a final determination regarding critical circumstances. As a result of our application of AFA, we find that critical circumstances exist for imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia produced and/or exported by Blue Sky and REC Solar.
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final determination in the
In accordance with section 735(c)(4)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of solar cells, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption 90 days prior to April 28, 2026, which is the date of publication of the
Pursuant to sections 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed in the table above that exported the subject merchandise will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margins determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a company identified in the table above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters listed in the table above. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of solar cells from Indonesia no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, all cash deposits posted will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an AD order
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This final determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
This investigation covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the investigations.
Excluded from the scope of the investigations are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the investigation are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of the investigation: off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel; (B) a surface area of less than 5,000 square centimeters (cm
Additionally excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 180 watts per panel at 155 degrees Celsius; (B) a surface area of less than 16,000 square centimeters (cm
Further excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Small off-grid panels with glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) surface area from 3,450 mm
Additionally excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 175 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 9,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics, (A) a total power output of 220 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics:
(1) a total power output of 20 watts or less per panel;
(2) a maximum surface area of 1,000 cm
(3) does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in a subject country are covered by the investigations; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in a subject country from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the investigations.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Merchandise covered by the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8541.42.0010 and 8541.43.0010. Imports of the subject merchandise may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8501.71.0000, 8501.72.1000, 8501.72.2000, 8501.72.3000, 8501.72.9000, 8501.80.1000, 8501.80.2000, 8501.80.3000, 8501.80.9000, 8507.20.8010, 8507.20.8031, 8507.20.8041, 8507.20.8061, and 8507.20.8091. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the investigations is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Dalmine S.p.A. (Dalmine) made sales of subject merchandise at prices below normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR). The POR is June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025.
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Colin Thrasher, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3004.
On May 14, 2026, Commerce published in the
The product covered by this
As discussed in the
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of the final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Commerce will instruct CBP to apply an
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of cold-drawn mechanical tubing from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Dalmine will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in these final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will continue to be the all-others rate (
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return, or destruction, of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain producers/exporters of sodium nitrite from India subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2024, through January 31, 2025. Additionally, Commerce is rescinding this administrative review with respect to certain companies.
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Brendan Quinn, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5848.
On May 13, 2026, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the
In the
The Act does not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. However, 19 CFR 351.109(g) states that Commerce will determine the rate for non-selected companies by applying the methodology set forth in 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1)-(2), which generally parallels the methodology for determining the all-others rate in an investigation under section 735(c)(5) of the Act. Under 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1) and section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “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
For the final results, we have calculated a dumping margin of zero percent for DNL, the sole respondent individually examined. Therefore, there are no non-zero weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually examined in this POR. In the
As a result of this review, we determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period February 1, 2024, through January 31, 2025:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where the respondent reported the entered value of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for each importer's examined sales and the total entered value of those same sales. Where the respondent did not report entered value, we calculated a per-unit assessment rate for each importer by dividing the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales made to that importer by the total quantity associated with those sales. To determine whether an importer-specific, per-unit assessment rate is
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by DNL for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (
For the non-examined companies, we intend to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at a rate equal to the weighted-average dumping margin determined in these final results of review.
For the companies listed above for which this review is being rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed on entries at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for subject merchandise exported by the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin that is established in the final results of this review; (2) for subject merchandise exported by previously investigated or reviewed companies not covered in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which the company participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will continue to be 42.76 percent, the all-others rate established in the
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells) from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025.
Applicable September 16, 2026.
Jonathan Schueler or Noah Wetzel, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9175 or (202) 482-7466, respectively.
On April 28, 2026, Commerce published the
The products covered by this investigation are solar cells from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
During the course of this investigation, Commerce received scope comments from interested parties. Commerce issued a Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum to address these comments and set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in scope specific case and rebuttal briefs.
Because the mandatory respondents in this investigation did not provide information requested by Commerce, Commerce did not conduct a verification.
In this final determination, consistent with the
We continue to find that critical circumstances exist for imports of the subject merchandise from India produced and/or exported by Mundra Solar Energy, Mundra Solar PV, Kowa, and Premier Energies pursuant to sections 735(a)(3)(A) and (B) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.206 and that critical circumstances do not exist for all other exporters and producers of the subject merchandise.
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act and Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.109(f)(1) provide that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually investigated shall be equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero,
In the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a final 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). However, because we made no changes from the
Because Commerce continues to find that critical circumstances exist with respect to Mundra Solar Energy, Mundra Solar PV, Kowa, and Premier Energies, pursuant to section 735(c)(4)(A) of the Act, suspension of liquidation will continue with respect to all applicable entries of subject merchandise from Mundra Solar Energy, Mundra Solar PV, Kowa, and Premier Energies, as described in the appendix of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 28, 2026, which is 90 days before the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B), Commerce will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise from all other companies, as described in the appendix to this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after April 28, 2026, the date of publication of the
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), upon the publication of this notice, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit for estimated antidumping duties for such entries of merchandise, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
To determine the cash deposit rates in an LTFV investigation, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margins by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in the companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a final affirmative determination of countervailable export subsides, Commerce offsets the estimated weighted average dumping margins in the LTFV investigation by the appropriate export subsidy rate from the companion CVD investigation.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this investigation is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of solar cells from India no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded or canceled, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the section, “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation.”
This notice will serve as the final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials.
This investigation covers crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells of thickness equal to or greater than 20 micrometers, having a p/n junction formed by any means, whether or not the cell has undergone other processing, including, but not limited to, cleaning, etching, coating, and/or addition of materials (including, but not limited to, metallization and conductor patterns) to collect and forward the electricity that is generated by the cell.
Merchandise under consideration may be described at the time of importation as parts for final finished products that are assembled after importation, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, building-integrated modules, building integrated panels, or other finished goods kits. Such parts that otherwise meet the definition of merchandise under consideration are included in the scope of the investigation.
Excluded from the scope of the investigation are thin film photovoltaic products produced from amorphous silicon (a-Si), cadmium telluride (CdTe), or copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS).
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, not exceeding 10,000 mm
Additionally, excluded from the scope of the investigation are panels with surface area from 3,450 mm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 100 watts or less per panel; (B) a maximum surface area of 8,000 cm
In addition, the following CSPV panels are excluded from the scope of the investigation: off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 80 watts per panel; (B) a surface area of less than 5,000 square centimeters (cm
Additionally excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (1) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel; (2) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels in rigid form with a glass cover, with each of the following physical characteristics, whether or not assembled into a fully completed off-grid hydropanel whose function is conversion of water vapor into liquid water: (A) a total power output of no more than 180 watts per panel at 155 degrees Celsius; (B) a surface area of less than 16,000 square centimeters (cm
Further excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Off-grid small portable crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels, with or without a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 200 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 10,500 cm
(2) Small off-grid panels with glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) surface area from 3,450 mm
Additionally excluded from the scope of the investigation are:
(1) Off grid rigid CSPV panels with a glass cover, with the following characteristics: (A) a total power output of 175 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 9,000 cm
(2) Off grid CSPV panels without a glass cover, with the following characteristics, (A) a total power output of 220 watts or less per panel, (B) a maximum surface area of 16,000 cm
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are off-grid CSPV panels in rigid form, with or without a glass cover, permanently attached to an aluminum extrusion that is an integral component of an automation device that controls natural light, whether or not assembled into a fully completed automation device that controls natural light, with the following characteristics:
(1) a total power output of 20 watts or less per panel;
(2) a maximum surface area of 1,000 cm
(3) does not include a built-in inverter for powering third party devices.
Modules, laminates, and panels produced in a third-country from cells produced in a subject country are covered by the investigation; however, modules, laminates, and panels produced in a subject country from cells produced in a third-country are not covered by the investigation.
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Also excluded from the scope of this investigation are all products covered by the scope of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on
Merchandise covered by the investigation is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff System of the United States (HTSUS) under subheadings 8541.42.0010 and 8541.43.0010. Imports of the subject merchandise may enter under HTSUS subheadings 8501.71.0000, 8501.72.1000, 8501.72.2000, 8501.72.3000, 8501.72.9000, 8501.80.1000, 8501.80.2000, 8501.80.3000, 8501.80.9000, 8507.20.8010, 8507.20.8031, 8507.20.8041, 8507.20.8061, and 8507.20.8091. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Department of Defense (DoD).
Rescindment of a system of records notice.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the OSD is providing notice to rescind a system of records (SORN) titled “Commercial Travel Information Management System (CTIM),” DHRA 14 DoD. The CTIM was established as a repository to collect, maintain, and use DoD travel records from both the Defense Travel System (DTS) and commercial travel vendors. This centralized system is used to satisfy reporting requirements, ensure traveler safety, assist in resource planning, detect fraud, and provide customer support for all DoD official travel-related services.
The rescindment of this SORNs is effective September 16, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by either of the following methods:
*
*
Samuel Peterson, DHRA Component Privacy Officer, 400 Gigling Rd, Rm DODC-MB 7028, Seaside, CA 93955,
The Commercial Travel Information Management System, DHRA 14 DoD (September 23, 2020, 85 FR 59759) was established as a repository to collect, maintain, and use DoD travel records from both the DTS and commercial travel vendors. This centralized system is used to satisfy reporting requirements, ensure traveler safety, assist in resource planning, detect fraud, and provide customer support for all DoD official travel-related services. The OSD is rescinding DHRA 14 DoD Commercial Travel Information Management System (CTIM) because the records are covered under the Defense Travel System, DHRA 08 DoD.
DoD SORN have been published in the
Under the Privacy Act, a “system of records” is a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, DoW has provided a report of this rescindment to OMB and Congress.
Commercial Travel Information Management System (CTIM), DHRA 14 DoD.
September 23, 2020, 85 FR 59759.
Office of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee closed meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group will take place.
900 SAC Boulevard, Offutt AFB, Nebraska 68113.
Mr. Derrick J. Besse, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), (402) 912-0322 (Voice),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act or FACA), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 16, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Matthew Soldner, Acting Commissioner, National Center for Education Statistics,
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This request is to revise contacting materials associated with 2027-28 PSS frame-development activities (see: “Appendix A-C PSS 2025-2028 Communications Materials v.16rev” in this docket) and to extend the expiration date of the collection to May 31, 2028. Additional information about the currently approved collection can be found at
On April 15, 2026, NCES published a notice in the
As of May 2025, NCES's assurances of confidentiality protections for PSS 2025-26 have changed due to staffing changes at the Department of Education. NCES has removed the Foundations of Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, Title III, Part B, Confidential Information Protection (“CIPSEA”) as a confidentiality assurance. However, confidentiality assurances under the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA) remain in effect. NCES will consider restoring CIPSEA protections for future PSS collections as appropriate.
On September 8, 2026, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, in conjunction with the above captioned project on August 27, 2026. Pursuant to section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,
If Maine DEP fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
On September 8, 2026, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP) submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) notice that it received a request for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification as defined in 40 CFR 121.5, from Great Lakes Hydro America, LLC, in conjunction with the above captioned project on August 27, 2026. Pursuant to section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,
If Maine DEP fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
On June 15, 2026, Southeast Supply Header, LLC (SESH) filed an application in Docket No. CP26-543-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to install, replace, modify, and operate certain natural gas compressor station facilities. The proposed project is known as the Tupelo Trail Project (Project) and would provide up to 110,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to the Plant Daniel electric generation facility in Jackson County, Mississippi.
On June 30, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
SESH proposes to install, replace, modify, and operate compression facilities and related appurtenances at existing compressor stations in George and Jefferson Davis Counties, Mississippi, and Richland Parish, Louisiana. The Tupelo Trail Project would consist of the following activities:
• installing a new compressor unit powered by a 23,470-horsepower Titan 130 natural gas turbine and related appurtenances at the existing Lucedale Compressor Station in George County, Mississippi;
• replacing an existing compressor with a new compressor at the Lucedale Compressor Station;
• replacing the existing engine on Compressor Unit 2 at the Gwinville Compressor Station in Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi;
• uprating compressor units and increasing compression at the Delhi, Gwinville, and Lucedale Compressor Stations by modifying software controls that limit horsepower;
• and performing associated appurtenant activities.
On July 22, 2026, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. 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
Additional information about the Project is available from the FERC website (
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-555: Preservation of Records for Public Utilities and Licensees, Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Companies (OMB Control No. 1902-0098) which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a review of the information collection requirements. There are no proposed changes to the record keeping requirements. The 60-day notice period ended on September 8, 2026, with no comments received.
Comments on the collection of information are due October 16, 2026.
Send written comments on FERC-555 to OMB through
Please submit a copy of your comments to the Commission via email to
•
•
Kayla Williams, (202) 502-6468.
The regulations for preservation of records at 18 CFR parts 125, 225, and 356 establish retention periods and other requirements for applicable records. These requirements apply to the public utilities, licensees, natural gas companies, and oil pipeline companies that are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. In general, FERC's regulations require jurisdictional companies to maintain the following types of records:
• Corporate;
• Information Technology Management;
• General Accounting;
• Personnel and Payroll;
• Transportation;
• Tariffs and Rates;
• Insurance;
• Operations and Maintenance;
• Plant and Depreciation;
• Purchase and Stores;
• Revenue Accounting and Collection;
• Tax;
• Treasury; and
• Miscellaneous.
Regulated entities use these records as the basis for required rate filings and reports to the Commission. The Commission's audit staff may use the records during compliance reviews, and the Commission's enforcement staff may use the information during investigations. In addition, the Commission's staff may use the records for special analyses on subjects such as jurisdictional entities' responses to extreme weather events.
On May 28, 2026, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) filed an application in Docket No. CP26-534-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to
On June 9, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Northern proposes to construct and operate approximately 16.2 miles of interstate, natural gas transmission pipeline and associated facilities, and a new compressor station, in Lea County, New Mexico and Gaines County, Texas. Northern also proposes to modify facilities within the fence line of the existing Plains Compressor Station in Yoakum County, Texas.
On July 8, 2026, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. 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
Additional information about the Project is available from the FERC website (
The staff of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requires additional environmental analysis to support its decision on a right-of-way (ROW) application for the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project No. 14787 (Seminoe Project). BLM staff, in cooperation with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) staff, will prepare a supplement (supplemental EIS) to the June 12, 2026 final environmental impact statement for the Seminoe Project. The supplemental EIS will supplement discussions of the environmental impacts of the proposed BLM ROW application associated with the Seminoe Project. Additionally, the BLM will discuss and analyze amending components of the Rawlins Resource Management Plan (RMP), listed in the Alternatives Considered section of this notice. The Seminoe Project would be located at the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Seminoe Reservoir on the North Platte River in Carbon County, Wyoming, approximately 35 miles northeast of Rawlins, Wyoming.
As part of the NEPA review process, the BLM and Commission take into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result whenever it considers the issuance of a project. This gathering of public input is referred to
With this notice, the BLM is announcing the beginning of the scoping period to solicit public comments and identify issues and is providing the planning criteria for public review. The BLM Wyoming State Director intends to prepare an RMP Amendment (RMPA) with an associated supplemental EIS for the Rawlins Resource Management Plan. The RMPA is being considered to allow the BLM to evaluate the ROW associated with the Seminoe Pumped Storage Project, which would require amending the existing Rawlins RMP.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, 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 (P-14787-004) 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, Maryland 20852.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
On January 18, 2023, rPlus Hydro, LLLP, on behalf of Black Canyon Hydro, LLC (BCH), filed an application pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act,
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide a new source of hydroelectric power and energy storage to the existing electricity grid and provide ancillary services to the electrical grid for grid reliability and grid stabilization. BCH has applied for a ROW with the BLM for components of the proposed project located on BLM-administered public lands. The BLM needs to respond to the ROW application and determine whether to approve the ROW, and if so, under what terms and conditions. Additionally, the BLM needs to analyze the effects to socioeconomic, aquatic, and recreation resources and consider an RMPA to adequately address management of Visual Resource Management and Big Game Crucial Ranges under the proposed project.
The planning criteria guide the planning effort and lay the groundwork for effects analysis by identifying the preliminary issues and their analytical frameworks. Preliminary issues for the planning area have been identified by BLM personnel and from early engagement conducted for this planning effort with Federal, State, and local agencies; Tribes; and other stakeholders. The BLM has identified the following preliminary issues for this planning and NEPA effort's analysis:
•
•
•
•
•
The supplemental EIS will present BLM's independent analysis of the issues. The Commission and the following other entities will cooperate with BLM in preparing the supplemental EIS: Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the Western Area Power Administration, the Saratoga-Encampment-Rawlins Conservation District, the Medicine Bow Conservation District, and the Board of Carbon County Commissioners.
Per 43 CFR 1610.2(e), a draft supplemental EIS would be issued for a 90-day comment period. Any draft and final supplemental EIS will be available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary.
The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with the NEPA and land use planning processes, including a 90-day comment period (per 43 CFR 1610.2(e)) on the Draft RMPA and supplemental EIS and will provide a concurrent 30-day public protest period and 60-day Governor's consistency review on the Proposed RMPA. BLM anticipates the Proposed RMPA and final supplemental EIS will be available for public protest of the Proposed RMPA Summer 2027 with an Approved RMPA and Record of Decision.
As part of the review in the supplement EIS, BLM staff will consider a range of reasonable alternatives that are technically and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. Alternatives that do not meet these requirements will be summarized and dismissed from further consideration in the supplemental EIS document.
The BLM will incorporate by reference the action alternatives from the Seminoe Project final EIS that cover the BLM ROW application. In its description of the proposed action, the BLM may describe additional design features from the ROW application. The alternatives may consider additional mitigation measures to protect BLM-administered public lands and land users.
The BLM will consider amending land use plan decisions, allocations, and management direction to adequately address management of Visual Resource Management and Big Game Crucial Ranges.
The alternatives BLM is considering may be expanded based on the comments received, provided they meet the required criteria. With this notice, BLM asks commenters to identify other potential reasonable alternatives for consideration.
This Notice of Intent identifies the planned schedule for completion of the draft and final supplemental EISs for the project, which is based on an issuance of the draft supplemental EIS on January 14, 2026, opening a 90-day public comment period.
The project is covered under Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41). Under FAST-41, agencies are to publish completion dates for all federal environmental reviews and authorizations. This notice identifies the Commission's anticipated schedule for issuance of the final order for the project, which is based on the revised issuance date for the final supplemental EIS. We currently anticipate issuing the final order for the project no later than:
Additional information about the project is available on the FERC website at
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Michael Tust at (202) 502-6522 or
On June 22, 2026, Vinton Dome Storage Hub, LLC (Vinton Dome) filed an application in Docket No. CP26-544-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct a new natural gas storage facility in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana as part of the Vinton Dome Storage Hub Project (Project). Via the proposed Project, Vinton Dome would construct a natural gas storage facility designed for the injection and storage of natural gas in underground solution-mined salt caverns and the withdrawal of stored natural gas for delivery to interstate natural gas transmission pipelines. The storage facility would be supplied by four 24-inch-diameter, new bidirectional natural gas pipelines that would interconnect with existing and planned interstate gas transmission pipelines owned and operated by others. Vinton Dome states the facility would provide a total underground storage capacity of approximately 63.5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas, with a working gas capacity of 44.5 Bcf.
On June 30, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The Vinton Dome Storage Hub Project would consist of the following facilities:
• five salt dome storage caverns, each 8.9 Bcf in working gas capacity and 3.8 Bcf in bas capacity for a total per cavern capacity of 12.7 Bcf;
• six raw groundwater withdrawal and six class II brine disposal wells, including associated pumping and pipeline systems;
• one cavern leaching plant;
• one 55,000-horsepower (hp) compressor station with 10 Caterpillar 3616 natural gas driven reciprocating compressor engines at 5,500 hp per unit, with appurtenant and auxiliary equipment;
• a northern header system, consisting of approximately 16.02-mile-long dual 24-inch-diameter, bidirectional natural gas pipelines and six interconnects with other interstate gas transmission pipelines with metering and regulation stations;
• and an eastern header system, consisting of approximately 16.27-mile-long dual 24-inch-diameter, bidirectional natural gas pipelines, three interconnects with metering and regulation stations, and three dual 24-inch-diameter, bidirectional natural gas lateral pipelines totaling approximately 0.88 mile to interconnect with four existing interstate gas transmission pipelines and metering and regulation stations.
On July 29, 2026, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. 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
Additional information about the Project is available from the FERC website (
Take notice that the Commission received the following Exempt Wholesale Generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Electric Rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
On June 5, 2026, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP) filed an application in Docket No. CP26-540-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Brooks and Nueces Counties, Texas. The proposed project is known as the South Texas Enhancement Project and would provide about 319,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas from existing receipt points in Hidalgo, Starr and Jim Wells Counties to the Agua Dulce area in Nueces County.
On June 18, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
TGP proposes to construct and operate a 1.54-mile-long, 30-inch-diameter, natural gas transmission pipeline and modify three existing meter stations in Nueces County TX. TGP also proposes to construct a new 15,900-horsepower compressor station and associated facilities/equipment in Brooks County, Texas, and other appurtenance facilities along TGP's pipeline system.
On July 16, 2026, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. 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
Additional information about the Project is available from the FERC website (
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments should be received on or before November 16, 2026 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Jessica Ernst, <
As required by Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 (see Section 8A(a)(1) of EXIM's charter), EXIM will survey U.S. exporters and commercial lending institutions to understand their experience with EXIM “meeting financial competition from other countries whose exporters compete with United States exporters.” The potential respondents will be sent an electronic invitation to participate in the online survey.
The proposed survey will ask participants about their potential or completed deals involving EXIM, their opinion of EXIM's policies and procedures, their interaction and perceptions of other export credit agencies, and impacts of overall market conditions on their businesses.
The survey can be reviewed at:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a component of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announces it is issuing an Order under Sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act, and associated implementing regulations, continuing the suspension of the right to introduce certain persons from countries where an outbreak of a quarantinable communicable disease exists. This Order was issued on September 11 and shall remain in effect through 4:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Sunday, October 11, 2026. This Order may be amended or rescinded prior to that time at the discretion of the Director.
This action took effect September 11, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. EDT.
Written comments must be received on or before October 1, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2026-0892 by either of the methods listed below. Do not submit comments by email. CDC does not accept comments by email.
•
•
Jordan Faircloth, Deputy Chief of Staff, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS V18-2, Atlanta, GA 30329. Phone: 404-639-7000. Email:
On May 18, 2026, the Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention signed an Order prohibiting the introduction of certain persons who have departed from, or were otherwise present within, specified countries during the last 21 days. On May 22, 2026, the Assistant Secretary for Health (ASH), HHS, signed an Amended Order that reflected updates to 42 CFR 71.40 (f), which no longer provides an exemption for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from such orders. CDC accepted comments on both the original Order and Amended Order through June 22, 2026. On June 21, 2026, the ASH signed a new 30-day Order continuing the previous Order, without change, and provided a 15-day comment period. On July 13, 2026, the ASH signed a new order continuing the previous Order without change and that responded to public comments as well as provided updates on the epidemiologic situation and status of the outbreak. On August 12, 2026, the ASH signed a new 30-day Order continuing the previous Order, without change, and provided a 15-day comment period. During the comment period for the August 12, 2026, Order, CDC received three comments, which are addressed below. With this notice, CDC is announcing the issuance of an Order that continues the suspension of the right to introduce certain persons who have departed from, or were otherwise present within, specified countries during the last 21 days. This Order is effective for a period of 30 days.
Commenters suggested that CDC consider using narrower, risk-based criteria rather than applying blanket restrictions to all covered individuals. They suggested considering a variety of factors, including specific locations visited, length of stay, activities, interactions, precautions followed, and reasons for travel. They suggested that CDC distinguish actual exposure risk rather than broad nationality- or route-based assumptions. One commenter recommended screening, diagnostic testing, health monitoring, and, where appropriate, domestic isolation as alternatives to application of the Order. Commenters asserted that such targeted approaches can protect the public while minimizing unnecessary disruptions to lawful travel, family reunification, humanitarian activities, and other legitimate interests.
The Order does contain exception mechanisms that permit consideration of individual circumstances where appropriate. For example, a customs officer may, with supervisory approval, except an individual based on the totality of the circumstances, including
CDC does not agree that individualized exposure assessments, testing, symptom screening, or monitoring can presently be feasibly implemented and serve as a substitute for the Order for all covered persons. CDC is therefore making no changes in response to this comment.
As discussed in the previous response, CDC recognizes that individual exposure circumstances may differ among persons who have been present in a designated country or place where the quarantinable communicable disease outbreak is occurring. Whether a traveler cleared immigration or customs does not necessarily resolve all public health considerations relevant to that person's physical presence in the designated country or place or potential exposure. Airport transit may occur under varying circumstances, including differences in duration, movement within airport facilities, interactions with other persons and travelers, itinerary changes, or unanticipated delays. Moreover, implementation of the proposed limitations based on individual exposure circumstances would be more difficult to operationalize considering the volume of travelers at issue, as well as restraints on resources and personnel in the highly fluid context of international air travel.
CDC therefore declines at this time to adopt the commenter's recommendation to categorically exclude all persons whose presence in a designated country or place consisted solely of airside airport transit.
The Order also is temporary and subject to continuing reassessment. The current Order is effective for 30 days and is intended to facilitate an ongoing public health assessment and risk profile of the outbreak. CDC continues to evaluate epidemiological conditions, the risk of importation, the effectiveness and availability of mitigation measures, and other relevant public health information in determining whether the statutory and regulatory criteria remain satisfied. If those circumstances materially change, CDC will consider whether the Order should be modified, narrowed, or discontinued.
CDC agrees that transparency regarding both the public health rationale for the Order and the limits of CDC's authority is important to maintaining public trust. CDC will continue to provide information concerning the epidemiological basis for its actions and to reassess whether continued exercise of the authority under 42 U.S.C. 265 remains necessary in light of evolving public health conditions.
CDC carefully considered all comments and determined that they did not warrant changes to the requirements of the Order issued August 12, 2026. The new Order, issued on September 11, 2026, provides updated information regarding the status of the Ebola disease outbreak and CDC response efforts and maintains the previous travel restrictions.
CDC will accept comments for this Order using docket CDC-2026-0892. A copy of the Order is provided below and a copy of the signed Order can be found at
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issues this Order pursuant to Sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 265 and 268, and their implementing regulations. This Order continues the suspension of the right to introduce “covered aliens,” as defined herein, into the United States for a period of thirty days, subject to the outcome of an ongoing comprehensive public health risk assessment. This Order is necessary to protect public health in the United States from the serious risk posed by the introduction of Ebola disease into the United States by covered aliens based on the outbreak of Ebola disease caused by the Bundibugyo virus confirmed present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and, until recently, in Uganda.
This Order applies to covered aliens who have departed from, or were otherwise present within, DRC, Uganda, or South Sudan during the last 21 days (regardless of their country of origin). This Order is based on an assessment of the most recently available data and current conditions regarding the Ebola disease outbreak.
This Order is time-limited and shall be in effect for 30 days from the date of issuance. This Order is intended to address the serious risk of introduction of Ebola disease into the United States, while allowing the U.S. Government to continue an ongoing assessment of the current and evolving conditions of the Ebola disease outbreak in consultation with other stakeholders.
This Order is severable from previously issued Orders under Sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 265 and 268, and their implementing regulations under 42 CFR part 71. Any provision of this Order held to be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person or circumstance, shall be construed so as to continue to give the maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability.
I issue this Order pursuant to Sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, 42 U.S.C. 265 and 268, and their implementing regulations under 42 CFR part 71,
This Order applies to persons who have departed from, or were otherwise present within, DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan during the last 21 days (regardless of their country of origin), including lawful permanent residents of the United States, subject to the exceptions detailed below. For purposes of this Order, I refer to persons covered by the Order as “covered aliens.”
This Order does
• U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals;
• Members of the armed forces of the United States and associated personnel, U.S. government personnel serving overseas, associated personnel, and their spouses and children, subject to required assurances;
• Persons whom customs officers determine, with approval from a supervisor, should be excepted from this Order based on the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, humanitarian, and public health interests. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will consult with CDC regarding the standards for such exceptions to help ensure consistency with current CDC guidance and public health recommendations; and
• Persons who would otherwise be subject to this Order, who are permitted to enter the United States based on an exception provisionally granted by CDC with confirmation based on a public health assessment at time of entry under a DHS-approved process documented and shared with CDC which includes appropriate public health mitigation protocols, per CDC guidance.
The purpose of this Order is twofold. First, this Order aims to continue minimizing the number of covered aliens entering the United States who have been within countries experiencing or that have recently experienced a known or suspected outbreak of Ebola disease and thereby reduce the risk of introduction of Ebola disease into the United States. Second, this Order is intended to facilitate an ongoing public health assessment and risk profile of the Ebola disease outbreak. Thirty days is the amount of time necessary for CDC to continue monitoring the situation and determine if there has been a material change to the risk of importation and whether this Order would remain in effect or requires modification. Such information will enable the CDC Director to make an informed determination regarding what restrictions are necessary going forward and provide the opportunity for the development of a comprehensive mitigation and containment plan in consultation with stakeholders.
Viral hemorrhagic fever refers to a group of severe illnesses caused by certain viruses that damage the body's blood vessels and affect the ability of the blood to clot properly. Viral hemorrhagic fevers include diseases such as Ebola, Marburg, Lassa fever, and dengue hemorrhagic fever.
Bundibugyo virus disease (BVD) is a severe and often fatal illness caused by one of the viruses in the Ebola family. Ebola disease outbreaks occur mainly in parts of sub-Saharan Africa and can spread rapidly in communities with limited healthcare resources. Ebola disease caused by the Bundibugyo virus is a rare form of Ebola first identified during an outbreak in Bundibugyo District, Uganda, in 2007. Bundibugyo virus is one of several species within the orthoebolavirus family and causes symptoms similar to other forms of Ebola, including fever, weakness, vomiting, diarrhea, and, in severe cases, hemorrhagic complications and organ failure. The disease spreads through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated materials.
The incubation period for Ebola disease caused by the Bundibugyo virus is typically between 2 and 21 days, with
Screening for Bundibugyo virus disease focuses on identifying symptoms and possible exposure history, such as recent travel to affected areas or contact with infected aliens. Suspected patients are evaluated for symptoms including fever, weakness, vomiting, diarrhea, and bleeding, and laboratory confirmation is performed using specialized tests such as PCR (polymerase chain reaction) to detect the virus in blood and other body fluid samples. Health authorities also use temperature checks, contact tracing, and isolation procedures to prevent transmission.
There are currently no widely approved vaccines or specific antiviral treatments for the Bundibugyo strain of Ebola disease. Treatment mainly consists of supportive care, including intravenous fluids, electrolyte replacement, oxygen support, pain and fever management, and treatment of secondary infections. Early medical care significantly improves survival chances. Robust public health measures such as early detection, rapid isolation, strong infection prevention measures (
The ongoing outbreak of Ebola virus disease caused by the Bundibugyo virus in DRC continues to escalate in intensity and expand geographically. The outbreak is now the largest and deadliest Ebola outbreak in DRC's history, as well as the second largest Ebola outbreak on record.
As recently as September 10, 2026, the ongoing Bundibugyo Ebola virus outbreak in DRC continues to spread despite response efforts. Although contact tracing for confirmed cases has risen to approximately 87% nationwide, these efforts are still well below the operational threshold of 95% needed to successfully slow the spread of this outbreak.
As of August 27, 2026, the 42-day enhanced monitoring period—defined as twice the maximum incubation period for Ebola (21 days) per international guidance has been completed in Uganda.
To date, South Sudan has not reported any confirmed Ebola disease cases in the current outbreak.
Travelers moving between affected countries and major international transit hubs could unknowingly carry the Bundibugyo virus before becoming ill. Such travelers may spread the outbreak beyond the affected countries and ultimately reach the United States. DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan are connected to the global aviation network through a series of regional and international transit hubs that provide pathways into the United States. Travelers departing from outbreak-affected regions frequently transit through densely populated metropolitan airports such as Addis Ababa Bole International Airport (ADD), Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (NBO) in Nairobi, Brussels Airport (BRU), Hamad International Airport (DOH) in Doha, Dubai International Airport (DXB), and Istanbul Airport (IST), all of which maintain extensive passenger connectivity to major U.S. gateway airports including John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD), Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International
A traveler infected in outbreak regions of DRC may transit through multiple countries and major international airports before developing fever or other clinical signs of disease. The risk of Bundibugyo virus disease introduction into the United States is heightened by the virus's incubation period, which can extend up to 21 days, allowing infected persons to travel internationally while asymptomatic and therefore unlikely to be detected through routine symptom-based screening measures. The current outbreak has already demonstrated this risk: a physician infected while providing patient care in DRC traveled internationally before becoming ill and was diagnosed only after arriving in France.
Travelers utilizing air transit pathways originating in or passing through DRC, Uganda, and South Sudan include non-U.S. citizens, including regional migrants, foreign contract workers, humanitarian personnel, business travelers, students, refugees, and third-country nationals moving through international aviation hubs in Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Many travelers entering U.S.-bound itineraries from these pathways may do so under temporary visas, refugee or asylum processing mechanisms, international organizational travel, or multi-country itineraries that obscure their original point of departure. As a result, public health screening and border security systems face heightened operational complexity in identifying travelers with recent exposure histories linked to Ebola-affected regions, particularly when travelers originate from or transit through multiple jurisdictions prior to arrival at major U.S. metropolitan airports.
CDC has issued a series of Travel Health Notices (THNs) for the region; the THNs for the affected provinces have escalated over time. On August 4, 2026, CDC escalated the THN issued for Ituri and North Kivu Provinces of DRC to a Level 4 (avoid all travel).
CDC modeling indicates that, absent rapid and sustained public health interventions, the outbreak could become one of the largest Ebola epidemics ever recorded.
Restricting entry of covered aliens into the United States reduces the volume of higher-risk international arrivals requiring public health monitoring and follow-up. By limiting the number of potentially exposed travelers entering through major U.S. ports of entry, federal, state, and local public health authorities have concentrated finite surveillance, screening, contact tracing, quarantine management, and medical monitoring resources on returning U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals, including those who have worked in the outbreak areas.
Paired with the DHS arrival restrictions redirecting travelers to specific U.S. airports,
CDC is issuing this Order pursuant to sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 265, 268) and the implementing regulation at 42 CFR 71.40. In accordance with these authorities, the CDC Director is permitted to prohibit, in whole or in
(1) By reason of the existence of any quarantinable communicable disease in a foreign country (or one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or place there is serious danger of the introduction of such quarantinable communicable disease into the United States; and
(2) This danger is so increased by the introduction of persons from such country (or one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or place that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons into the United States is required in the interest of public health.
Section 362 and the implementing regulation provide the Director with a public health tool to suspend introduction of persons not only to prevent the introduction of a quarantinable communicable disease, but also to aid in continued efforts to mitigate spread of that disease.
The term “introduction into the United States” is defined in 42 CFR 71.40 as “the movement of a person from a foreign country (or one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or place, or series of foreign countries or places, into the United States so as to bring the person into contact with persons or property in the United States, in a manner that the Director determines to present a risk of transmission of a quarantinable communicable disease to persons, or a risk of contamination of property with a quarantinable communicable disease.” 42 CFR 71.40(b)(1). Similarly, the term “serious danger of the introduction of such quarantinable communicable disease into the United States” is defined as, “the probable introduction of one or more persons capable of transmitting the quarantinable communicable disease into the United States, even if persons or property in the United States are already infected or contaminated with the quarantinable communicable disease.” 42 CFR 71.40(b)(3).
Section 71.40(b)(2) defines “[p]rohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction into the United States of persons” in Section 362 to mean “to prevent the introduction of persons into the United States by suspending any right to introduce into the United States, physically stopping or restricting movement into the United States.”
As stated in the Final Rule for 42 CFR 71.40, CDC “may, in its discretion, consider a wide array of facts and circumstances when determining what is required in the interest of public health in a particular situation . . . includ[ing] . . . [t]he overall number of cases of disease; any large increase in the number of cases over a short period of time; the geographic distribution of cases; any sustained (generational) transmission; the method of disease transmission; morbidity and mortality associated with the disease; the effectiveness of contact tracing; the adequacy of state and local health care systems; and the effectiveness of state and local public health systems and control measures.”
As stated in 42 CFR 71.40, this Order does not apply to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, members of the armed forces of the United States and associated personnel if the Secretary of War provides assurance to the Director that the Secretary of War has taken or will take measures such as quarantine or isolation, or other measures maintaining control over such individuals, to prevent the risk of transmission of the quarantinable communicable disease into the United States, or United States government employees or contractors on orders abroad, or their accompanying family members who are on their orders or are members of their household, if the Director receives assurances from the relevant head of agency and determines that the head of the agency or department has taken or will take measures such as quarantine or isolation, to prevent the risk of transmission of a quarantinable communicable disease into the United States.
In addition, this Order does not apply to additional classes of persons excepted by the CDC Director. Creating exceptions in the Order is consistent with Section 362 and 42 CFR 71.40. Section 362 explicitly states that the prohibition of introduction into the United States may be “in whole or in part.” This phrase is also included in section 71.40(a) and, as explained in the Final Rule, is intended to allow the Director to narrowly tailor the use of the authority to what is required in the interest of public health.
This Order will be in effect for 30 days to avert the serious danger of the introduction, transmission, and spread of Ebola disease into the United States. Finally, as directed by 42 CFR 71.40(c), this Order sets out the following:
(1) The foreign countries (or one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or places from which the introduction of persons is being prohibited;
(2) The period of time or circumstances under which the introduction of any persons or class of persons into the United States is being prohibited;
(3) The conditions under which that prohibition on introduction will be effective, in whole or in part, including any relevant exceptions that the Director determines are appropriate;
(4) The means by which the prohibition will be implemented; and
(5) The serious danger posed by the introduction of the quarantinable communicable disease in the foreign country or countries (or one or more political subdivisions or regions thereof) or places from which the introduction of persons is being prohibited.
Based on the foregoing, I hereby determine that Ebola disease, a highly transmissible quarantinable communicable disease, is confirmed currently present in DRC and recently present in Uganda. There is a material risk that the outbreak will spread to South Sudan and again to Uganda. I also determine that the prevalence of Ebola disease in these foreign countries constitutes a serious danger of the introduction of this disease into the United States due to the limited screening and testing and mitigation measures currently available. Finally, I determine that a temporary 30-day suspension of the right to introduce
I consulted with the Department of State, DHS, and other federal departments as needed before I issued this Order and requested that DHS aid in the enforcement of this Order because CDC does not have the capability, resources, or personnel needed to do so.
Although this Order is not a rule subject to notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and is issued with immediate effect, in order to ensure that the forthcoming public health risk assessment is informed by public input, the Order is being issued with a simultaneous 15-day comment period.
This Order takes effect at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Friday, September 11, 2026. For individuals intending to travel to the United States by air, the Order will apply to flights departing after 4:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Friday, September 11, 2026.
In testimony whereof, the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has hereunto set his hand at ______ this 11th day of September, 2026.
Dated:
Interested persons or organizations are invited to participate by submitting written views, recommendations, and data so that the public can provide input that may inform the forthcoming public health risk assessment and whether any subsequent exercise of this authority is necessary.
Please note that comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and are subject to public disclosure. Comments will be posted on
The authority for this order is Sections 362 and 365 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 265, 268), as amended.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces the second biannual Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II public meeting of 2026 to discuss the CMS preliminary coding, Medicare benefit category, and Medicare payment determinations, if applicable, for new revisions to the HCPCS Level II code set for non-drug and non-biological items and services, as well as how to register for the meeting.
•
•
Sundus Ashar, (410) 786-0750,
On December 21, 2000, Congress enacted the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554). Section 531(b) of BIPA mandated that the Secretary establish procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new durable medical equipment (DME) under Medicare Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act. In the November 23, 2001
In 2020, we implemented changes to our Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II coding procedures, including the establishment of quarterly coding cycles for drugs and biological products and biannual coding
In the December 28, 2021
The list of topics for discussion, which will become available in the upcoming days on the CMS website at
If all agenda items are not addressed during the primary meeting date specified in the
Every speaker must declare at the beginning of their presentation during the meeting, as well as in their written summary, whether they have any financial involvement with the applicant and manufacturer, if different, of the item that is the subject of the HCPCS Level II application, or with any competitors of that manufacturer with respect to the item. This includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to the speaker by the applicant, manufacturer, or any such competitors.
Each applicant that submitted a HCPCS Level II code application that will be discussed at the public meeting is permitted to designate a primary speaker. Fifteen minutes is the total time interval for a primary speaker per agenda item. Any unused time from the primary speaker will be forfeited and cannot be delegated to another speaker. Primary speakers must register as a speaker and submit any supporting PowerPoint presentation by the deadline specified in the
Any individual related to the public meeting agenda item, including but not limited to an employee, competitor, insurer, public consumer, or other interested party, may register as a 5-minute speaker by the deadline specified in the
All individuals who plan to attend the public meeting to listen and do not plan to speak may access the public meeting using the live stream link posted on the HCPCS Level II website. Alternatively, attendees can register online by the deadline specified in the
Individuals who require special assistance must register and request special assistance services by the deadline specified in the
The registration instructions for the HCPCS Level II public meeting will be posted in the “Guidelines for Participation in 2026 Second Biannual Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II Public Meeting” document on the CMS website
All in-person attendees should monitor the website at
Vehicle screening is conducted and all persons in the vehicle must present a valid ID. Visitors may only enter from Security Boulevard, using the far-right entrance lane to the campus. Parking on campus is increasingly limited, and visitors are not guaranteed a parking space with registration. Visitors are encouraged to consider alternate means of arrival, such as public transportation, taxi, or other ride-share arrangements. Visitors will be required to go through x-ray screening similar to screening at a United States airport, or alternate arrangements as instructed and permitted by security.
The primary and 5-minute speaker(s) must email a brief, written summary (one paragraph) of their comments and conclusions. Written comments from anyone, including the primary and 5-minute speaker(s), will only be accepted when emailed to the address specified in the
All participants should regularly check the CMS website for updates and final agenda information at
The HCPCS section of the CMS website also includes details regarding the public meeting process for new revisions to the HCPCS Level II code set, including guidelines for an effective presentation. The HCPCS section of the CMS website also contains a document titled “HCPCS Level II Coding Procedures (PDF),” which is a description of the HCPCS Level II coding process, including a detailed explanation of the procedures CMS uses to make HCPCS Level II coding determinations.
When CMS refers to a HCPCS Level II code or HCPCS Level II coding application above, CMS may also be referring to circumstances when a HCPCS Level II code has already been issued, but a Medicare benefit category and/or payment has not been determined.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Mehmet Oz, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Trenesha Fultz-Mimms, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces the annual adjustment in the amount in controversy (AIC) threshold amounts for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings and judicial review under the Medicare appeals process. The adjustment to the AIC threshold amounts will be effective for requests for ALJ hearings and judicial review filed on or after January 1, 2027. The calendar year 2027 AIC threshold amounts are $200 for ALJ hearings and $2,000 for judicial review.
This annual adjustment takes effect on January 1, 2027.
Natasha Franklin, (410) 786-5692.
Section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Social Security Act (the Act) established the amount in controversy (AIC) threshold amounts for Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hearings and judicial review at $100 and $1,000, respectively, for Medicare Part A and Part B appeals. Additionally, section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act provides that beginning in January 2005, the AIC threshold amounts are to be adjusted annually by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the consumer price index (CPI) for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to the July preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Sections 1852(g)(5) and 1876(c)(5)(B) of the Act apply the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C/Medicare Advantage (MA) appeals and certain health maintenance organization and competitive medical plan appeals. Health care prepayment plans are also subject to MA appeals rules, including the AIC adjustment requirement, pursuant to 42 CFR 417.840. Section 1860D-4(h)(1) of the Act, provides that a Medicare Part D plan sponsor shall meet the requirements of paragraphs (4) and (5) of section 1852(g) of the Act with respect to benefits, including appeals and the application of the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part D appeals.
The statutory formula for the annual adjustment to the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review of Medicare Part A and Part B appeals, set forth at section 1869(b)(1)(E) of the Act, is included in the applicable implementing regulations, 42 CFR 405.1006(b) and (c). The regulations at § 405.1006(b)(2) require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to publish changes to the AIC threshold amounts in the
Section 1852(g)(5) of the Act applies the AIC adjustment requirement to Medicare Part C appeals. The implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are found at 42 CFR part 422, subpart M. Specifically, §§ 422.600 and 422.612 discuss the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review. Section 422.600 grants any party to the reconsideration (except the MA organization) who is dissatisfied with the reconsideration determination a right to an ALJ hearing as long as the amount remaining in controversy after reconsideration meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary. Section 422.612 states, in part, that any party, including the MA organization, may request judicial review if the AIC meets the threshold requirement established annually by the Secretary.
Section 1876(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that the annual adjustment to the AIC dollar amounts set forth in section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act applies to certain beneficiary appeals within the context of health maintenance organizations and competitive medical plans. The applicable implementing regulations for Medicare Part C appeals are set forth in 42 CFR part 422, subpart M and apply to these appeals in accordance with 42 CFR 417.600(b). The Medicare Part C appeals rules also apply to health care prepayment plan appeals in accordance with 42 CFR 417.840.
The annually adjusted AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review that apply to Medicare Parts A, B, and C appeals also apply to Medicare Part D appeals. Section 1860D-4(h)(1) of the Act regarding Part D appeals requires a prescription drug plan sponsor to meet the requirements set forth in sections 1852(g)(4) and (g)(5) of the Act, in a similar manner as MA organizations. The implementing regulations for Medicare Part D appeals can be found at 42 CFR part 423, subparts M and U. More specifically, § 423.2006 addresses the AIC threshold amounts for ALJ hearings and judicial review. Sections 423.2002 and 423.2006 grant a Part D enrollee who is dissatisfied with the independent review entity (IRE) reconsideration determination a right to an ALJ hearing if the amount remaining in controversy after the IRE reconsideration meets the threshold amount established annually by the Secretary, and other requirements set forth in § 423.2002. Sections 423.2006 and 423.2136 allow a Part D enrollee to request judicial review of an ALJ or Medicare Appeals Council decision if the AIC meets the threshold amount established annually by the Secretary, and other requirements are met as set forth in these provisions.
Section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act requires that the AIC threshold amounts be adjusted annually, beginning in January 2005, by the percentage increase in the medical care component of the CPI for all urban consumers (U.S. city average) for July 2003 to July of the year preceding the year involved and rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.
The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings will remain $200 for calendar year (CY) 2027, and the AIC threshold amount for judicial review will increase from $1,960 for CY 2026 to $2,000 for CY 2027. These amounts are based on the 99.523 percent change in the medical care component of the CPI, which was at 297.600 in July 2003 and rose to 593.781 in July 2026. The AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings changes to $199.52 based on the 99.523 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $100 established in 2003. In accordance with section 1869(b)(1)(E)(iii) of the Act, the adjusted threshold amounts are rounded to the nearest multiple of $10. Therefore, the CY 2027 AIC threshold amount for ALJ hearings is $200.00. The AIC threshold amount for judicial review changes to $2,000 based on the 99.523 percent increase over the initial threshold amount of $1,000. This amount was rounded to the nearest multiple of $10, resulting in the CY 2027 AIC threshold amount of $2,000 for judicial review.
In the following table we list the CYs 2023 through 2027 threshold amounts.
This document announces the annual adjustment in the AIC threshold amounts and does not impose any “collection of information” requirements as defined under 5 CFR 1320.3(c). Consequently, the notice is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Dr. Mehmet Oz having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Chyana Woodyard, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments (including recommendations) on the collection of information by October 16, 2026.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be submitted to
Stephen Chang, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 240-402-2287,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 262), all biological products, including human blood and blood components, offered for sale in interstate commerce must be licensed and meet standards, including those prescribed in the FDA regulations, designed to ensure the continued safety, purity, and potency of such products. In addition, under section 361 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 264), FDA may issue and enforce regulations necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases between the States or possessions or from foreign countries into the States or possessions. Further, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 351) provides that drugs and devices (including human blood and blood components) are adulterated if they do not conform with current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) assuring that they meet the requirements of the FD&C Act. Establishments manufacturing biological products, including human blood and blood components, must comply with the applicable CGMP regulations (parts 211, 606, and 820 (21 CFR parts 211, 606, and 820)) and current good tissue practice (CGTP) regulations (part 1271 (21 CFR part 1271)) as appropriate. FDA regards biological product deviation (BPD) reporting and human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/P) deviation reporting to be an essential tool in its directive to protect public health by establishing and maintaining surveillance programs that provide timely and useful information.
Section 600.14 (21 CFR 600.14), in brief, requires the manufacturer who holds the biological product license, for other than human blood and blood components, and who had control over a distributed product when the deviation occurred, to report to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) or to the Center for Drugs Evaluation and Research (CDER) as soon as possible but at a date not to exceed 45 calendar days after acquiring information reasonably suggesting that a reportable event has occurred. Section 606.171, in brief, requires licensed manufacturers of human blood and blood components, including Source Plasma, unlicensed registered blood establishments, and transfusion services, who had control over a distributed product when the deviation occurred, to report to CBER as soon as possible but at a date not to exceed 45 calendar days after acquiring information reasonably suggesting that a reportable event has occurred. Similarly, § 1271.350(b), in brief, requires HCT/P establishments that manufacture non-reproductive HCT/Ps described in § 1271.10 to investigate and report to CBER all HCT/P deviations relating to a distributed HCT/P that relates to the core CGTP requirements, if the deviation occurred in the establishment's facility or in a facility that performed a manufacturing step for the establishment under contract, agreement or other arrangement. Form FDA 3486 is used to submit BPD reports and HCT/P deviation reports.
Respondents to this collection of information are (1) licensed manufacturers of biological products other than human blood and blood components, (2) licensed manufacturers of blood and blood components including Source Plasma, (3) unlicensed registered blood establishments, (4) transfusion services, and (5) establishments that manufacture non-reproductive HCT/Ps regulated solely under section 361 of the PHS Act as described in § 1271.10. The number of respondents and total annual responses are based on the BPD reports and HCT/P deviation reports FDA received in fiscal year (FY) 2024. The number of licensed manufacturers and total annual responses under § 600.14 include the estimates for BPD reports submitted to both CBER and CDER. Based on the information from industry, the estimated average time to complete a deviation report is 2 hours, which includes a minimal one-time burden to create a user account for those reports submitted electronically. The availability of the standardized report form, Form FDA 3486, and the ability to submit this report electronically to CBER (CDER does not currently accept electronic filings) further streamlines the report submission process.
CBER has developed a web-based addendum to Form FDA 3486 (Form FDA 3486A) to provide additional information when a BPD report has been reviewed by FDA and evaluated as a possible recall. The additional information requested includes information not contained in the Form FDA 3486 such as: (1) distribution pattern, (2) method of consignee notification, (3) consignee(s) of products for further manufacture, (4) additional product information, (5) updated product disposition, and (6) industry recall contacts. This information is requested by CBER through email notification to the submitter of the BPD report. This information is used by CBER for recall classification purposes. CBER estimates that 5 percent of the total BPD reports submitted to CBER would need additional information submitted in the addendum. CBER further estimates that it would take between 10 to 20 minutes to complete the addendum. For calculation purposes, CBER is using 15 minutes.
Activities such as investigating, changing standard operating procedures or processes, and follow up are currently required under parts 211, (approved under OMB control number 0910-0139), 606 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0116), 820 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0073) and 1271 (approved under OMB control number 0910-0543) and, therefore, are not included in the burden calculation for the separate requirement of submitting a deviation report to FDA.
In the
We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Following publication of the 60-day notice, the Agency identified a multiplication and rounding error in the burden calculations. The corrected estimates are reflected in this 30-day notice. This revision does not reflect a substantive or programmatic change to the information collection. Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall increase of approximately 4,612 hours and a corresponding increase of 2,642 responses. We attribute this adjustment to an increase in the number of product deviations we received in FY 2024 from licensed manufacturers, unlicensed registered blood establishments and transfusion services under § 606.171. This is likely due to the issuance of the revised guidance document titled, “Biological Product Deviation Reporting for Blood and Plasma Establishments” (85 FR 14682; March 13, 2020), which provided blood and plasma establishments with revised recommendations related to BPD reporting.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (the Committee). The general function of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations to FDA. In addition, the Committee will meet to discuss and provide advice to FDA on examining the scientific, clinical, and public health dimensions of the use of pathogen-agnostic sequencing as it relates to emergency preparedness and response efforts, and to support discussion of opportunities, implementation considerations, and potential priorities for future coordination. The preparedness use could cover local and national outbreaks, known pathogens, or unknown pathogens. This meeting is being held to satisfy, in part, a requirement under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA). The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment.
The meeting will be held on November 19, 2026, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
The public will have the option to participate, and all participants will be heard, viewed, captioned, and recorded for this advisory committee meeting via an online teleconferencing and/or video conferencing platform. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA advisory committee meetings, including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at:
The online web conference meeting will be available at the following link on the day of the meeting at:
The address for in-person attendance is FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2026-N-8692. The docket will close on November 12, 2026. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Comments received on or before November 3, 2026, will be provided to the Committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by FDA. In the event that the meeting is cancelled, FDA will continue to evaluate any relevant applications or information, and consider any comments submitted to the docket, as appropriate.
You may submit comments as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” FDA will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Evella Washington, Advisory Committee Oversight Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm.3214, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6683,
On November 19, 2026, the Committee will discuss and make recommendations on information regarding the examination of scientific, clinical, and public health dimensions of the use of pathogen-agnostic sequencing as it relates to emergency preparedness and response efforts, and to support discussion of opportunities, implementation considerations, and potential priorities for future coordination. The preparedness use could cover local outbreaks, national outbreaks, known pathogens, or unknown pathogens. This meeting is being held to satisfy, in part, a requirement under the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA). We are seeking input on the design of these tests and the opportunities and challenges associated with their development, including how to establish an agile but effective and validated bioinformatics system that can account for frequent sequence changes. FDA will provide an overview of the topics.
FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than two (2) business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available on FDA's website at the time of the advisory committee meeting. Background material and the link to the online teleconference and/or video conference meeting will be available at
The meeting will include an online meeting platform in conjunction with the physical meeting room (see
For press inquiries, please contact the HHS Press Room at
FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Evella Washington
FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our website at
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 1001
Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before October 16, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice via
Natalie Klein,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
The estimate of the number of respondents is based upon the current number of institutions certifying HHS-conducted or -supported subpart C human subjects research to OHRP. In 2025, OHRP received fifty-one certifications from thirty-eight institutions or organizations, and one hundred percent of the respondents submitted their certification information electronically. We project that, annually, forty institutions will submit certifications. Most respondents will submit the form twice annually; however, some respondents may submit the form 3 times annually. Consistent with 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv)(5), therefore, we believe this estimate represents the
The burden is estimated to average one hour per Subpart C Certification Form and the total annual burden hours are projected to be eighty-five.
Office of Research Integrity, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) announces an ongoing opportunity for non-federal public and private sector entities to co-sponsor conferences, workshops, symposia, meetings, roundtables, or other similar events (collectively, “Events”) with ORI. ORI co-sponsors a limited number of Events with non-federal entities each year. Potential co-sponsors must have demonstrated interest and experience in the responsible conduct of research or handling allegations of research misconduct and must be willing to substantively contribute to the co-sponsored Event. This notice supersedes ORI's October 21, 2022, co-sponsorship opportunity notice at 87 FR 64067.
Expressions of interest for co-sponsoring an Event with ORI may be submitted starting October 1, 2026, and will be reviewed on an ongoing basis.
Expressions of interest for co-sponsoring an Event with ORI should be sent by email to
Chenelle Johnson, Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at (240) 268-0775
Mia Brown, Public Health Analyst, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) at (240) 453-8265,
Core to ORI's mission are education activities for PHS-funded research institutions to teach the responsible conduct of research, promote research integrity, prevent research misconduct, and enable such institutions to respond effectively to allegations of research misconduct. (65 FR 30600, 30601 [May 12, 2000]). Co-sponsored Events contribute to this mission by providing education, training, and/or the opportunity to discuss topics such as handling allegations of research misconduct and fostering research integrity, the responsible conduct of research, and gold standard research practices. Gold standard research exemplifies the highest levels of scientific rigor, transparency, reproducibility, and adherence to ethical standards. Co-sponsored Events typically accept between 20 and 150 attendees and convene for one to three days.
Co-sponsors will work with ORI staff to jointly develop an Event. Both ORI and co-sponsors must contribute substantively to the development of the Event. Co-sponsors may charge registration fees but only at levels necessary to recover Event-related expenses. Co-sponsors are also solely responsible for collecting and handling any registration fees.
• Have demonstrated interest and experience in fostering the responsible conduct of research or handling allegations of research misconduct.
• Substantively contribute to the content of the co-sponsored Event beyond funding, logistical services, or other material support.
1. Contact information for the entity's representative(s), including full name, role, email address, and phone number.
2. A brief summary (one to two paragraphs) detailing why ORI should select the entity, including demonstrated interest and experience in the responsible conduct of research or handling allegations of research misconduct.
3. A bullet outline addressing the eight topics listed below (roughly one paragraph each):
a. The entity's demonstration of leadership and management of matters involving research integrity.
b. The entity's prior experience and current readiness to undertake the responsibilities of co-sponsoring an Event with ORI.
c. The type of Event(s) that the entity is interested in co-sponsoring with ORI.
d. The entity must be willing to substantively contribute to the co-sponsored Event.
e. Facilities available for the Event(s), including the distance from the facilities to a major airport.
f. Any current constraints with respect to dates or facilities, and a suggested time frame of dates (at minimum, month(s) and year for the Event).
g. Whether the entity has co-sponsored an Event with ORI in the past 36 months.
h. Whether the entity has any active research misconduct proceedings (regardless of status) of which ORI is unaware.
1. Qualifications and capability to fulfill co-sponsorship responsibilities.
2. Suitability of the location of the proposed Event in terms of the overall geographical distribution of recent or planned ORI Events.
3. Potential for the Event to engage an adequate number of attendees.
4. Availability and description of facilities needed to support the Event.
5. Availability of administrative support for the logistics of hosting the Event.
The duties of the co-sponsor will be outlined in a co-sponsorship agreement with ORI that will set forth details of the co-sponsored Event, including the requirement that any fees collected by the co-sponsor shall be limited to the amount necessary to cover the co-sponsor's Event-related expenses. A co-sponsorship agreement does not represent an endorsement by ORI of an individual co-sponsor's policies, positions, or activities.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is giving notice of the invention listed below, which is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Inquiries related to this licensing opportunity should be directed to: Dawn Taylor-Mulneix, or
Technology description follows:
RSV is a major cause of serious respiratory illness, particularly in infants, older adults, and people with weakened immune systems. The virus uses the attachment protein G to bind to host cells and the fusion protein F to enter them. Although approved RSV antibody products target F, no licensed antibody currently targets G.
Researchers in NIAID's Laboratory of Infectious Diseases (LID) developed a monoclonal antibody that targets a conserved region of G that may be less likely to change over time. In laboratory tests, the IgG3 subclass of this antibody showed about 9-fold greater neutralizing activity than licensed RSV antibodies. Researchers also created an IgG1 version to see whether the IgG3 subclass contributed to this strong activity. The IgG1 version was slightly less potent than the IgG3 form but still showed strong neutralizing activity. These results suggest that IgG subclass can influence the neutralizing activity of this G-targeting antibody.
This technology could support development of first-in-class antibodies targeting RSV G for the prevention or treatment of RSV disease, including in people at high risk for severe illness. These G-targeting antibodies may also be used in combination with existing F-targeting antibodies to broaden protection and potentially improve efficacy. Ongoing engineering efforts are aimed at improving the stability of the G-targeting antibodies and extending their persistence in the body.
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.
• Antibody-based RSV products targeting the attachment protein G that may be used alone or in combination with existing RSV F-targeting antibodies to broaden protection.
• Potential first-in-class antibodies against the RSV G protein for preventing or treating severe disease.
• Target the RSV attachment protein G, for which no licensed antibodies currently exist.
• Bind a conserved region of the G protein that may be less likely to change over time, which could help these antibodies remain effective as the virus evolves.
• IgG3 G-targeting antibody achieves about 9-fold greater neutralizing activity in laboratory tests than currently existing products.
• Pre-Clinical
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Applied Immunology and Disease Control Integrated Review Group; Vaccines Against Infectious Diseases Study Section, October 15,
This meeting is being amended to change the meeting times and change from two-day meeting to one-day meeting. New meeting time is 09:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., October 15, 2026. The meeting is closed to the public.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, Early Development of Vaccines Against Infectious Diseases, October 19, 2026, 10:00 a.m. to October 20, 2026, 06:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended to change the meeting from a 2-day to a 1-day meeting on October 20, 2026. Meeting times will stay the same, from 10:00 a.m. to 06:00 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The NIH Intramural Research Program (IRP) relies on a trustworthy research record to sustain public confidence and advance public health. NIH maintains procedures in compliance with NIH policy and 42 CFR part 93 to evaluate allegations of research misconduct, including falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism, through a fair, consistent, and peer-informed process. The proposed web-based reporting form will help the Agency Intramural Research Integrity Officer (AIRIO) receive sufficient information needed to assess concerns and determine appropriate next steps. Reports may be submitted anonymously, with optional contact information for follow-up. Concerns may also be reported in person, by telephone, or by email.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received by November 16, 2026.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, contact: Dr. Kathryn Partin, Director of Research Integrity, Agency Intramural Research Integrity Officer (AIRIO), Office of Intramural Research (OIR), Office of the Director (OD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1 Center Drive, Bldg. 1, Room 154, Bethesda, Maryland, 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301) 451-7764 or Email your request, including your address to:
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Upon receipt of a report submitted through the IRRM Form, the Agency Intramural Research Integrity Officer (AIRIO) will promptly assess whether the allegation falls within the definition of research misconduct under PHS regulations and NIH policy, meets jurisdictional requirements, and provides sufficiently credible and specific information so that potential evidence of research misconduct may be identified. If these criteria are met, the matter may proceed to an inquiry. If not, the AIRIO will document the assessment for possible later review. All information collected through the form will be maintained and protected in accordance with PHS regulations, NIH policy, and confidentiality requirements and applicable federal records standards.
The NIH IRRM Web Form permits anonymous reporting. Complainants are not required to provide personally identifiable information. The form does not require a Complainant's name or other direct identifiers in order for NIH to assess a report. If a Complainant chooses to provide limited contact information, such as a first name or telephone number, that information will be used only for follow-up purposes if NIH needs additional information to assess the allegation. Any voluntarily provided contact information will be protected and maintained confidentially to the extent permitted by law and will be disclosed only as described above.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice of extension and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. FEMA invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on an extension of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the use of a form to collect data for the development and continuation of the National Fire Department Registry.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 16, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
The Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-498, 15 U.S.C. 2201-2235) provides for the gathering and analyzing of data as deemed useful and applicable for fire departments. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) receives many requests from fire service organizations and the general public for information related to fire departments, including the total number of departments, number of stations per department, population protected, and number of firefighters. The USFA also has a need for this information to guide programmatic decisions and produce mailing lists for USFA publications.
Recommendations for the creation of the fire department census database came out of a Blue Ribbon Panel's review of the USFA. The report included a review of the structure, mission, and funding of the USFA, future policies, programmatic needs, course development and delivery, and the role of the USFA to reflect changes in the fire service. As a result of those recommendations, the USFA is working to identify all fire departments in the United States to develop a database that includes information related to demographics, capabilities, and activities of fire departments nationwide. In the fall of 2016, the USFA renamed the census to the National Fire Department Registry.
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Call for nominations.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is seeking nominations to serve on the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC). The NGAC is a Federal Advisory Committee authorized through the Geospatial Data Act of 2018 (GDA), which operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The NGAC provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior through the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) related to management of Federal geospatial programs, development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the implementation of the GDA. The NGAC reviews and comments on geospatial policy and management issues and provides a forum for views of non-Federal stakeholders in the geospatial community.
Nominations must be postmarked by November 16, 2026.
Nominations should be sent to Ms. Megan Compton, U.S. Geological Survey, 5957 Lakeside Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46278, or at
Ms. Megan Compton, FGDC, USGS by mail to Megan Compton, at 5957 Lakeside Blvd., Indianapolis, IN 46278; by email at
The NGAC conducts its operations in accordance with the provisions of the GDA and the FACA. It reports to the Secretary of the Interior through the FGDC and functions solely as an advisory body. The NGAC provides recommendations and advice to the DOI and the FGDC on policy and management issues related to the effective operation of Federal geospatial programs.
The NGAC includes up to 30 members, selected to achieve a balanced representation of the viewpoints of the various stakeholders involved in national geospatial activities. The NGAC membership is selected from among groups involved in the geospatial community, including States; Local governments; Regional governments; Tribal governments; Private sector entities; Geospatial information user industries; Professional associations; Scholarly associations; Non-profit organizations; Academia; Licensed geospatial data acquisition professionals; and Federal Government. NGAC members are appointed for terms of 3 years, with the terms of one-third of the members expiring each year. NGAC members may not serve more than two consecutive terms. However, after a 2-year break in service, members will be eligible for appointment.
Individual nominees may self-nominate or may be nominated by employers, associations, professional organizations, or other geospatial organizations. Nominations should include a resume providing an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, including information that would enable the DOI to make an informed decision regarding meeting the membership requirements of the NGAC and permit the DOI to contact the nominee. Nominees are strongly encouraged to include supporting letters from employers, associations, professional organizations, and/or other organizations that indicate support by a meaningful constituency for the nominee.
Nominations will be reviewed by the FGDC, and additional information may be requested from nominees. Final selection and appointment of NGAC members will be made by the Secretary of the Interior. NGAC members serve at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
The NGAC meets approximately three to four times per year. NGAC members will serve without compensation, but travel and per diem costs will be provided by the USGS. The USGS will also provide necessary support services to the NGAC.
Additional information about the NGAC and the nomination process is posted on the NGAC web page at
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Museum of Us 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 December 15, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Alisha Pico, NAGPRA Repatriation Manager, Museum of Us, 1350 El Prado, Balboa Park, San Diego, CA 92101, 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 Museum of Us,
Human remains representing, at least, 51 individuals have been identified. The 1,025 associated funerary objects consist of multiple lots of ground stone, lithics, modified and unmodified faunal bone, modified and unmodified shell, soil samples, basketry fragments, and eco/biofacts.
Between 1937 and 1938, via excavations conducted by George Carter, Assistant Curator at the San Diego Museum (now Museum of Us), human remains and cultural items were removed from Point Sal (G-1/SBA-125) in Santa Barbara County, California. Although the Museum of Us no longer uses pesticides on cultural items, pesticide use did occur from the beginning of the Museum's founding in 1915 through the 1990s. There is no specific documentation to indicate pesticide use on these human remains and cultural 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 Museum of Us has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 51 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 1,025 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 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, 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 October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Museum of Us 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 Museum of Us 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 Santa Rosa Junior College Multicultural Museum (SRJCMM) 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 October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Santa Rosa Junior College Multicultural Museum, 1501 Mendocino Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95401, 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 SRJCMM, 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 29 cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The 29 sacred objects are 28 baskets and/or basketry hats and one string of Olivella Shell & Bugle trade beads.
Additional provenance research indicates that the objects entered the SRJC Multicultural Museum through a variety of donors, private collectors, families, museums, and historical organizations between 1980 and 2023. Several objects are believed to derive from the museum's original collections, likely acquired by founder Jesse Peter in the 1930s, although documentation is limited. Available records indicate that some objects were gifted or traded prior to their donation, including Object 101.104, which was reportedly acquired by Elise Starrett Elsner while living as a missionary in the Mojave Desert, and Object 115.027, described as a gift from an Indian acquaintance in the early 1930s. Other objects have documented transfers from the Sonoma County Historical Society, Museum of Sonoma County, Codding Museum, and Mendocino County Museum. Provenance records for several objects remain incomplete and do not establish a continuous chain of custody.
The Santa Rosa Junior College Multicultural Museum has determined that:
• The 29 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 Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the SRJCMM 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 SRJCMM 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 Nebraska State Museum intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meet 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 October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Taylor Ronquillo, NAGPRA Program Manager, University of Nebraska State Museum, Morrill Hall, 645 N 14th Street, Lincoln, NE 68588, 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 Nebraska State 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 gold tin filled with two preserved corn cobs and two packets of tobacco tied with twine. Barbara Salvatore gifted the tin with its contents to Dr. Mark Awakuni-Swetland, Associate Professor of Anthropology, in 2008. UNL Archives and Special Collections received the corn as part of the Awakuni-Swetland papers, transferred to the University Archives by Swetland's wife, Donna Swetland, after his death.
The University of Nebraska State 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 Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.
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 October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the University of Nebraska State Museum must determine the most appropriate requestor before repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural item are considered a single request and not competing requests. The University of Nebraska State 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 Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meets the definition of an object of cultural patrimony 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 October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Jennifer Gallatin Rigsby, Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields, 4000 Michigan Road, Indianapolis, IN 46208, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the
A total of one cultural item has been requested for repatriation. The one object of cultural patrimony is a pair of moccasins. The moccasins were obtained by Mrs. Valette Miller White in Montana prior to 1936.
The Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields has determined that:
• The one object of cultural patrimony described in this notice 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), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural item described in this notice and the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma.
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 October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields 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 Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields 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.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before August 29, 2026, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by October 1, 2026.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 2013, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before August 29, 2026. Pursuant to 36 CFR 60.13, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other 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.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
Nomination(s) submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination(s) and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination(s) and supports listing the properties in the National Register of Historic Places.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Indiana University 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 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 October 16, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Dr. Jayne-Leigh Thomas, Office of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Indiana University, Student Building 318, 701 E Kirkwood Avenue, Bloomington, IN 47405, 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 Indiana University, 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, two individuals have been identified. The one associated funerary object is one lot of faunal bone. This collection was excavated in Carbon County, Montana by the Montana Archaeological Survey and donated in 1941 to the University of Chicago. There is no
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.
Indiana University has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The one object described in this notice is 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 Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Crow Tribe of Montana; Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Fort Belknap Indian Community of the Fort Belknap Researvation of Montana; Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation.
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 October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Indiana University 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. Indiana University 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 Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Jennifer Gallatin Rigsby, Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields, 4000 Michigan Road, Indianapolis, IN 46208, 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 Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields, 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 objects of cultural patrimony are a pipe bag, two pairs of moccasins and one rattle. The pipe bag and both pairs of moccasins was obtained by Ruth Pratt Bobbs in Wyoming prior to 1919. The rattle was obtained by Earl C. Townsend, Jr. in the Great Plains prior to 1976.
The Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields has determined that:
• The four objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice 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), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields 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 Indianapolis Museum of Art at Newfields 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 Metropolitan Museum of Art (The Met) intends to repatriate a certain cultural item that meet the definition of a sacred object and that has a known lineal descendant.
Repatriation of the cultural item in this notice may occur on or after October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural item in this notice to Jennifer Day, NAGPRA Coordinator & Community Liaison, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1000 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10028, 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 Met, 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 wooden deity figure (
The Museum is not aware of any potentially hazardous substances used to treat any of the cultural items.
The 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.
• A known lineal descendant is connected to the cultural item described in this notice. This determination was made pursuant to 43 CFR 10.9(h)(4) following receipt of competing request for repatriation of the cultural item described in this notice.
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 October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the 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 Museum is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to all requestors and any other consulting parties.
National Park Service, Interior.
Meeting notice.
The National Park Service is hereby giving notice that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Committee) will hold a virtual meeting, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended.
The Committee will meet via video conference on Wednesday, September 30, 2026, from 2:00 p.m. until approximately 6:00 p.m. (Eastern). All meetings are open to the public. The agenda and materials for this meeting will be posted on or before September 15, 2026 (see
Information on joining the meeting by internet or telephone as well as the agenda and meeting materials will be available on the National NAGPRA Program website at
Melanie O'Brien, Designated Federal Officer, National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Program (2253), National Park Service, telephone (202) 354-2201, or email
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.
The Committee was established in section 8 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). Information about NAGPRA, the Committee, and Committee meetings is available on the National NAGPRA Program website at
The Committee is responsible for monitoring the NAGPRA inventory and identification process; reviewing and making findings related to the identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or the return of such items; facilitating the resolution of disputes; compiling an
The agenda for the meeting may include a report from the National NAGPRA Program; the discussion of the Review Committee Report to Congress; subcommittee reports and discussion; and other topics related to the Committee's responsibilities under section 8 of NAGPRA. In addition, the agenda may include presentations by Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, museums, Federal agencies, associations, and individuals; and public comment.
To submit a request or comment, see
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the Department of the Army 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 October 16, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice to Ms. Mary Schmidt, Department of the Army, 101 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0101, 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 Department of the Army 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, one individual have been identified. Records indicate that construction of the Fort Vancouver barracks in 1915 may have resulted in the removal of an undetermined number of burials and Native American remains. It is believed this Ancestor, a young woman, was removed during this time. The exact origin location is unclear, though according to records, portions of the east and west barracks overlapped with the original Hudson's Bay Company cemetery. The U.S. Army managed the Fort until June 19, 1948, when it was declared a U.S. National Monument and a portion transferred to the National Park Service (NPS), though the Army maintained responsibility for the barracks/cemetery area. The remaining Army property at Fort Vancouver was transferred to NPS in 2012 under the BRAC Program. The only provenance information related to the Ancestor's arrival at the Oregon Historical Society, where she is currently located, was a handwritten piece of paper associated with the remains stating they were donated in 1948 by Dr. Alan Welch Smith. To the best of the Army's knowledge, the collection has not been treated with any 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. This connection was made using information available to the agency, provided in consultation, and through recognition of the treaty rights accorded by the Willamette Valley Treaty (1855).
The Department of the Army has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a connection between the human remains described in this notice and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe.
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 October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Department of the Army must determine the most
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Sean Walker, California State University, Fullerton, 2600 Nutwood Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92831, 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 California State University, Fullerton, 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 42 cultural items/lots have been requested for repatriation.
In 1982, a private donor transferred cultural items she had personally collected over the course of 20 years at CA-SBA-205, Jalama Beach, to CSUF. The seven unassociated funerary objects from this location are one lot of faunal bone, one lot of miscellaneous lithics (cores, debitage, manos, beach stones), one lot of shell beads, one pestle, one lot of shell and shell fragments, one lot of asphaltum, and one lot of historic material.
The four unassociated funerary objects from site CA-SLO-393, Arroyo Grande, are thought to be the result of subsurface testing conducted by Cogstone Resource Management in 2005 under the direction of the late Sherri Gust. The four unassociated funerary objects are one lot of faunal bone, one lot of miscellaneous lithics, one lot of soil and charcoal, and one lot of shell and shell fragments.
In 2000-2003, archaeological excavations were conducted by Cultural Resources Management Services (CRMS) at various recorded archaeological sites on the Santa Ysabel Ranch near Paso Robles, CA. Excavations were undertaken at CA-SLO-1492, CA-SLO-2076, CA-SLO-2079, CA-SLO-2080, CA-SLO-2082, CA-SLO-2083, CA-SLO-2086, and CA-SLO-2087. The 30 objects of cultural patrimony from these sites are five lots of cores, chunks, cobbles, and hammerstones; three lots of groundstone and groundstone fragments; eight lots of debitage; four lots of chipped stone tools; four lots of shell and shell fragments; three lots of faunal bone and bone fragments; two lots of historic materials; and one lot of quartz crystal. The cultural material is thought to have been brought to CSUF for use as teaching material.
In 1983, one object of cultural patrimony, a stone point, was donated to CSUF by Charles Ruby, a private collector. A paper label affixed to the point indicates that it was found in a canyon in Santa Barbara County.
California State University, Fullerton has determined that:
• The 11 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 31 lots of objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice 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), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Fullerton 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. California State University, Fullerton 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), California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Sean Walker, California State University, Fullerton, 2600 Nutwood Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92831, 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 California State University, Fullerton, 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 38 cultural items have been requested for repatriation.
In 1973, due to imminent development of the area, the Public Antiquities Salvage Team (P.A.S.T.), an organization associated with the CSUF Anthropology Department, surveyed and excavated site CA-LAN-271 in Long Beach, CA under the direction of J. Zahniser. The eight objects of cultural patrimony from this site are one lot of modified shell, one lot of lithics, one lot of charcoal, one lot of historic material, one lot of soil, one lot of organic material, one lot of faunal bone, and one lot of shell and shell fragments.
CSUF holds cultural material from CA-LAN-696, Rancho Los Cerritos in Long Beach, CA, although the details of acquisition are not known. The two objects of cultural patrimony from this site include one lot of faunal bone and one lot of historic material.
In 1977, P.A.S.T. was contracted to conduct an archaeological assessment of site CA-LAN-791 in Rowland Heights, CA due to planned development of the site area. A CSUF field school under the direction of R. Douglas, included surface collection and the excavation of test units at the site. The cultural items came to CSUF in 1977 and were recorded as Acc. #17. The five objects of cultural patrimony are one mano, one metate fragment, one pestle, one lot of lithics, and one lot of fire-affected rock.
CSUF conducted multiple archaeological field schools at site CA-LAN-822, Abalone Cove, between 2007-2011 under the direction of Dr. S. James. The 10 objects of cultural patrimony from this site include one lot of shell including whole abalone shells, one lot of ochre, one lot of faunal bone, one lot of charcoal, one lot of historic material, one lot of lithics, one lot of organic material, one lot of beads, one lot of fire-affected rock, and one lot of modified shell.
In 1978, CSUF accepted a donation of cultural items surface collected from site CA-LAN-967 in Avocado Heights, CA and the donation was recorded as Acc. #24. The four objects of cultural patrimony from this site include one lot of metate fragments, one lot of manos, one lot of quartz, and one lot of lithic tools.
In 1991, CSUF's Archeological Research Facility (ARF) was contracted by the city of Santa Fe Springs to survey and conduct work on a feature of concentrated cattle bone at site CA-LAN-1016H, the Ontiveros Adobe. The four objects of cultural patrimony from this site include one lot of ceramic sherds, one lot of beads, one lot of faunal bone, and one lot of bone tools and ornaments.
In 1990, Greenwood and Associates surveyed and tested site CA-LAN-1872H in Redondo Beach, CA due to planned development of the area. The five objects of cultural patrimony from this site include one lot of metate fragments, one lot of shell and shell fragments, one lot of faunal bone, one lot of lithics, and one lot of historic material.
CSUF has identified no records indicating the presence of any potentially hazardous substances on the cultural items.
California State University, Fullerton has determined that:
• The 38 objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice 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), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Fullerton 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. California State University, Fullerton 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.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 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 Denali National Park SRC, the Gates of the Arctic National Park SRC, the Kobuk Valley National Park SRC, the Lake Clark National Park SRC, and the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park SRC will meet as indicated below.
Subsistence Resource Commission meetings will take place on dates and times identified in the table. If an in-person meeting is not feasible or advisable, the meeting will be held solely by teleconference. Meetings will adjourn when business is completed. For SRCs with two-day meetings, the second day will not be held if business concludes on the first day.
In-person meetings will be held at the locations identified in the table.
For more detailed information regarding these meetings, or if you are interested in applying for SRC membership, contact Eva Patton, Federal Advisory Committee Group Federal Officer, at (907) 644-3601 or via email at
The NPS is holding meetings pursuant to the FACA (5 U.S.C. Ch. 10), as amended. 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 upon request from the superintendent for public inspection within 90 days after 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 location and date may change based on inclement weather or exceptional circumstances. If the meeting date and location are changed, the superintendent will issue a press release and use local newspapers and/or radio stations to announce the rescheduled meeting.
5 U.S.C. Ch. 10.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Sean Walker, California State University, Fullerton, 2600 Nutwood Avenue, Fullerton, CA
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 California State University, Fullerton, 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 two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two objects of cultural patrimony are one complete pestle (Acc. #117.10.1) and one stone pipe bowl (Acc. #117.7.1). The cultural items were part of a donation to the university from a private individual in 1988. In donation records, the pipe bowl is noted as originating from Costa Mesa, CA, while the pestle is recorded as having been removed from within Orange County, CA. CSUF has identified no records indicating the presence of any potentially hazardous substances on the cultural items. CSUF has determined that there is a cultural connection between the cultural items and the several Indian Tribes, including, but not limited to, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California and the Pechanga Band of Indians (Luiseño) in partnership with the Juaneño Band of Mission Indians, Acjachemen Nation-Belardes, (Acjachemen).
California State University, Fullerton has determined that:
• The two objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to several Native American groups, including any constituent sub-group (such as a band, clan, lineage, ceremonial society, or other subdivision), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a reasonable cultural connection between the items described in this notice and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, California State University, Fullerton 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. California State University, Fullerton 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 California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections 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 October 16, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Hugh Radde, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, 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 UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections, 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, one individual has been identified (Accession 250.025). The 26 associated funerary objects include shellfish fragments, unmodified marine mammal bone fragments, chert bifaces, and flaked stone fragments. Accession 250.025 was collected from the surface of archaeological site CA-VEN-27B in Ventura County, near the area known today as Pitas Point. The cultural materials and ancestral remains were collected by Chester King and Steven Craig. The exact date of removal is unknown but believed to be circa 1970. They were brought to UC Santa Barbara prior to 1979, but never identified as human until 2026. It is unknown whether the remains were treated with preservatives or other potentially hazardous substances.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The 26 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 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission
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 October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections 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 UCSB Repository for Archaeological and Ethnographic Collections 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 Texas at Austin, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL), intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and/or objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Jessica Ulmer, The University of Texas at Austin Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, 1 University Station, R7500, Austin, TX 78712, 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 TARL 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 42,138 cultural items have been requested for repatriation.
Approximately 18,175 of these items have been identified as potential sacred objects/objects of cultural patrimony and consist of abraders, bifaces, decorated Native American ceramics, faunal bone, drills, glass quartz, ground stones, maize, metates, obsidian, ochre, pendants, plants, polishing stones, pollen samples, scrapers, shells, shell beads, turquoise, unifaces, untyped dart points, and wood.
Approximately 23,963 of these items have been identified as potential unassociated funerary objects and consist of adobe, angular shatter, archaeomagnetrometry samples, burned clay, charcoal, float samples, plaster, soil samples, undecorated Native American ceramics, and unknown glass.
The items were reportedly collected in El Paso, Texas, at site 41EP25 by the 1986 Texas Archeological Society field school led by Thomas O'Laughlin and accessioned by TARL in 2004. TARL records indicate no known hazardous substances.
TARL has determined that:
• The 23,963 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 18,175 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 Ysleta del Sur Pueblo.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, TARL 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. TARL 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 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest 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 October 16, 2026.
Send written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to Janelle Crocker, Acting Forest Supervisor, Tongass National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 648 Mission Street, Suite 110, Ketchikan, AK 99901, 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 Tongass National Forest, 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 10 individuals have been identified. The nine associated funerary objects include a mortuary pole, bentwood box fragments, blanket fragments, beads, metal, abalone shell, bird down, cordage, and cedar bark. The mortuary pole was collected in approximately 1895 from John Brady's homestead residence in the City and Borough of Sitka, Alaska, and placed in the Sheldon Jackson Museum. Human remains and associated funerary objects may or may not be original to the pole, all of which likely originated from the village site of Krugloi Point on the southern tip of Halleck Island.
Based on the information available and the results of consultation, cultural affiliation is reasonably identified by the geographical location or acquisition history of the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice.
The Tongass National Forest has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 10 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The nine 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 Sitka Tribe of Alaska.
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 October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Tongass National Forest 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 Tongass National Forest 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 Gilcrease Museum intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after October 16, 2026.
Send additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to Laura Bryant, Gilcrease Museum, 1400 N Gilcrease Museum Road, Tulsa, OK 74127, 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 Gilcrease 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 two cultural items have been requested for repatriation. The two objects of cultural patrimony are baskets (TL2026.11.50 and 71.721). One basket
The Gilcrease Museum has determined that:
• The two objects of cultural patrimony described in this notice 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), according to the Native American traditional knowledge of an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
• There is a connection between the cultural items described in this notice and the Tejon Indian Tribe.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the authorized representative identified in this notice under
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after October 16, 2026. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Gilcrease 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 Gilcrease 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.
Notice is hereby given that, on July 2, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Ingrasys Technology Inc., Toayuan City, REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN); and Verda, Helsinki, REPUBLIC OF FINLAND have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
In addition, Pure Storage has changed its name to Everpure, Santa Clara, CA.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and MLCommons intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 15, 2020, MLCommons filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 15, 2026. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 12, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 26, 2020, Subcutaneous Drug Development & Delivery Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 23, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on May 19, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, O2 Czech Republic a.s., Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC; Comfortability B.V., Ijssel, KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS; iHome Future, Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; WaterX Technologies, San Diego, CA; Ness Corporation Pty Limited, Seven Hills, COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA; Kohost LLC, Las Vegas, NV; Level Home, Draper, UT; EbV Elektronikbau, Wanchai, HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION; Everspring Industry Co., Ltd, New Taipei City, REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN); Remotec Technology Limited, Kowloon, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; and Mitsumi Electric Co., LTD, Tokyo, JAPAN have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or the planned activity of the venture. Membership in this venture remains open, and the Joint Venture intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 19, 2020, the Joint Venture filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on February 20, 2026. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 2, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Fairfax County Public Schools, Falls Church, VA; Corvallis School District, Corvallis, OR; Perris Union High School District (CA), Perris, CA; Ivy Tech Community College, Indianapolis, IN; IDatafy, Little Rock, AR; Scout Edu, Inc., New York, NY; SuperWise Solutions, uMhlanga, REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA; LearningLynks, Bryan, TX; University of London (CoSector), London, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND; Terrace Metrics, Inc, Cincinnati, OH; Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools, Charlotte, NC; and Vigilo AS, Karmsund, KINGDOM OF NORWAY, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and 1EdTech Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 7, 2000, 1EdTech Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 15, 2026. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 8, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, FACTS Engineering, LLC, Port Richey, FL; FOCUS-ON VoF, Dordrecht, KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS; Panduit Corporation, Tinley Park, IL; Proportion-Air, Inc., McCordsville, IN; PSTEK Co., Ltd, Gunpo-si, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; and SERVO-ROBOT INC., Saint-Bruno-de-Montarville, CANADA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ODVA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 21, 1995, ODVA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 14, 2026. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 2, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
The following pre-standards activities associated with IEEE Industry Connections Activities were launched or renewed:
The following training and conformity assessment programs associated with published IEEE standards and supporting their promulgation were launched:
• Ethics for AI System Design:
• IEEE Responsible Procurement of AI (RP-AI) training:
• IEEE SA's RP-AI:
• CertifAIEd Assessor Qualification Program:
• CertifAIEd Licensing and Product Registry Program:
On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 8, 2026. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 7, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, ActioNet, Inc., Vienna, VA; Adapt Forward LLC, North Charleston, SC; Advanced Computer Concepts, Inc., Mc Lean, VA; Industry Defense Systems LLC, Lansdale, PA; Katz Water Technologies, Inc., Houston, TX; and VIAVI Solutions LLC, Wichita, KS, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IWRP Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 15, 2018, IWRP Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 2, 2026. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 7, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CX Hub intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 11, 2024, CX Hub filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 2, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 7, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Aldevron, L.L.C., Prairie Rose, ND; Amyris, Inc., Emeryville, CA;
No other changes have been made to either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MCDC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 13, 2015, MCDC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 1, 2025. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 1, 2026, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Cobham Satcom A/S has changed its name to Gatehouse Satcom A/S, Noerresundby, KINGDOM OF DENMARK.
No other changes have been made to either the membership or planned activity of the venture. Membership in this group remains open, and MSSA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 26, 2024, MSSA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 27, 2026. A notice was published in the
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Economic Advisory Council was established as a discretionary advisory committee on October 5, 2018. Its charter was most recently renewed on September 30, 2024, for two additional years. The MCC Economic Advisory Council serves MCC solely in an advisory capacity and provides advice and guidance to MCC economists, evaluators, leadership of the Department of Policy and Evaluation, and senior MCC leadership regarding relevant trends in development economics, applied economic and evaluation methods, poverty analytics, as well as modeling, measuring, and evaluating development interventions. In doing so, the MCC Economic Advisory Council helps sharpen MCC's analytical methods and capacity in support of the agency's mission. It also serves as a sounding board and reference group for assessing and advising on strategic policy innovations and methodological directions in MCC.
Friday, September 25, 2026, from 10:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held both in-person at 1099 14th Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005 and virtually via WebEx.
Mesbah Motamed, 202.521.7874,
National Mediation Board.
Notice.
The National Mediation Board (NMB) invites comments on the proposed information collection request as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The NMB is seeking the reinstatement, with non-substantive change, of a previously approved collection of information, entitled “Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute.” The change to the information collection is a non-substantive one related to the change in the agency's Washington, DC headquarters address, which was effective August 1, 2026. This notice allows for 60 days for public comments.
Comments are due by November 16, 2026.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request
Comments on the proposed information collection request should be directed by email (the preferred method) to NMB Counsel John Gross at
John Gross, Counsel, National Mediation Board, Office of Legal Affairs, P.O. Box 23300, Washington, DC 20026; telephone number: 202-815-1647; email address:
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The NMB publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Currently, the NMB is soliciting comments concerning the proposed reinstatement, with non-substantive change, of a previously approved collection of information, entitled “Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute,” and is interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the agency; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the agency enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the agency minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
1.
2. The application form provides necessary information to the NMB so that it can determine the amount of staff and resources required to conduct an investigation and fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Without this information, the NMB would have to delay the commencement of the investigation, which is contrary to the intent of the RLA.
3. There is no improved technological method for obtaining this information. The burden on the parties is minimal in completing the Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute.
4. There is no duplication in obtaining this information.
5. Rarely are representation elections conducted for small businesses. Employers are not permitted to request our services regarding representation investigations. The labor organizations, which are the typical requesters, are national in scope and would not qualify as small businesses. Even in situations where the invocation comes from a small labor organization, we believe the burden in completing the application form is minimal and that no reduction in burden could be made.
6. The NMB is required by Section 2, Ninth, to investigate the dispute, to determine who is the authorized representative, if any, and to certify such representative. The NMB has no ability to control the frequency, technical, or legal obstacles, which would reduce the burden.
7. The information requested by the NMB is consistent with the general information collection guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.6 and 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3). The NMB has no ability to control the data provided or timing of the invocation. The burden on the parties is minimal in completing the Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute.
8. No payments or gifts have been provided by the NMB to any respondents of the form.
9. There are no questions of a sensitive nature on the form.
10. The total time burden on respondents is 6.25 hours annually—this is the time required to collect information. After consulting with a sample of people involved with the collection of this information, the time to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including gathering the data needed and completion and review of the information.
11. The total collection and mail cost burden on respondents is estimated at $222.00 annually ($201.50 time cost burden + $20.50 mail cost burden.)
a. The respondents will not incur any capital costs or start up costs for this collection.
b. Cost burden on respondents—detail:
The total time burden annual cost is $201.50.
Time Burden Basis: The total hourly burden per year, upon respondents, is 6.25.
Staff cost = $201.50.
We are estimating that a mid-level clerical person, with an average salary of $32.24 per hour, will be completing the Application for Investigation of Representation Dispute form. The total burden is estimated at 6.25 hours, therefore, the total time burden cost is estimated at $201.50 per year.
The total annual mailing cost to respondents is $20.50.
Number of applications mailed by
The collection of this information is not mandatory; it is a voluntary request from airline and railroad carrier employees seeking to invoke an investigation of a representation dispute. After consulting with a sample of people involved with the collection of this information, the time to complete this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including gathering the data needed and completion and review of the information. However, the estimated hour burden costs of the respondents may vary due to the complexity of the specific question in dispute.
The application form is available from the NMB's Office of Legal Affairs and is also available on the internet at
12. The total annualized Federal cost is $340.00. This cost represents the processing cost of the applications once they are received by the NMB. There are no printing or mailing costs. (The NMB has not received any requests to print and mail a form for a number of years.) The completed applications are maintained by the Office of Legal Affairs.
a. Processing Cost = $340.00.
Basis (processing cost): Representation is requested approximately 25 times per year and it takes approximately 20 minutes to process each application.
13. Item 13—no change in annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden.
14. The information collected by the application will not be published.
15. The NMB will display the OMB expiration date on the form.
16(a)—the form does not reduce the burden on small entities; however, the burden is minimized and voluntary.
16(b)—the form does not indicate the retention period for record keeping requirements.
16(c)—not applicable, the form is not part of a statistical survey.
National Science Foundation.
Committee management reestablishment.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is reestablishing the Advisory Committee for Integrative Activities.
NSF approves the reestablishment of this committee on 9/4/2026. Effective date for reestablishment is September 30, 2026. For more information, please contact Crystal Robinson, NSF, at (703) 292-8687.
Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer, NSF, at (703) 292-8687, or by mail to National Science Foundation, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
The NSF management officials having responsibility for the advisory committee listed below have determined that reestablishing this committee is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861
Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.60(a), to establish, renew, reestablish, or merge a discretionary (agency discretion) advisory committee, an agency must first consult with the General Services Administration's Committee Management Secretariat (the Secretariat) and, as part of the consultation, provide a written public interest determination approved by the head of the agency to the Secretariat with a copy to the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.35, an agency shall follow the same consultation process and document in writing the same determination of need before creating a subcommittee under a discretionary committee that is not made up entirely of members of a parent advisory committee. Information on the following factors for the committee is provided to the Secretariat to demonstrate that reestablishing the committee is in the public interest:
1.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
2. If applicable, the total dollar value of grants expected to be recommended during the fiscal year: N/A.
3. Criteria for selecting members to ensure the committee has the necessary expertise and fairly balance membership.
Membership is expected to consist of up to approximately 24 people appointed on an ad hoc basis as needed. The selection and number of these members will be determined by the subject matter to be considered by the committee. Members are selected to achieve a balance of viewpoints and expertise in scientific areas, sectors, geography, and types of organizations appropriate to the subject matter and encompassed by the Committee's charge. It is anticipated that membership will comprise of Special Government Employees (SGEs) and Regular Government Employees (RGEs)
4. List of all other Federal advisory committees of the agency.
5. Justification that the information or advice provided by the Federal advisory committee or subcommittee is not available from another Federal advisory committee, another Federal Government source, or any other more cost-effective and less burdensome source.
The committee will be convened as needed to provide timely advice on ad hoc matters for which information or advice is not available from another Federal advisory committee or Federal Government source and for which a synthesis of input from individuals with a range of expertise and perspectives will enable the Agency to better serve the public interest.
6. If the consultation is a committee renewal, a summary of the previous accomplishments of the committee and the reasons it needs to continue. Examples of the committee's accomplishments include: advising on potential improvements to NSF's merit review process; conducting assessments of NSF-operated Federally Funded Research and Development Centers; reviewing the implementation of major NSF programs such as the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the Major Research Instrumentation program, and the Science and Technology Centers program; and providing advice on public engagement with science.
7. Explanation of why the committee/subcommittee is essential to the conduct of agency business.
The committee provides advice on complex technical subjects from experts that complement the expertise of the Agency's own staff, and it promotes transparency and public confidence in the integrity of NSF's merit review process. This public interest determination documents that reestablishing the committee is essential to the conduct of agency business and that the information to be obtained is not already available through another advisory committee or source within the Federal Government.
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing requests with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add certain Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contracts to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Christopher C. Meyerson, (202) 268-7820.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
Postal Service.
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission the following requests:
Documents are available at
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to introduce conforming changes to Nasdaq Texas rules in connection with the establishment of fees for Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus by the Nasdaq Stock Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's fees at (i) Equity 7, Section 119 to waive the market data distributor fees for Nasdaq Texas TotalView for firms that consolidate it with certain other feeds for external redistribution; (ii) Equity 7, Section 123 to waive the fees for firms purchasing Nasdaq TotalView Plus; (iii) Equity 7, Section 139 to reflect the addition of Nasdaq Basic Plus as a product offering subject to a consolidation fee; and (iv) Equity 7, Section 147 to clarify that firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus or both shall pay monthly administrative fees and data consolidation fees, each as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce conforming changes to Nasdaq Texas rules in connection with the establishment of fees for Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus by the Nasdaq Stock Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend fees at (i) Equity 7, Section 119 to waive the market data distributor fees for Nasdaq Texas TotalView for firms that consolidate it with certain other feeds for external redistribution; (ii) Equity 7, Section 123 to waive the fees for firms purchasing Nasdaq TotalView Plus; (iii) Equity 7, Section 139 to reflect the addition of Nasdaq Basic Plus as a product offering subject to a consolidation fee; and (iv) Equity 7, Section 147 to clarify that firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus or both shall pay monthly administrative fees and data consolidation fees, each as described further below.
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) recently introduced two new products, Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus,
Nasdaq will offer Nasdaq TotalView Plus for the same Professional and Non-Professional Subscriber and enterprise license fees as Nasdaq TotalView.
Nasdaq will offer Nasdaq Basic Plus for the same Professional and Non-Professional Subscriber, enterprise license, and Distributor fees as Nasdaq Basic. To ensure that other market data vendors will be able to offer competing consolidated data products, Nasdaq proposes to charge the same monthly administrative and data consolidation fees for Nasdaq Basic Plus as are currently charged for Nasdaq Last Sale Plus to both Internal Distributors
With respect to the Market Data Enterprise License for Display Usage,
As a result of the introduction of Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus and their related fees, the Exchange is proposing amendments to Equity 7, Sections 119, 123, 139, and 147 to make conforming changes to its fee schedule to align with the fees outlined in Nasdaq's Equity 7, Sections 123, 132, 139, and 147 for these new products.
The purpose of the first fee amendment is to issue a fee waiver for External Market Data Distributor Fees of $1,620 per month, in Equity 7, Section 119, for vendors that certify to Nasdaq that they will consolidate Nasdaq TotalView, Nasdaq Texas TotalView and Nasdaq PSX TotalView into a data feed solely for external redistribution. The same discount would not apply to non-vendors. Vendors would be able to apply this fee reduction to cover the cost of forming their own consolidated feed, thereby allowing vendors to compete with Nasdaq in the sale of consolidated data products using the depth of book data from Nasdaq affiliates.
The purpose of the second fee amendment is to issue a fee waiver for Nasdaq Texas TotalView fees in Equity 7, Section 123 to any firm that purchases Nasdaq TotalView Plus. Nasdaq Texas TotalView disseminates all individual Nasdaq Texas Equities System participant orders and quotes displayed in the system, the aggregate size of such orders and quotes at each price level, and the trade data for executions that occur within the Nasdaq Texas Equities System.
This is to ensure that Nasdaq can offer Nasdaq TotalView Plus for the same Subscriber fees as Nasdaq TotalView.
The purpose of the third and fourth fee amendments is to clarify that firms that receive Nasdaq Basic Plus, in addition to or in lieu of Nasdaq Last Sale Plus, will also pay the monthly administrative fee applicable to Nasdaq Texas Last Sale and Nasdaq Texas BBO, and that distributors of Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus will pay a data consolidation fee of $350 per month. Currently, firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus must pay the administrative and consolidation fees,
This fee is designed to cover the data consolidation costs of market data vendors to ensure that they will be able to offer competing consolidated data products to the new Nasdaq Basic Plus product, which contains both NTX Last Sale and Nasdaq Texas BBO.
As a conforming change, the Exchange proposes to modify both Equity 7, Section 139(b)(1) and Equity 7, Section 147(b) to state that firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus or both shall pay the monthly administrative fees for NTX Last Sale and Nasdaq Texas BBO, as well as a data consolidation fee of $350 per month.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposal will expand choice by allowing customers to select whether to purchase best bid and offer information through the separate data feeds of Nasdaq Basic, Nasdaq Texas Last Sale, Nasdaq Texas BBO, and PSX Last Sale, and PSX BBO (or any combination thereof) separately or in a single feed. Purchasing Nasdaq Basic Plus or Nasdaq TotalView Plus will allow some customers to optimize consumption by ingesting information from multiple markets in a single connection, which may result in cost savings for subscribers based on a more efficient configuration of data feeds. Nothing in this proposal will change the quantity or quality of Depth-of-Book or Top-of-Book information available in the market, as the underlying feeds will remain available, and the proposed feeds are simply amalgamations of those underlying feeds.
In offering Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus, Nasdaq will be acting as a redistributor of Depth-of-Book
Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus will be compiled from the same underlying feeds from Nasdaq, Nasdaq Texas, and Nasdaq PSX that are distributed to the purchasers of those feeds. With respect to speed, the path for the distribution of the information by the Exchange will not be faster than the path for distribution that would be used by a market data vendor to distribute similar, independently created products.
With respect to information, the same source of the market data to be used by the Exchange to create the two proposed products will also be available to any other market data vendor. The Nasdaq system that will create and support Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus will access the underlying feeds from Nasdaq, Nasdaq Texas, and Nasdaq PSX from the same point as any market data vendor.
With respect to cost, Nasdaq will ensure that market data vendors are able to compete with the proposed fees by introducing a fee waiver for distributors of Nasdaq TotalView Plus and a consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus. These proposals will allow vendors to cover the costs of consolidation for Depth-of-Book and Top-of-Book feeds, respectively.
The proposed fee waiver for Nasdaq TotalView Plus will exempt any firm that certifies to Nasdaq that it will consolidate Nasdaq TotalView, Nasdaq Texas TotalView and Nasdaq PSX TotalView into a data feed solely for external redistribution from Nasdaq Texas Market Data Distributor Fees
The proposed fees for Nasdaq Basic Plus include monthly administrative fees for Nasdaq Last Sale, NTX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale and a data consolidation fee of $350 per month for Internal Distributors and External Distributors of Nasdaq Basic Plus.
Nasdaq introduced a consolidation fee for both Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus because Nasdaq Basic Plus includes last sale information. Nasdaq expects vendors to use the same processes and servers to consolidate both best bid and offer and last sale information, and therefore the same consolidation fee should be sufficient to cover all data consolidation costs, enabling vendors to compete in consolidating and distributing data from multiple exchanges. The Exchange is proposing to amend its rules to permit that competition.
Nothing in the proposal involves an increase to the fees currently charged by Nasdaq Texas for its data feeds. Any subscriber to solely a Nasdaq Texas feed will continue to pay the same fees as are currently set, without any change. The subscriber fee waivers and consolidation fees proposed herein are to ensure that any purchaser of a
The proposed data consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus is exactly the same fee as currently charged for Nasdaq Last Sale Plus, and customers of Nasdaq Last Sale Plus would pay no additional consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus. These consolidation and administrative fees are not new, but are simply being expanded to Nasdaq's new product, and do not increase the fees charged to purchasers of Nasdaq Texas data.
Rather, the proposed fee waiver of Nasdaq Texas TotalView fees for vendors of Nasdaq TotalView Plus lowers fees below current fees.
The proposed waiver of all subscriber fees, including both Professional and Non-Professional fees, Non-Display Usage fees, and enterprise license fees for Nasdaq Texas data for Nasdaq TotalView Plus will actually lower fees further, as purchasers of Nasdaq TotalView Plus will be charged the same fees as currently charged for Nasdaq TotalView alone. The proposed
The proposal conforms fees for Nasdaq Texas products to the recent Nasdaq filings related to the offer of Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus.
The proposal is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because the proposed feeds are optional data fees available to all market participants on a non-discriminatory basis.
In summary, the proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because the proposal: (i) offers more customer choice; (ii) protects competition by covering the data consolidation costs of market data vendors; (iii) does not increase the fee for any Nasdaq Texas product, but simply waives certain fees or applies consolidation costs to firms purchasing certain data feeds; (iv) conforms fees for Nasdaq Texas products to the recent Nasdaq filings related to the offer of Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus; and (v) offers products to all market participants on a non-discriminatory basis.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nothing in the proposal burdens inter-market competition (the competition among self-regulatory organizations) because approval of the proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other exchanges to compete. The proposal merely implements fee waivers for certain purchasers and consolidation and administrative fees for others, which any other exchange could propose.
Nothing in the Proposal burdens intra-market competition (the competition among consumers of exchange data), because the products related to the fee changes—Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus—will be offered to all market participants at the same price and any market participant that elects to purchase either Nasdaq TotalView Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus may do so on a non-discriminatory basis.
Moreover, as explained above, the proposed fees offer no competitive advantage relative to market data vendors, and are in fact designed to promote competition. There is no change to (or advantage in) speed or information. With respect to cost, the Exchange proposes to ensure that market data vendors are able to compete with the proposed fees by introducing a fee waiver for Nasdaq TotalView Plus that is exclusively available to market data vendors and a consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus. These Nasdaq feeds are completely voluntary products in that Nasdaq is not required by any rule or regulation to make this data available and potential subscribers may purchase it only if they voluntarily choose to do so. Information is compiled from underlying feeds from Nasdaq, Nasdaq Texas, and Nasdaq PSX, which will remain available for purchase.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to introduce conforming changes to Phlx rules in connection with the establishment of fees for Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus by the Nasdaq Stock Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's fees at (i) Equity 7, Section 3, Market Data Distributor Fees to waive the market data distributor fees for PSX TotalView for firms that consolidate it with certain other feeds for external redistribution; (ii) Equity 7, Section 3, PSX TotalView to waive the fees for firms purchasing PSX TotalView Plus; (iii) Equity 7, Section 3, PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds to reflect the addition of Nasdaq Basic Plus as a product offering subject to a consolidation fee; and (iv) Equity 7, Section 3, PSX BBO Feeds to clarify that firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus or both shall pay monthly administrative fees and data consolidation fees, each as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce conforming changes to Phlx rules in connection with the establishment of fees for Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus by the Nasdaq Stock Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend fees at (i) Equity 7, Section 3, Market Data Distributor Fees to waive the market data distributor fees for PSX TotalView for firms that consolidate it with certain other feeds for external redistribution; (ii) Equity 7, Section 3, PSX TotalView to waive the fees for firms purchasing PSX TotalView Plus; (iii) Equity 7, Section 3, PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds to reflect the addition of Nasdaq Basic Plus as a product offering subject to a consolidation fee; and (iv) Equity 7, Section 3, PSX BBO Feeds to clarify that firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus or both shall pay monthly administrative fees and data consolidation fees, each as described further below.
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) recently introduced two new products, Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus,
Nasdaq will offer Nasdaq TotalView Plus for the same Professional and Non-Professional Subscriber and enterprise license fees as Nasdaq TotalView.
Nasdaq will offer Nasdaq Basic Plus for the same Professional and Non-Professional Subscriber, enterprise license, and Distributor fees as Nasdaq Basic. To ensure that other market data vendors will be able to offer competing consolidated data products, Nasdaq proposes to charge the same monthly administrative and data consolidation fees for Nasdaq Basic Plus as are currently charged for Nasdaq Last Sale Plus to both Internal Distributors
With respect to the Market Data Enterprise License for Display Usage,
As a result of the introduction of Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus and their related fees, the Exchange is proposing amendments to Equity 7, Section 3, Market Data Distributor Fees, PSX TotalView, PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus Data Feeds, and PSX BBO Feeds to make conforming changes to its fee schedule to align with the fees outlined in Nasdaq's Equity 7, Sections 123, 132, 139, and 147 for these new products.
The purpose of the first fee amendment is to issue a fee waiver for External Market Data Distributor Fees of $1,620 per month, in Equity 7, Section 3, Market Data Distributor Fees for vendors that certify to Nasdaq that they will consolidate Nasdaq TotalView, Nasdaq Texas TotalView and Nasdaq PSX TotalView into a data feed solely for external redistribution. The same discount would not apply to non-vendors. Vendors would be able to apply this fee reduction to cover the cost of forming their own consolidated feed, thereby allowing vendors to compete with Nasdaq in the sale of consolidated data products using the depth of book data from Nasdaq affiliates.
The purpose of the second fee amendment is to issue a fee waiver for PSX TotalView fees in Equity 7, Section 3, PSX TotalView, to any firm that purchases Nasdaq TotalView Plus. PSX TotalView disseminates all individual Phlx Equities System participant orders and quotes displayed in the system, the aggregate size of such orders and quotes at each price level, and the trade data for executions that occur within the Phlx Equities System.
This is to ensure that Nasdaq can offer Nasdaq TotalView Plus for the same Subscriber fees as Nasdaq TotalView.
The purpose of the third and fourth fee amendments is to clarify that firms that receive Nasdaq Basic Plus, in addition to or in lieu of Nasdaq Last Sale Plus, will also pay the monthly administrative fee applicable to PSX Last Sale, and that distributors of Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus will pay a data consolidation fee of $350 per month. Currently, firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus must pay the administrative and consolidation fees,
This fee is designed to cover the data consolidation costs of market data vendors to ensure that they will be able to offer competing consolidated data products to the new Nasdaq Basic Plus product, which contains PSX Last Sale.
As a conforming change, the Exchange proposes to modify both Equity 7, Section 3, PSX Last Sale and Nasdaq Last Sale and PSX BBO Feeds to state that firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus or both shall pay the monthly administrative fees for PSX Last Sale and, as well as a data consolidation fee of $350 per month.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposal will expand choice by allowing customers to select whether to purchase best bid and offer information through the separate data feeds of Nasdaq Basic, Nasdaq Texas Last Sale, Nasdaq Texas BBO, and PSX Last Sale, and PSX BBO (or any combination thereof) separately or in a single feed. Purchasing Nasdaq Basic Plus or Nasdaq TotalView Plus will allow some customers to optimize consumption by ingesting information from multiple markets in a single connection, which may result in cost savings for subscribers based on a more efficient configuration of data feeds. Nothing in this proposal will change the quantity or quality of Depth-of-Book or Top-of-Book information available in the market, as the underlying feeds will remain available, and the proposed feeds are simply amalgamations of those underlying feeds.
In offering Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus, Nasdaq will be acting as a redistributor of Depth-of-Book
Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus will be compiled from the same underlying feeds from Nasdaq, Nasdaq Texas, and Phlx that are distributed to the purchasers of those feeds. With respect to speed, the path for the distribution of the information by the Exchange will not be faster than the path for distribution that would be used by a market data vendor to distribute similar, independently created products.
With respect to information, the same source of the market data to be used by the Exchange to create the two proposed products will also be available to any other market data vendor. The Nasdaq system that will create and support
With respect to cost, Nasdaq will ensure that market data vendors are able to compete with the proposed fees by introducing a fee waiver for distributors of Nasdaq TotalView Plus and a consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus. These proposals will allow vendors to cover the costs of consolidation for Depth-of-Book and Top-of-Book feeds, respectively.
The proposed fee waiver for Nasdaq TotalView Plus will exempt any firm that certifies to Nasdaq that it will consolidate Nasdaq TotalView, Nasdaq Texas TotalView and PSX TotalView into a data feed solely for external redistribution from Nasdaq Texas Market Data Distributor Fees
The proposed fees for Nasdaq Basic Plus include monthly administrative fees for Nasdaq Last Sale, NTX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale and a data consolidation fee of $350 per month for Internal Distributors and External Distributors of Nasdaq Basic Plus.
Nasdaq introduced a consolidation fee for both Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus because Nasdaq Basic Plus includes last sale information. Nasdaq expects vendors to use the same processes and servers to consolidate both best bid and offer and last sale information, and therefore the same consolidation fee should be sufficient to cover all data consolidation costs, enabling vendors to compete in consolidating and distributing data from multiple exchanges. The Exchange is proposing to amend its rules to permit that competition.
Nothing in the proposal involves an increase to the fees currently charged by Phlx for its data feeds. Any subscriber to solely a Phlx feed will continue to pay the same fees as are currently set, without any change. The subscriber fee waivers and consolidation fees proposed herein are to ensure that any purchaser of a
The proposed data consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus is exactly the same fee as currently charged for Nasdaq Last Sale Plus, and customers of Nasdaq Last Sale Plus would pay no additional consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus. These consolidation and administrative fees are not new, but are simply being expanded to Nasdaq's new product, and do not increase the fees charged to purchasers of Phlx data.
Rather, the proposed fee waiver of PSX TotalView fees for vendors of Nasdaq TotalView Plus lowers fees below current fees.
The proposed waiver of all subscriber fees, including both Professional and Non-Professional fees, Non-Display Usage fees, and enterprise license fees for Phlx data for Nasdaq TotalView Plus will actually lower fees further, as purchasers of Nasdaq TotalView Plus will be charged the same fees as currently charged for Nasdaq TotalView alone. The proposed Nasdaq TotalView Plus fees therefore offer customers a discount below current fees.
The proposal conforms fees for Phlx products to the recent Nasdaq filings related to the offer of Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus.
The proposal is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because the proposed feeds are optional data fees available to all market participants on a non-discriminatory basis.
In summary, the proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because the proposal: (i) offers more customer choice; (ii) protects competition by covering the data consolidation costs of market data vendors; (iii) does not increase the fee for any Phlx product, but simply waives certain fees or applies consolidation costs to firms purchasing certain data feeds; (iv) conforms fees for Phlx products to the recent Nasdaq filings related to the offer of Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus; and (v) offers products to all market participants on a non-discriminatory basis.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nothing in the proposal burdens inter-market competition (the competition among self-regulatory organizations) because approval of the proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other exchanges to compete. The proposal merely implements fee waivers for certain purchasers and consolidation and administrative fees for others, which any other exchange could propose.
Nothing in the Proposal burdens intra-market competition (the competition among consumers of exchange data), because the products related to the fee changes—Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus—will be offered to all market participants at the same price and any market participant that elects to purchase either Nasdaq TotalView Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus may do so on a non-discriminatory basis.
Moreover, as explained above, the proposed fees offer no competitive advantage relative to market data vendors, and are in fact designed to promote competition. There is no
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Priority Customer Rebate Program (“PCRP”) (defined below) table to establish alternative rebates appliable to certain transactions in Complex Orders (defined below).
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)a)iii) of the Fee Schedule to modify the PCRP table to establish alternative rebates appliable to certain transactions in Complex Orders.
Pursuant to the PCRP, the Exchange credits each Member
Pursuant to the PCRP, Priority Customer volume for transactions in simple, PRIME Agency, complex, and cPRIME Agency are aggregated to determine the appropriate volume tier threshold applicable to each transaction. Volume is recorded for, and credits are delivered to, the Member that submits the order to the Exchange. All fees and rebates are per contract per leg. MIAX aggregates the contracts resulting from Priority Customer Orders
The Exchange proposes to amend the PCRP table to establish alternative rebates for certain transactions in Complex Orders based on a Member's Priority Customer total monthly non-paired Complex Order volume as a percent of the Member's Priority Customer total monthly volume aggregated to the Priority Customer Rebate Program as described above.
Currently, the PCRP table provides the following volume thresholds applicable to Priority Customer Orders, which are based on a percentage of national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX during the relevant month: 0.00% to 0.50% in tier 1; above 0.50% to 1.50% in tier 2; above 1.50% to 1.90% in tier 3; above 1.90% to 3.50% in tier 4; and above 3.50% in tier 5. Currently, for Priority Customer orders in the PCRP, the Exchange provides a per contract credit for Complex Orders as follows: $0.20 per contract in tier 1; $0.21 per contract in tier 2; $0.26
The Exchange now proposes to amend the PCRP table to establish alternative rebates for certain transactions in non-paired Complex Order volume based on a Member's Priority Customer total monthly non-paired Complex Order volume as a percent of the Member's Priority Customer total monthly volume aggregated to the Priority Customer Rebate Program as described above. Under the proposed structure, Members can qualify for alternative, higher rebates for their Priority Customer Complex Orders. The Exchange will compare the Member's monthly Priority Customer non-paired Complex Order volume to its total monthly Priority Customer volume aggregated for the Priority Customer Rebate Program which includes simple, PRIME Agency, complex, and cPRIME Agency orders transmitted by that Priority Customer which is executed electronically on the Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes with certain exclusions. The following orders will be excluded from the calculation of Priority Customer Complex Order credits and from the calculation of the volume thresholds set forth in the PCRP table: QCC and cQCC
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section 1)a)iii) of the Fee Schedule to amend the PCRP table to add a new column to the table, titled “Per Contract Credit for Complex Orders, Priority Customer Non-Paired Complex Orders Volume ≥ 50% of Member's PCRP Volume”. The Exchange also proposes to amend the title of the eighth column from “Per Contract Credit for Complex Orders,” to now be “Per Contract Credit for Complex Orders, Priority Customer Non-Paired Complex Orders Volume <50% of Member's PCRP Volume”. With the proposed changes, if Priority Customer non-paired Complex Orders account for 50% or more of a Priority Customer's total monthly volume, Priority Customers will qualify for higher rebates as follows: (i) $0.23 per contract in tier 1; (ii) $0.27 per contract in tier 2; and (iii) $0.28 per contract in tiers 3, 4, or 5. If Priority Customer non-paired Complex Orders account for less than 50% of a Priority Customer's total monthly volume, Priority Customers will qualify for the current rebates applicable to Complex Orders in the PCRP table, which are as follows: (i) $0.20 per contract in tier; (ii) $0.21 per contract in tier 2; (iii) $0.26
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to provide enhanced rebates for Priority Customers Complex Orders that account for 50% or more of its total monthly Priority Customer volume will encourage market participants to submit more Priority Customer Complex Orders and therefore increase Priority Customer order flow, resulting in increased liquidity which benefits all Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange also notes that at least one other competing exchange similarly provides for higher rebates based on the ratio of simple order volume to complex order volume.
The proposed changes are effective beginning September 1, 2026.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. 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.”
There are currently 18 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based and singly-listed options, no single exchange had more than approximately 11-12% of the multiply-listed equity options market share for the month of July 2026.
The Exchange believes its proposal to provide alternative, enhanced rebates for Priority Customers non-paired Complex Orders that account for 50% or more of its total Priority Customer monthly volume, with certain exclusions from the calculation, is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it may encourage market participants to submit more Priority Customer Complex Orders and therefore increase Priority Customer order flow, resulting in increased liquidity which benefits all Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange believes the proposed change to the PCRP is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all market participants
The Exchange believes that the proposed change will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intra-market competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes its proposal to provide enhanced rebates for Priority Customers Complex Orders that account for 50% or more of its total Priority Customer monthly volume will not impose any burden on intra-market competition. Instead, the Exchange believes this proposed change will promote competition because it would encourage market participants to submit more Priority Customer Complex Orders and therefore increase Priority Customer order flow, resulting in increased liquidity which benefits all Exchange participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impose any burden on inter-market competition and the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. There are currently 18 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange had more than approximately 11-12% of the multiply-listed equity options market share for the month of July 2026.
In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its rebates and tiers to remain competitive with other options exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and tiers in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes reflect this competitive environment because they modify the Exchange's rebates in a manner that encourages market participants to continue to provide liquidity and to send order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that at least one other competing exchange similarly provides for different rebates based on the ratio of simple order volume to complex order volume.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend certain transaction fees and credits in the NYSE American Equities Price List and Fee Schedule (“Price List”) pertaining to its optional monthly credits applicable to Electronic Designated Market Makers (“eDMM”) in assigned securities. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective September 1, 2026. 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.
NYSE American, LLC (“NYSE American” or the “Exchange”) proposes to amend certain transaction fees and credits in the NYSE American Equities Price List and Fee Schedule (“Price List”) pertaining to its optional monthly credits applicable to Electronic Designated Market Makers (“eDMM”) in assigned securities.
The proposed changes respond to the current competitive environment where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-providing orders by offering further incentives for ETP Holders to send additional adding and removing liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective September 1, 2026.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. 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.”
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a “fragmented” market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that “such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that stock.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues to which the firm routes order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use exchange transaction fees and credits because market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
Currently, the Exchange offers eDMMs an optional monthly credit per security (“Credit Per Security”) up to a maximum credit of $1,250 per month per assigned security, provided that eDMMs agree to a credit of $0.0020 per share for orders adding displayed liquidity instead of the otherwise-applicable credit of $0.0045 per share. Specifically, for eDMMs agreeing to a $0.0020 credit per share for orders adding displayed liquidity, the Exchange currently offers a Credit Per Security of $100 for an eDMM quoting at the National Best Bid or Offer (“NBBO”) for a minimum average of 25% of the time; a Credit Per Security of $350 for an eDMM quoting at the NBBO for a minimum average of 40% of the time; a Credit Per Security of $850 for an eDMM quoting at the NBBO for a minimum average of 50% of the time; a Credit Per Security of $1,000 for an eDMM quoting at the NBBO for a minimum average of 70% of the time; and a Credit Per Security of $1,250 for an eDMM quoting at the NBBO for a minimum average of 80% of the time.
The Exchange proposes to increase the Credit Per Security available for an eDMM quoting at the NBBO for a minimum of 80% of the time to $1,400, from $1,250.
The proposed change responds to the current competitive environment where order flow providers have a choice of where to direct liquidity-providing orders by offering further incentives for eDMMs to increase quoting on, and send additional displayed liquidity to, the Exchange. The Exchange believes that offering Exchange eDMMs the option to receive an increased monthly rebate across all eDMM securities would foster liquidity provision, increased quoting, and stability in the marketplace and lessen eDMM reliance on transaction fees, to the benefit of the marketplace and all market participants.
The Exchange does not propose any other changes to its rates to eDMMs on transactions in assigned securities.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market
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 fragmented and competitive market. 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 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 fee changes. ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 17 currently operating registered exchanges, and numerous off-exchange venues, to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees that relate to orders on an exchange. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange. Providing eDMMs with the option to receive a lower per share transaction credit for adding displayed liquidity in exchange for higher monthly rebates per assigned liquidity for higher quoting levels, up to a maximum credit of $1,400 per month across all eDMM assigned securities, is reasonable because it would foster liquidity provision, improved quoting, and stability in the marketplace and lessen eDMM reliance on transaction fees, to the benefit of the marketplace and all market participants. Moreover, the proposal is reasonable because it would balance the increased risks and heightened quoting and other obligations that eDMMs on the Exchange have and that other market participants do not. The Exchange believes that increasing the maximum Credit Per Security level to $1,400 (from $1,250) per month is reasonable and will provide a further incentive for eDMMs to quote and to quote at higher levels in a greater number of securities on the Exchange and will generally allow the Exchange and eDMMs to better compete for order flow, and thus enhance competition.
The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees among its market participants by fostering liquidity provision and stability in the marketplace. The Exchange believes that it is equitable to offer eDMMs the option to receive a lower per-share transaction credit for adding displayed liquidity in exchange for monthly rebates per assigned security because it would balance the increased risks and heightened quoting and other obligations that eDMMs on the Exchange have and that other market participants do not have. As such, it is equitable to offer eDMMs the option to receive a flat per-security credit based on the eDMM's quoting in that symbol, coupled with a lower transaction fee.
The Exchange believes that increasing the maximum Credit Per Security level to $1,400 (from $1,250) per month is equitable because it would apply equally to all eDMM firms, each of whom would have the option to elect to participate (or not participate) on a monthly basis. Any eDMM wishing to receive the Credit Per Security would be required to meet the prescribed quoting requirements in order to qualify for the payments, as described above. All eDMMs would be eligible to elect to receive a Credit Per Security and could do so by notifying the Exchange and meeting the per symbol quoting requirements.
The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to offer eDMMs the option to receive a flat per-security credit coupled with a lower transaction fee for orders that provide displayed liquidity in assigned securities as the proposed credits would be provided on an equal basis to all such participants. The proposed $1,400 maximum Credit Per Security level would apply equally to all eDMM firms, who would have the option to elect to participate on a monthly basis. Further, the Exchange believes this increased maximum credit would incentivize eDMMs that meet the proposed quoting requirement to send more orders to the Exchange to qualify for a higher Credit Per Security.
The proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of market participant. The proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because the proposed thresholds would be applied to all similarly situated eDMMs, who would all be eligible for the same credit on an equal basis. Accordingly, no eDMM already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by this allocation of fees.
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,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including those that currently offer similar order types and comparable transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
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.
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 set fees for Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus at or below fees currently charged for the combined underlying Depth-of-Book and Top-of-Book products offered by the Nasdaq U.S. Equity Markets.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to set fees for Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus
The proposed fees will provide customers with the option of lowering market data, networking, and connectivity costs by replacing three separate feeds with one, and setting fees for these two new consolidated data products
The Exchange believes that this proposal will facilitate the transition to overnight trading in December 2026. As discussed in the product filing for Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus,
Nasdaq TotalView Plus includes, with respect to stocks listed on Nasdaq or on any exchange other than Nasdaq, all orders and quotes from all members of any of the Nasdaq U.S. Equity Markets and displayed on a Nasdaq U.S. Equity Market, including all information currently disseminated through Nasdaq TotalView,
Nasdaq Basic Plus offers the best bid and offer and last sale information for stocks listed on any of the Nasdaq U.S. Equity Markets or any exchange other than Nasdaq and displayed on any of the Nasdaq U.S. Equity Markets or the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, including all information currently disseminated through Nasdaq Basic,
As set forth in detail below, Nasdaq proposes to set fees for Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus at or below fees currently charged for the Depth-of-Book and Top-of-Book products offered by the Nasdaq U.S. Equity Markets. This, together with the networking and connectivity savings inherent in lowering the number of data feeds, is designed to maximize the distribution of consolidated data feeds to investors throughout the 23 hour, 5 days per week schedule set to begin in December 2026.
The Exchange proposes to offer Nasdaq TotalView Plus for the same Professional and Non-Professional Subscriber and enterprise license fees as Nasdaq TotalView.
The Exchange proposes to offer Nasdaq Basic Plus for the same Professional and Non-Professional Subscriber, enterprise license, and Distributor fees as Nasdaq Basic. To ensure that other market data vendors will be able to offer competing consolidated data products, Nasdaq proposes to charge the same monthly administrative and data consolidation fees for Nasdaq Basic Plus as are currently charged for Nasdaq Last Sale Plus to both Internal Distributors
With respect to the Market Data Enterprise License for Display Usage,
Details for each of the proposed fees follow.
Nasdaq proposes to offer Nasdaq TotalView Plus for the same Professional and Non-Professional Subscriber fees as Nasdaq TotalView. This is, in effect, a waiver of Subscriber
Current Professional Subscriber fees for Nasdaq TotalView are $84 per month (operative January 1, 2026).
Non-Professional Subscriber fees for Nasdaq TotalView are $15 per month.
All of these Professional and Non-Professional Subscriber fees and Non-Display Usage fees will be the same for both Nasdaq TotalView and Nasdaq TotalView Plus.
Nasdaq offers two monthly enterprise licenses for Nasdaq TotalView, one for $25,000,
The $25,000 per month enterprise license offers customers the right to provide Nasdaq TotalView for Display Usage for Internal Distribution, or for External Distribution to both Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers with whom the firm has a brokerage relationship.
The $500,000 per month enterprise license offers customers Nasdaq Level 2 or Nasdaq TotalView for Display Usage by Professional or Non-Professional Subscribers with whom the firm has a brokerage relationship.
Nasdaq proposes to offer Nasdaq TotalView Plus with each enterprise license for the same monthly charge as Nasdaq TotalView.
Nasdaq charges fees for distributors of its depth-of-book data.
To ensure that market data vendors will be able to offer competing consolidated data products, any firm that certifies to Nasdaq that it will consolidate Nasdaq TotalView, Nasdaq Texas TotalView and Nasdaq PSX TotalView into a data feed solely for external redistribution shall be exempt from External Market Data Distributor Fees for Nasdaq Texas of $1,620 per month,
This waiver of market data distributor fees will cover the cost of consolidation for vendors. A vendor that seeks to create its own consolidated feed that includes Nasdaq TotalView, Nasdaq Texas TotalView and Nasdaq PSX TotalView would currently pay external distributor fees of $2,820 per month (operative January 1, 2026) for Nasdaq-listed security depth entitlements and $1,410 per month (operative January 1, 2026) for non-Nasdaq-listed security depth entitlements,
Nasdaq proposes to offer Nasdaq Basic Plus for the same Professional and Non-Professional Subscriber fees as Nasdaq Basic. This is not a fee change, as there are currently no charges for Nasdaq Texas BBO feeds,
The current monthly per Subscriber charges for Nasdaq Basic, or Derived Data therefrom, are $14.10 for Nasdaq Basic for Nasdaq, $7.20 for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE, and $7.20 for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE American.
For Non-Professional Subscribers, there currently is a monthly charge of $0.50 for Nasdaq Basic for Nasdaq, $0.25 for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE, $0.25 for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE American.
Nasdaq offers three monthly enterprise licenses for Nasdaq Basic: a broker-dealer enterprise license for $155,000 per month,
The broker-dealer enterprise license for $155,000 per month offers internal Professional Subscribers access to Nasdaq Basic for Nasdaq, Nasdaq Basic for NYSE, and Nasdaq Basic for NYSE American, or Derived Data therefrom.
The broker-dealer enterprise license for $100,000 per month offers any Nasdaq Basic Product, or Derived Data therefrom, through any electronic system approved by Nasdaq to an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers who are natural persons and with whom the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship.
The Media Enterprise License for $100,000 per month offers the right to distribute all or part of Nasdaq Basic for Display Usage to the general investing public.
With each enterprise license listed above, Nasdaq proposes to offer Nasdaq Basic Plus for the same fee as Nasdaq Basic.
Nasdaq proposes to offer Nasdaq Basic Plus for the same Distributor fees as Nasdaq Basic.
Each Distributor of any Nasdaq Basic product currently pays a fee of $1,680 for internal distribution or a fee of $2,140 for external, or external and internal, distribution.
The Exchange proposes that all of these fees also apply to Nasdaq Basic Plus.
Firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus or both shall pay the monthly administrative fees for Nasdaq Last Sale, NTX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale. Additionally, Internal Distributors
This fee is designed to cover the data consolidation costs of market data vendors to ensure that they will be able to offer competing consolidated data products.
As a conforming change, the Exchange proposes to modify Nasdaq Last Sale Plus to state that firms that receive Nasdaq Last Sale Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus or both shall pay the monthly administrative fees for Nasdaq Last Sale, NTX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale, as well as a data consolidation fee of $350 per month.
Nasdaq proposes to offer both Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus through its Market Data Enterprise License for Display Usage.
A Distributor that is also a broker-dealer or an investment adviser may pay a monthly enterprise license fee of $600,000 to distribute, for Display Usage only, Depth-of-Book data and Nasdaq Basic to an unlimited number of
Nasdaq proposes to include Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus within this license for no additional fee.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposal will expand choice by allowing customers to select whether to purchase best bid and offer information through the separate data feeds of Nasdaq Basic, Nasdaq Texas BBO and PSX BBO (or any combination thereof) separately or in a single feed. Purchasing Nasdaq Basic Plus or Nasdaq TotalView Plus will allow some customers to optimize consumption by ingesting information from multiple markets in a single connection, which may result in cost savings for subscribers based on a more efficient configuration of data feeds. Nothing in this proposal will change the quantity or quality of Depth-of-Book or Top-of-Book information available in the market, as the underlying feeds will remain available, and the proposed feeds are simply amalgamations of those underlying feeds.
Although the consolidation of Top-of-Book and Depth-of-Book data feeds from multiple affiliated exchanges is not new, the Exchange believes that such feeds will become more important with the commencement of overnight trading in December 2026. Because liquidity may be limited for certain stocks in the overnight session, the proposed consolidated feeds will provide investors with a broader view of the market than independent feeds, improving the ability of the investor to analyze market data in a lower liquidity environment. As such, we believe that the creation of these new feeds will facilitate the transition of investors to an overnight trading environment.
In offering Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus, Nasdaq will be acting as a redistributor of Depth-of-Book
Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus will be compiled from the same underlying feeds from Nasdaq, Nasdaq Texas, and Nasdaq PSX that are distributed to the purchasers of those feeds. With respect to speed, the path for the distribution of the information by the Exchange will not be faster than the path for distribution that would be used by a market data vendor to distribute similar, independently created products.
With respect to information, the same source of the market data to be used by the Exchange to create the two proposed products will also be available to any other market data vendor. The Nasdaq system that will create and support Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus will access the underlying feeds from Nasdaq, Nasdaq Texas, and Nasdaq PSX from the same point as any market data vendor.
With respect to cost, the Exchange proposes to ensure that market data vendors are able to compete with the proposed fees by introducing a fee waiver for distributors of Nasdaq TotalView Plus and a consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus. These proposals will allow vendors to cover the costs of consolidation for Depth-of-Book and Top-of-Book feeds, respectively.
The proposed fee waiver for Nasdaq TotalView Plus will exempt any firm that certifies to Nasdaq that it will consolidate Nasdaq TotalView, Nasdaq Texas TotalView and Nasdaq PSX TotalView into a data feed solely for external redistribution from Nasdaq Texas Market Data Distributor Fees
The proposed fees for Nasdaq Basic Plus include monthly administrative fees for Nasdaq Last Sale, NTX Last Sale, and PSX Last Sale and a data consolidation fee of $350 per month for Internal Distributors and External Distributors of Nasdaq Basic Plus.
The Exchange proposes a consolidation fee for both Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq Last Sale Plus because Nasdaq Basic Plus includes last sale information. Nasdaq expects vendors to use the same processes and servers to consolidate both best bid and offer and last sale information, and therefore the same consolidation fee should be sufficient to cover all data consolidation costs for both, enabling vendors to compete with the Exchange in consolidating and distributing data from multiple exchanges.
All of the proposed fees are at or below the fees currently charged by Nasdaq and its affiliates for its exchange-only data feeds.
For Nasdaq Basic Plus, all subscriber fees, including both Professional and Non-Professional fees, and enterprise license fees, are exactly the same as currently charged for Nasdaq Basic alone. The proposed data consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus is exactly the same fee as currently charged for Nasdaq Last Sale Plus, and customers of Nasdaq Last Sale Plus would pay no consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus. Given that Nasdaq Basic Plus provides information for three exchanges at the same price currently charged for only the Nasdaq exchange, the proposed fees will allow customers to purchase the data of three exchanges for the fees currently charged by just one.
For Nasdaq TotalView Plus, all subscriber fees, including both Professional and Non-Professional fees, Non-Display Usage fees, and enterprise license fees are proposed to be exactly the same as currently charged for Nasdaq TotalView alone. The proposed fee waiver for vendors of TotalView Plus lowers fees even further. The proposed Nasdaq TotalView Plus fees therefore offer customers a discount below current fees.
Exchange groups affiliated with both NYSE and Cboe offer consolidated data products comparable to Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus.
For Top-of-Book products, the proposed Nasdaq Basic Plus feed is comparable to the NYSE BQT feed, which provides best bid and offer and last sale information for the New York Stock Exchange and its affiliates,
For Depth-of-Book products, the proposed Nasdaq TotalView Plus feed is comparable to the NYSE Pillar Depth feed, which provides a consolidated view of the ten best price levels on both the bid and offer sides across the NYSE Group's combined limit order books for the NYSE-affiliated exchanges,
As shown below, the combined market share of the Nasdaq- NYSE- and Cboe-affiliated exchanges for the period July 2025 to June 2026 is similar, with the combined market share of the Nasdaq U.S. Equity exchanges over the past year at approximately 14.58 percent,
The Nasdaq- NYSE- and Cboe-affiliated exchange groups each offer different fee schedules, which will impact the fees paid by particular customers differently, depending on the type of customer and its use cases. Although these fee schedules are similar in many respects—all of these groups offer specific Professional and Non-Professional user fees, for example—they differ in important respects that limit the Exchange's ability to compare overall fee levels outside of the context of a particular customer and service order. The NYSE-affiliated exchanges charge access fees, for example, while the Nasdaq-affiliated exchanges do not. Therefore, the fees cannot be compared directly without knowing the details of a particular customer and its specific use cases.
With respect to Top-of-Book information, Nasdaq Basic Plus proposes subscriber fees of $14.10 for Nasdaq Basic for Nasdaq, $7.20 for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE, and $7.20 for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE American,
For Top-of-Book information from NYSE affiliates (Best Quotes & Trades), the per user access fee is $850, the access fee is $6,250, the redistribution fee is $2,500, the professional user fee is $18, the non-professional user fee is $1, and there is an enterprise license for Enterprise Fee: $50,000, and a digital media enterprise license for $65,000.
For Top-of-Book information from Cboe affiliates (Cboe One Summary), external distribution fees are $5,000, professional user fees are $10, Non-Professional User fees are $0.25, Digital Media fees are $15,000, data consolidation fees are $1,000, and there is an enterprise license of $50,000.
Although, as noted above, fees cannot be compared directly without understanding the type of customer, the number of end users, how that customer is using the data, and related information, they can be compared indirectly by analyzing overall market prices. As explained above, the proposed fees are essentially the same as those currently charged for the underlying Nasdaq products, which are, by definition, at current market prices. As the Exchange is proposing no new fees, the new products will also be at current market prices, and therefore continue to be comparable to the fees charged by other exchanges.
The same analysis holds for Depth-of-Book products.
As set forth in detail above, the Exchange proposes the following fees for Nasdaq TotalView Plus: Professional Subscriber fees of $84 per month,
For comparison, the NYSE Pillar Depth Feed has an Access Fee of $5,000, an Access & Redistribution Fee of $5,750, a Consolidation Fee of $250, a Multiple Datafeed Fee of $600, a Non-Display Fee of $10,000 (with $30,000 cap for Category 3), a Professional User Fee of $66, a Non-Professional User Fee of $10, a Non-Pro Enterprise User Fee Cap of $55,000 and a Professional & Non-Professional User Fee Cap: $135,550.
The Cboe One Premium feed as an External Distribution fee of $12,500, a Professional User fee of $15, a Non-Professional User fee of $0.50, a Digital Media fee of $25,000, a Data Consolidation fee of $1,000, and an Enterprise license of $100,000.
As is true for Top-of-Book consolidated data fees, the Depth-of-Book consolidated data fees depend on the type of customer, the number of end users, and how that customer is using the data. Nevertheless, the proposed fees are essentially the same as those currently charged for the underlying Nasdaq products, which are, by definition, at current market prices. As the Exchange is proposing no new fees, the new products will also be at current market prices, and therefore continue to be comparable to the fees charged by other exchanges.
Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus are voluntary products, in that the Exchange is not required by any rule or regulation to make this data available and potential subscribers may purchase it only if they voluntarily choose to do so. As noted above, all of the underlying exchange Top-of-Book and Depth-of-Book products will remain available at current prices, and customers may decline to purchase Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus for any reason, including cost.
The proposal is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because the proposed feeds are optional data fees available to all market participants on a non-discriminatory basis.
In summary, the proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because the proposal: (i) offers more customer choice; (ii) prepares investors for overnight trading in potentially low-liquidity environments; (iii) protects competition by covering the data consolidation costs of market data vendors; (iv) proposes fees at or below current levels; (v) proposes fees that are comparable to those of other exchanges; (vi) sets fees for a voluntary product, in that the Exchange is not required by any rule or regulation to make this data available and potential subscribers may purchase it only if they voluntarily choose to do so; and (vii) offers products to all market participants on a non-discriminatory basis.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nothing in the proposal burdens inter-market competition (the competition among self-regulatory organizations) because approval of the proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other options exchanges to compete. As set forth in detail above, the proposed fees are comparable to the Depth-of-Book and Top-of-Book products offered by both NYSE-affiliated and Cboe-affiliated exchange groups, and either or both of those groups can propose fee changes to compete.
Nothing in the Proposal burdens intra-market competition (the competition among consumers of exchange data), because Nasdaq TotalView Plus and Nasdaq Basic Plus will be offered to all market participants at the same price and any market participant that elects to purchase either Nasdaq TotalView Plus or Nasdaq Basic Plus may do so on a non-discriminatory basis.
Moreover, as explained above, the proposed fees offer no competitive advantage relative to market data vendors. With respect to speed, the path for the distribution of the information by the Exchange will not be faster than the path for distribution that would be used by a market data vendor to distribute similar, independently created products. With respect to information, the same source of the market data to be used by the Exchange to create the two proposed products will also be available to any other market data vendor. With respect to cost, the Exchange proposes to ensure that market data vendors are able to compete with the proposed fees by introducing a fee waiver for Nasdaq TotalView Plus that is exclusively available to market data vendors and a consolidation fee for Nasdaq Basic Plus.
Nasdaq Basic Plus and Nasdaq TotalView Plus are completely voluntary products in that the Exchange is not required by any rule or regulation to make this data available and potential subscribers may purchase it only if they voluntarily choose to do so. Information is compiled from underlying feeds from Nasdaq, Nasdaq Texas, and Nasdaq PSX which will remain available for purchase.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
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
SR-NASDAQ-2026-076 on the subject line.
• 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)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data Fees section of the IEX Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”),
On July 17, 2026, IEX established an External Distribution Rebate,
IEX offers three Real-Time market data products: (i) DEEP+, an uncompressed data feed of order-by-order depth of book quotations for all displayed orders resting on the Order Book at each price level, and execution information (
As described in the Market Data Rebate Filing, a Data Redistributor is eligible to receive a rebate of 75% of the amount of subscription fees paid to IEX by any new External Data Subscriber that begins to subscribe to one or more Real-Time IEX market data products through the Data Redistributor.
The Data Redistributor must report to IEX on a monthly basis any new External Data Subscribers that began subscribing to a particular IEX market data product through the Data Redistributor during the previous month.
The rebate will expire on the earlier of (a) the termination of an External Data Subscriber's applicable subscription, or (b) August 31, 2028 (two years from the commencement of the proposed External Distribution Rebate program).
IEX proposes to make the External Distribution Rebate available to Extranet Providers in the same manner as it is available to Data Subscribers. Extranet Providers are not Exchange Members, but obtain authorized access to the Exchange by entering into a Connectivity Services Agreement (including the “Extranet Addendum”) with the Exchange.
As proposed, each Extranet Provider that transmits Real-Time IEX market data products to one or more Data Subscribers
IEX believes that it is appropriate to extend the External Distribution Rebate to Extranet Providers because the same factors that are applicable to redistribution by a Data Subscriber, as described in the Market Data Rebate Filing, are also relevant to an Extranet Provider.
In general, the Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the Exchange Act requirements. The Exchange believes this high standard is especially important when an exchange imposes fees for market participants to
The Exchange plans to implement the proposed fee change on September 1, 2026, subject to effectiveness of this proposed rule change. The Exchange announced the planned implementation of the External Distribution Rebate program set forth in the Market Data Rebate Filing on July 31, 2026
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend the Market Data Fees section of the Fee Schedule as follows:
• Add a new paragraph to the “External Distribution Rebate” section prior to the last sentence of the existing paragraph with the following text:
Each Extranet Provider that transmits Real-Time IEX market data products to one or more Data Subscribers will be eligible to receive an External Distribution Rebate of 75% of the amount of subscription fees paid to IEX by any new Data Subscriber that begins to subscribe to one or more Real-Time IEX market data product through such Extranet Provider. Each Extranet Provider will be eligible to earn the External Distribution Rebate starting the first full month of any new Data Subscriber's subscription to any Real-Time IEX market data product. To qualify for the External Distribution Rebate, an Extranet Provider must opt into the program by providing IEX with an updated Extranet Addendum to the Connectivity Services Agreement, report monthly to IEX any new Data Subscribers that began subscribing to a particular Real-Time IEX market data product through the Extranet Provider during the previous month, and each new Data Subscriber must execute the IEX Data Subscriber Agreement. Only Data Subscribers who, as of July 1, 2026, were not entitled to receive Real-Time IEX market data products will be eligible to be counted. The External Distribution Rebate does not apply to an Extranet Provider's existing Data Subscriber customers.
IEX also proposes to make one clarifying edit to the now third paragraph of the External Distribution Rebate section of the Fee Schedule. Specifically, IEX proposes to add “or Data Subscriber's” after the words “External Data Subscriber's”, so the paragraph will now read in full:
The External Distribution Rebate shall automatically expire on the earlier of (a) the termination of an External Data Subscriber's or Data Subscriber's applicable subscription, or (b) August 31, 2028.
IEX makes this change so the Fee Schedule is clear that Extranet Providers and Data Subscribers who qualify for the External Distribution Rebate are treated identically if the new Data Subscriber introduced by an Extranet Provider or External Data Subscriber introduced by a Data Subscriber terminates its subscription for IEX Real-Time market data.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the External Distribution Rebate would be available to any Extranet Provider that distributes IEX's market data products to new customers. As such, the External Distribution Rebate, as proposed to be modified, is narrowly tailored to increase external distribution of IEX market data and attract new External Data Subscribers. The Exchange believes that the proposed External Distribution Rebate will not only lower the effective costs for Extranet Providers that successfully enlist new External Data Subscribers by defraying their technical and operational costs
Similarly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable that the proposed rebate is not available with respect to the distribution of IEX market data products to existing Data Subscribers because such distribution would not increase the number of Data Subscribers or expand the distribution of IEX market data to new customers.
In addition, IEX believes that it is reasonable to condition eligibility for the 75% rebate to the subscriptions of those downstream customers of Extranet Providers that, as of July 1, 2026, were not entitled to receive Real-Time IEX market data. This clarifies which downstream customers are eligible to be new Data Subscribers, and is consistent with the Exchange's launch of the program.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with charging fees that are reasonable, fair, and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed rule change does not alter the level of fees that the Exchange currently charges for Real-Time market data products. The proposed External Distribution Rebate would apply equally to all Extranet Providers that are eligible for the rebate and in the same manner as it is currently applicable to Data Subscribers who are eligible for the rebate for enlisting new External Data Subscribers.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11A of the Exchange Act
As discussed in the Purpose section, other exchanges have similar credits or fee waiver programs designed to incentivize external distribution of market data products.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on intramarket or intermarket 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 intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal is designed to enhance the Exchange's competitiveness by incentivizing Extranet Providers to enlist new Data Subscribers and increase distribution of IEX market data products, thereby expanding access to IEX market data. Other exchanges are free to offer similar External Distribution Rebates to compete with the Exchange's offering, subject to the Commission's rule filing process.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rebate program does not impose a burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because all Extranet Providers, as well as Data Subscribers, are eligible for the proposed rebate. The proposed rebate is not based on the type of Extranet Provider or Data Subscriber but on their respective business models as determined by the Extranet Provider or Data Subscriber.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs by the laws of the United States, under the Visa Bond Program, in 22 CFR 41.11(c)(3), I hereby delegate to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, to the extent authorized by law, the authority to waive the visa bond requirement for an alien, country, or category of aliens, by determining that such a waiver is not contrary to the national interest of the United States. This delegation of authority is intended to be implemented to the extent authorized by law, including that the authority must be exercised by an Officer of the United States.
The Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs may exercise any function or authority delegated by this delegation.
This Delegation of Authority will be published in the
Department of State.
Notice.
On June 30, 2025, the President determined pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (the Act), 22 U.S.C. 5605(d)(1)(B), that there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and policies of the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic and decided to waive all of the sanctions imposed on Syria over the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against his own people except the restriction on arms sales and arms sales financing. On August 20, 2026, The Under Secretary for Arms Control and Nonproliferation determined that it was essential to the national security of the United States to waive these two remaining restrictions.
This notice is effective on September 16, 2026.
Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Telephone (202) 647-4930.
Pursuant to Section 307(d) of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991 (22 U.S.C. 5605(d)), on August 20, 2026 the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security determined it is essential to the national security interests of the United States to waive the application of the following sanctions on Syria:
1. Arms Sales: Termination of (a) sales to Syria under the Arms Export Control Act of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services, and (b) licenses for the export to Syria of any item on the United States Munitions List.
2. Arms Sales Financing: Termination of all foreign military financing for Syria under the Arms Export Control Act.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before October 6, 2026.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2026-9077 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Marissa Tucholka, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, at 202-267-9677.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 16, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be submitted on
Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA finds that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
In October 2023, FRA published a final rule
Further, this rule established the use of the new Form FRA F 6180-49AP (Passenger Locomotive Inspection and Repair Record) to collect Federally required locomotive inspection, testing, and repair information for lead locomotives in commuter or intercity passenger train service, including information regarding locomotive recording devices.
This collection of information holds railroad management accountable for implementing appropriate rules, instructions, and programs of operational tests. It also holds railroad supervisors accountable for administering operational tests and establishing appropriate expectations with respect to rules compliance. Railroad employees are held accountable for complying with specified operating rules and have a right of challenge should they be instructed to take actions that, in good faith, they believe would violate those rules.
In this 60-day notice, FRA has made changes that increased the previously approved burden from 765,488 hours to 766,620. While some adjustments decreased burden hours, overall, FRA adjustments increased the total annual responses by 14,895 and increased total burden by 1,132 hours.
Specifically, § 217.9 requires railroads to conduct operations tests and inspections to verify compliance with their code of operating rules. The annual responses for the written quarterly reviews, 6-month reviews, and annual summary of operational tests and inspections under § 217.9 were underestimated. The newly revised estimates include adjustments made to reflect changes in the number of Class II, Class III, and passenger railroads that must comply with the various sections throughout these regulations. As an example, previous burden estimates for the annual summary of operational tests and inspections did not include submissions from the Class III railroads. This oversight has been corrected and accounts for 93 percent of the burden increase for this submission. In addition, burden hours for recordkeeping have increased to reflect the increased number of railroad employees and the associated records that must be kept for each individual.
Further, under § 218.95, employee training records, the revised estimate reflects an increase in the number of employees from 85,600 to 101,000.
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 16, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be submitted on
Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA finds that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
In this 60-day notice, FRA has adjusted the burden hour estimates, decreasing the previously approved burden from 353 to 181 hours. FRA has lowered its estimate of waiver petitions and new emergency preparedness plans from 1 annually to 1 over the next 3-year period of this information collection.
In addition, FRA determined that the paperwork burden for § 239.101(a)(7), dissemination of emergency instructions, is already accounted for under OMB Control No. 2130-0544. That ICR includes burden estimates for requirements under § 238.305(c) (Interior calendar day mechanical inspection of passenger cars), which include verifying that all safety-related signage is in place and legible. The ongoing cost of the seat cards is now correctly being reflected under Question 13 as an additional cost to respondents.
Under § 239.105, which requires records to be kept of debrief and critique sessions after each passenger train emergency situation or simulation, FRA increased the annual responses from 34 to 228 to more accurately reflect the required annual emergency simulation by each railroad and emergency situations that require a debrief and critique session.
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 16, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be submitted on
Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA finds that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
In this 60-day notice FRA has made adjustments that decreased the previously approved burden hours from 95,902 hours to 76,237 hours. This represents a decrease of 19,665 hours annually for this information collection request.
Specifically, under § 220.61(b)(5), which contains the requirements for the marking of fulfilled or canceled mandatory directives, FRA determined that the burden is accounted for under § 220.61(b)(3) concerning written copies of mandatory directives.
Further, under § 220.313(c), which mandates the retention of those written records documenting instruction and examination of this subpart, FRA increased the estimated number of records to more accurately represent the annual volume of employees that require this training.
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).
Notice; request for comment.
This notice announces and solicits comments on the draft audit report for the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT). The Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program allows a State to assume FRA's environmental responsibilities for environmental review, consultation, and compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for railroad projects should a State first assume NEPA responsibilities under the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). When a State assumes these Federal responsibilities, the State becomes solely responsible and liable for carrying out the responsibilities it has assumed, in lieu of FRA. This program mandates annual audits during each of the first 4 years of State participation to ensure compliance with program requirements.
Comments must be received on or before October 16, 2026.
The draft audit report is available for review at
For questions about this notice,
The State of Ohio initially participated in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Program and in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with FHWA for the FHWA NEPA Assignment Program in Ohio. The FHWA NEPA Assignment MOU between the State, acting through ODOT, and FHWA became effective December 11, 2015, was amended on June 6, 2018, and renewed on December 14, 2020. Since being accepted into the FHWA NEPA Assignment Program, the State has successfully completed four audits, eight self-assessments, and two monitoring events. FHWA has consistently publicly stated that the State continues to meet all requirements of the FHWA NEPA Assignment Program. The State will have participated in the Program for 11 years on December 11, 2026.
ODOT published its application to assume FRA's environmental review responsibilities for railroad projects (“FRA NEPA Assignment”) on June 2, 2024, and made it available for public comment for 30 days. After considering public comments, ODOT submitted its application to FRA on July 22, 2024. The application served as the basis for developing an MOU that identifies the responsibilities and obligations that ODOT would assume. The FRA published a notice of the draft MOU in the
Section 327(g) of Title 23, U.S.C., requires the Secretary to conduct annual audits during each of the first 4 years of State participation. After the fourth year, the Secretary shall monitor the State's compliance with the written agreement. The results of each audit must be made available for public comment. FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that it has conducted the first-year audit of the State of Ohio, acting through ODOT. This notice announces the availability of the first draft audit report for ODOT's FRA NEPA Assignment Program and solicits public comment for a 30-day period in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 327(g). No later than 60 days after the close of the comment period, FRA will publish the final audit report in the
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 October 16, 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, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Special Permits Program, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-6, 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-6, 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.
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 October 1, 2026.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comment(s) is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Special Permits Program, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-6, 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-6, 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 October 16, 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, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety Special Permits Program, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-6, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 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-6, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 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)).
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to adopt connectivity fees for physical connectivity at the primary and disaster recovery facilities, as well as connectivity fees for logical connectivity on the Texas Stock Exchange LLC (the “Exchange” or “TXSE”). The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change upon commencement of its operations as a national securities exchange.
The text of the proposed rule change is 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 parts of such statements.
On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required the self-regulatory organizations (“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 across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification or execution.
The CAT Funding Model provides a framework for the recovery of the costs to create, develop and maintain the CAT, including providing a method for allocating costs to fund the CAT among Participants and Industry Members. The CAT Funding Model establishes two categories of fees: (1) CAT fees assessed by CAT LLC and payable by certain Industry Members to recover a portion of historical CAT costs previously paid by the Participants (“Historical CAT Assessment” fees); and (2) CAT fees assessed by CAT LLC and payable by Participants and Industry Members to fund prospective CAT costs (“Prospective CAT Costs” fees).
Under the CAT Funding Model, “[t]he Operating Committee will establish one or more fees (each a `Historical CAT Assessment') to be payable by Industry Members with regard to CAT costs previously paid by the Participants (`Past CAT Costs').”
Each Historical CAT Assessment to be paid by CEBBs and CEBSs is designed to contribute toward the recovery of two-thirds of the Historical CAT Costs. Because the Participants previously have paid Past CAT Costs via loans to the Company, the Participants would not be required to pay any Historical CAT Assessment. In lieu of a Historical CAT Assessment, the Participants' one-third share of Historical CAT Costs will be paid by the cancellation of loans made by the Participants to the Company on a pro rata basis based on the outstanding loan amounts due under the loans, instead of through the
CAT LLC proposes to charge CEBBs and CEBSs (as described in more detail below) Historical CAT Assessment 1A to recover certain historical CAT costs incurred prior to January 1, 2022, in accordance with the CAT Funding Model. To implement this fee on behalf of CAT LLC, the CAT NMS Plan requires the Participants to “file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such fees on Industry Members that the Operating Committee approves, and such fees shall be labeled as `Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees.' ”
Other Participants in the CAT, previously filed a fee filing to implement Historical CAT Assessment 1. Based on the fee filing for Historical CAT Assessment 1, Historical CAT Assessment 1 was expected to be in effect from the first invoice in November 2024 until $212,039,879.34 (two-thirds of Historical CAT Costs 1) was invoiced to CAT Executing Brokers collectively. However, Historical CAT Assessment 1 ceased before the entire amount was invoiced.
Historical CAT Assessment 1A will be charged to each CEBB and CEBS for each applicable transaction in Eligible Securities.
The following fields of the Participant Technical Specifications indicate the CAT Executing Brokers for the transactions executed on an exchange.
In addition, the following fields of the Participant Technical Specifications would indicate the CAT Executing Brokers for the transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange.
The Operating Committee determined the fee rate to be used in calculating Historical CAT Assessment 1A based on the Historical CAT Costs for Historical CAT Assessment 1A and the projected total executed share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the Historical Recovery Period for Historical CAT Assessment 1A (“Historical Recovery Period 1A”), as discussed in detail below. Based on this calculation, the Operating Committee has determined that the fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1A would be $0.000002, as discussed in detail below.
Under the CAT NMS Plan, for purposes of calculating each Historical CAT Assessment, executed equivalent shares in a transaction in Eligible Securities will be reasonably counted as follows: (1) each executed share for a transaction in NMS Stocks will be counted as one executed equivalent share; (2) each executed contract for a transaction in Listed Options will be counted based on the multiplier applicable to the specific Listed Options (
The CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he Operating Committee will reasonably determine the Historical CAT Costs sought to be recovered by each Historical CAT Assessment, where the Historical CAT Costs will be Past CAT Costs minus Past CAT Costs reasonably excluded from Historical CAT Costs by the Operating Committee. Each Historical CAT Assessment will seek to recover from CAT Executing Brokers two-thirds of Historical CAT Costs incurred during the period covered by the Historical CAT Assessment.”
The following describes in detail Historical CAT Costs 1 with regard to four separate historical time periods as well as Past CAT Costs excluded from Historical CAT Costs 1 (“Excluded Costs”). The following cost details are provided in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide in the fee filing “a brief description of the amount and type of Historical CAT Costs, including (1) the technology line items of cloud hosting services, operating fees, CAIS operating fees, change request fees, and capitalized developed technology costs, (2) legal, (3) consulting, (4) insurance, (5) professional and administration and (6) public relations costs.”
Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs incurred by CAT prior to June 22, 2020 (“Pre-FAM Period”) and already funded by the Participants, excluding Excluded Costs (described further below). Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs for the Pre-FAM Period of $124,290,730. The Participants would remain responsible for one-third of this cost (which they have previously paid) ($41,430,243.33), and Industry Members would be responsible for the remaining two-thirds, with CEBBs paying one-third ($41,430,243.33) and CEBSs paying one-third ($41,430,243.33). These costs do not include Excluded Costs, as discussed further below. The following table breaks down Historical CAT Costs 1 for the Pre-FAM Period into the categories set forth in Section 11.3(b)(iii)(B)(II) of the CAT NMS Plan.
The Pre-FAM
The $10,268,840 in technology costs for cloud hosting services represent costs incurred for services provided by the cloud services provider for the CAT, Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”), during the Pre-FAM Period.
As part of its proposal for acting as the successor Plan Processor for the CAT, FCAT selected AWS as a subcontractor to provide cloud hosting services. In 2019, after reviewing the capabilities of other cloud services providers, FCAT determined that AWS was the only cloud services provider at that time sufficiently mature and capable of providing the full suite of necessary cloud services for the CAT, including, for example, the security, resiliency and complexity necessary for the CAT computing requirements. The use of cloud hosting services is standard for this type of high-volume data activity and reasonable and necessary for implementation of the CAT, particularly given the substantial data volumes associated with the CAT.
Under the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, CAT LLC is required to pay FCAT the fees incurred by the Plan Processor for cloud hosting services provided by AWS as FCAT's subcontractor on a monthly basis for the cloud hosting services, and FCAT, in turn, pays such fees to AWS. The fees for cloud hosting services were negotiated by FCAT on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing cost and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan and Rule 613, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the expected volume of data, the breadth of services provided and market rates for similar services. The fees for cloud hosting services during the Pre-FAM Period were paid to FCAT by CAT NMS, LLC
AWS was engaged by FCAT to provide a broad array of cloud hosting services for the CAT, including data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools. Services provided by AWS include storage services, databases, compute services and other services (such as networking, management tools and DevOps tools). AWS also was engaged to provide various environments for CAT, such as development, performance testing, test and production environments.
The cost for AWS services for the CAT is a function of the volume of CAT Data. The greater the amount of CAT Data, the greater the cost of AWS services to the CAT. During the Pre-FAM Period from the engagement of AWS in February 2019 through June 2020, AWS provided cloud hosting services for volumes of CAT Data far in excess of the volume predictions set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. The CAT NMS Plan states, when all CAT Reporters are submitting their data to the CAT, it “must be sized to receive[,] process and load more than 58 billion records per day,”
The $21,085,485 in technology costs related to operating fees represent costs incurred with regard to activities of FCAT as the Plan Processor. Operating fees are those fees paid by CAT LLC to FCAT as the Plan Processor to operate and maintain the CAT and to perform business operations related to the system, including compliance, security, testing, training, communications with the industry (
FCAT was selected to assume the role of the successor Plan Processor. Prior to this selection, the Participants engaged in discussions with two prior Bidders
The Selection Subcommittee considered factors including, but not limited to, the following, in recommending FINRA to the Operating Committee as the successor Plan Processor:
a. FINRA's specialized technical expertise and capabilities in the area of broker-dealer technology;
b. The need to appoint a successor Plan Processor with specialized expertise to develop, implement, and maintain the CAT System in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan and SEC Rule 613;
c. FINRA's detailed proposal in response to CATLLC's recent inquiries; and
d. FINRA's data query and analytics systems demonstration to the Participants.
Based on these and other factors, the Selection Subcommittee determined that FINRA was the most appropriate Bidder to become the successor Plan Processor.
On February 26, 2019, the Operating Committee (with FINRA recusing itself) voted to select FINRA as the successor Plan Processor pursuant to Section 6.1(t) of the CAT NMS Plan.
Under the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, CAT LLC is required to pay FCAT a negotiated monthly fixed price for the operation of the CAT. This fixed price contract was negotiated on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing costs and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan and Rule 613, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the breadth of services provided and market rates for similar types of activity. The operating fees during the Pre-FAM Period were paid to FCAT by CAT LLC.
From March 29, 2019 (the commencement of the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT) through June 22, 2020 (the end of the Pre-FAM Period), the Plan Processor's activities with respect to the CAT included the following:
• Commenced user acceptance testing with market data provided by Exegy Incorporated (“Exegy”), a market data provider;
• Published Technical Specifications and related reporting scenarios documents for Phase 2a, 2b and 2c reporting for Industry Members, after substantial engagement with SEC staff, Industry Members and Participants on the Technical Specifications;
• Facilitated testing for Phase 2a and 2b reporting for Industry Members;
• Began developing Technical Specifications and related reporting scenarios documents for Phase 2d
• Published Central Repository Access Technical Specifications, and provided regulator access to test data from Industry Members;
• Facilitated Participant exchanges that support options market makers sending Quote Sent Time to the CAT;
• Facilitated the introduction of OPRA and Options NBBO Other Data to CAT;
• Addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing requirements under Regulation SCI;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with interpretive efforts and exemptive requests regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversaw the security of the CAT;
• Monitored the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provided support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provided support in discussions with Participants, the SEC and its staff;
• Operated the FINRA CAT Helpdesk, which is the primary source for answers to questions about CAT, including questions regarding: clock synchronization, firm reporting responsibilities, interpretive questions, technical specifications for reporting to CAT and more;
• Facilitated communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administered the CAT website and all of its content;
• Provided technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
The $2,072,908 in technology costs related to CAIS operating fees represent the fees paid for FCAT's subcontractor charged with the development and operation of CAT's Customer and Account Information System (“CAIS”). The CAT is required under the CAT NMS Plan to capture and store Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information in a database separate from the transactional database and to create a CAT-Customer-ID for each Customer.
During the Pre-FAM Period, the CAIS-related services were provided by the Plan Processor through the Plan Processor's subcontractor, Kingland Systems Incorporation (“Kingland”). Kingland had experience operating in the securities regulatory technology space, and as a part of its proposal for acting as the Plan Processor for the CAT, FCAT selected Kingland as a subcontractor to provide certain CAIS-related services.
Under the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, CAT LLC was required to pay to the Plan Processor the fees incurred by FCAT for CAIS-related services provided by FCAT through Kingland on a monthly basis. FCAT negotiated the fees for Kingland's CAIS-related services on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing costs and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the services to be provided and market rates for similar types of activity. The fees for CAIS-related services during the Pre-FAM Period were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT. FCAT, in turn, paid Kingland.
During the Pre-FAM Period, Kingland began development of the CAIS Technical Specifications and the building of CAIS. In addition, Kingland also worked on the build related to the CCID Alternative, an alternative approach to customer information that was not included in the CAT NMS Plan as originally adopted.
The technology costs related to change request fees include costs related to certain modifications, upgrades or other changes to the CAT. Change requests are standard practice and necessary to reflect operational changes, including changes related to new market developments, such as new market participants. In general, if CAT LLC determines that a modification, upgrade or other change to the functionality or service is necessary and appropriate, CAT LLC will submit a request for such a change to the Plan Processor. The Plan Processor will then respond to the request with a proposal for implementing the change, including the cost (if any) of such a change. CAT LLC then determines whether to approve the proposed change. The change request costs were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT. During the Pre-FAM Period, CAT LLC incurred costs of $141,346 related to change requests implemented by FCAT. Such change requests related to a development fee regarding the OPRA and SIP data feeds, and the reprocessing of certain exchange data.
This category of costs includes capitalizable application development costs incurred in the development of the CAT. The capitalized developed technology costs for the Pre-FAM Period of $51,847,150 relate to technology provided by the Initial Plan Processor and the successor Plan Processor.
On January 17, 2017, the Selection Committee of the CAT NMS Plan selected the Initial Plan Processor, Thesys Technologies, LLC, for the CAT NMS Plan pursuant to Article V of the CAT NMS Plan.
From January 17, 2017 through January 30, 2019, the time in which Thesys CAT was engaged for the CAT, but excluding the period from November 15, 2017 through January 30, 2019, the Initial Plan Processor engaged in various activities with respect to the CAT, including preparing iterative drafts of Participant Technical Specifications, Industry Member Technical Specifications and the Central Repository Access Technical Specifications. In addition, Thesys CAT also developed CAT technology, addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, addressing Regulation SCI requirements, establishing a CAT Compliance Officer and a Chief Information Security Officer, addressed security-related matters for the CAT, and worked towards the initiation of Participant reporting per the Participant Technical Specifications.
The legal costs of $19,674,463 represent the fees paid for legal services provided by two law firms, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (“WilmerHale”) and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (“Pillsbury”), during the Pre-FAM Period. The legal costs exclude those costs incurred from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018.
WilmerHale's billing rates are negotiated on an annual basis and are determined with reference to the rates charged by other leading law firms for similar work. The Participants assess WilmerHale's performance and review prospective budgets and staffing plans submitted by WilmerHale on an annual basis. WilmerHale's compensation arrangements are reasonable and appropriate, and in line with the rates charged by other leading law firms for similar work.
The legal costs for WilmerHale during the Pre-FAM Period included costs incurred from 2013 until June 22, 2020 to address corporate and regulatory legal matters related to the CAT. The legal fees for this law firm during the period from February 2013 until the formation of the CAT NMS, LLC on November 15, 2016 were paid directly by the exchanges and FINRA to WilmerHale. After the formation of CAT NMS LLC, the legal fees were paid by CAT LLC to WilmerHale.
After WilmerHale was engaged in 2013 through the end of the Pre-FAM Period on June 22, 2020 (excluding the legal costs from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018), WilmerHale provided legal assistance to the CAT on a variety of matters, including with regard to the following:
• Analyzed various legal matters associated with the Selection Plan, and drafted an amendment to the Selection Plan;
• Assisted with the RFP and bidding process for the CAT Plan Processor;
• Analyzed legal matters related to the Development Advisory Group (“DAG”);
• Drafted the CAT NMS Plan, analyzed various items related to the CAT NMS Plan, and responded to comment letters on CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided legal support for the formation of the legal entity, the governance of the CAT, including governance support prior to the adoption of the CAT NMS Plan, which involved support for the full committee of exchanges and FINRA as well as subcommittees of this group (
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafted related amendments of the CAT NMS Plan and related filings;
• Negotiated and drafted the plan processor agreements with the Initial Plan Processor and the successor Plan Processor;
• Provided assistance with compliance with Regulation SCI;
• Assisted with clock synchronization study;
• Provided assistance with respect to the establishment of CAT security;
• Drafted exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements, including with regard to options market maker quotes, Customer IDs, CAT Reporter IDs, linking allocations to executions, CAT reporting timeline, FDIDs, customer and account information, timestamp granularity, small industry members, data facility reporting and linkage, allocation reports, SRO-assigned market participant identifiers and cancelled trade indicators, thereby seeking to implement changes that would be cost effective and benefit Industry Members and Participants;
• Assisted with the Implementation Plan required pursuant to Section 6.6(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided advice regarding CAT policies and procedures;
• Analyzed the SEC's amendment of the CAT NMS Plan regarding financial accountability;
• Provided interpretations of and related to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues; and
• Assisted with third-party vendor agreements.
The consulting costs of $17,013,414 represent the fees paid to the consulting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) as project manager during the Pre-FAM Period, from October 2012 until June 22, 2020. These consulting costs include costs for advisory services related to the operation of the CAT, and meeting facilitation and communications coordination, vendor support and financial analyses.
To help facilitate project management given the unprecedented complexity and scope of the CAT project, the Participants determined it was necessary to engage a consulting firm to assist with the CAT project in 2012, following the adoption of Rule 613. A variety of factors were considered in the analysis of prospective consulting firms, including (1) the firm's qualifications, resources, and expertise; (2) the firm's relevant experience and understanding of the regulatory issues raised by the CAT and in coordinating matters of similar scope; (3) the composition of the consulting team; and (4) professional fees. Following a series of interviews, the exchanges and FINRA as a consortium determined that Deloitte was well qualified given the balance of these considerations and engaged Deloitte on October 1, 2012.
Deloitte's fee rates are negotiated on an annual basis and are in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. CAT LLC assesses Deloitte's performance and reviews prospective budgets and staffing plans submitted by Deloitte on an annual basis. Deloitte's compensation arrangements are reasonable and appropriate, and in line with the rates charged by other leading consulting firms for similar work.
The consulting costs for CAT during the period from 2012 until the formation of the CAT NMS, LLC were paid directly by the Participants to Deloitte. After the formation of CAT NMS, LLC, the consulting fees were paid by CAT LLC to Deloitte. CAT LLC reviewed the consulting fees each month and approved the invoices.
After Deloitte was hired in 2012 through the end of the Pre-FAM Period on June 22, 2020 (excluding the consulting costs from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018), Deloitte provided a variety of consulting services, including the following:
• Established and implemented program operations for the CAT project, including the program management office and workstream design;
• Assisted with the Plan Processor selection process, including but not limited to, the development of the RFP and the bidder evaluation process, and facilitation and consolidation of the Participant's independent reviews;
• Assisted with the development and drafting of the CAT NMS Plan, including conducting cost-benefit studies, analyzing OATS and CAT requirements, and drafting appendices to the Plan;
• Assisted with cost and funding-related activities for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided governance support to the CAT, including governance support prior to the adoption of the CAT NMS Plan, which involved support for the full committee of exchanges and FINRA as well as subcommittees of this group (
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assisted with industry outreach and communications regarding the CAT, including assistance with industry outreach events, the development of the CAT website, frequently asked questions, and coordinating with the CAT LLC's public relations firm;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT;
• Provided active planning and coordination with and support for the Initial Plan Processor with regard to the development of the CAT, and reported to the Participants on the progress;
• Coordinated efforts regarding the selection of the successor Plan Processor;
• Assisted with the transition from the Initial Plan Processor to the successor Plan Processor, including support for the Operating Committee and successor Plan Processor for the new role; and
• Provided support for third-party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT, Anchin and the law firms engaged by CAT LLC.
The insurance costs of $880,419 represent the cost incurred for insurance for CAT during the Pre-FAM Period. Commencing in 2020, CAT LLC performed an evaluation of various potential alternatives for CAT insurance policies, which included engaging in discussions with different insurance companies and conducting cost
In adopting the CAT NMS Plan, the Commission amended the Plan to add a requirement that CAT LLC's financial statements be prepared in compliance with GAAP, audited by an independent public accounting firm, and made publicly available.
After Anchin was hired in April 2018 through the end of the Pre-FAM Period on June 22, 2020 (excluding the period from April 2018 through November 15, 2018), Anchin provided a variety of services, including the following:
• Developed, updated and maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Facilitated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepared tax returns;
• Addressed various accounting, financial and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Addressed accounting and financial reporting matters relating to the transition from CAT NMS, LLC to Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC, including supporting the dissolution of CAT NMS, LLC;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepared monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Supported the annual financial statement audits by an independent auditor;
• Reviewed historical costs from inception; and
• Provided accounting and financial information in support of SEC filings.
After performing an analysis of the available market data vendors to confirm that the data provided met the SIP Data requirements of the CAT NMS Plan and comparing the costs of the vendors providing the required SIP Data, CAT LLC determined to purchase market data from Exegy from July 2018 through March 2019. CAT LLC determined that, unlike certain other vendors, Exegy provided market data that included all data elements required by the CAT NMS Plan.
Upon the termination of the contract between CAT LLC and Exegy, FCAT entered into a contract with Exegy to purchase the required market data from Exegy in July 2019. All costs under the contract were treated as a direct pass through cost to CAT LLC. Therefore, the fees for the market data were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT, who, in turn, paid Exegy for the market data.
The public relations costs of $224,669 represent the fees paid to public relations firms during the Pre-FAM Period for professional communications services to CAT, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. By engaging a public relations firm, CAT LLC was better positioned to understand and address CAT matters to the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, the public relations firms provided services related to communications with the public regarding the CAT, including monitoring developments related to the CAT (
The services performed by each of the public relations firms were comparable. The fees for such services were reasonable and in line with market rates. Only one public relations firm was engaged at a time; the three firms were engaged sequentially as the primary public relations contact moved among the three firms during this time period.
Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs incurred by CAT and already funded by the Participants during Period 1 of the Financial Accountability Milestones (“FAM Period 1”),
By the
CAT LLC continued to utilize AWS in FAM Period 1 to provide a broad array of cloud hosting services for the CAT, including data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools. AWS continued to provide storage services, databases, compute services and other services (such as networking, management tools and DevOps tools), as well as various environments for CAT, such as development, performance testing, test, and production environments, during the FAM 1 Period. Accordingly, the $2,642,122 in technology costs for cloud hosting services represent costs incurred for services provided by AWS, as the cloud services provider, during FAM Period 1. The fee arrangement for AWS described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period continued in place during FAM Period 1 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. Moreover, CAT LLC continued to believe that AWS's maturity in the cloud services space as well as the significant cost and time necessary to move the CAT to a different cloud services provider supported the continued engagement of AWS.
The cost for AWS cloud services for the CAT continued to be a function of the volume of CAT Data. During the FAM 1 Period, the volume of CAT Data continued to far exceed the original predictions for the CAT as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. During this period, data submitted to the CAT included options and equities Participant Data, Phase 2a and Phase 2b Industry Member Data (including certain linkages) as well as SIP Data, reference data and other types of Other Data. The following chart provides data regarding the average daily volume, cumulative total events, total compute hours and storage footprint of the CAT during FAM Period 1.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, FCAT continued in its role as the Plan Processor for the CAT during FAM Period 1. Accordingly, the $1,099,680 in technology costs for operating fees represent costs incurred for the services provided by FCAT under the Plan Processor Agreement during FAM Period 1. The fee arrangement for FCAT described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period continued in place during FAM Period 1 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 1, FCAT's activities with respect to the CAT included the following:
• Published iterative drafts of draft Technical Specifications for Phase 2d, after substantial engagement with SEC staff, Industry Members and Participants on the Technical Specifications;
• Published iterative drafts of CAIS Technical Specifications, after substantial engagement with SEC staff, Industry Members and Participants on the Technical Specifications;
• Facilitated Industry Member reporting of Quote Sent Time on Options Market Maker quotes;
• Addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing Regulation SCI requirements;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with interpretive efforts and exemptive requests regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversaw the security of the CAT;
• Monitored the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provided support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provided support in discussions with Participants and the SEC and its staff;
• Operated the FINRA CAT Helpdesk;
• Facilitated communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administered the CAT website and all of its content; and
• Provided technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, Kingland continued in its role as a subcontractor for the development and implementation of CAIS during FAM Period 1. Accordingly, the $254,998 in technology costs for CAIS operating fees represent costs incurred for services provided by Kingland during FAM Period 1. The fee arrangement for Kingland described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period continued in place during FAM Period 1 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 1, Kingland continued the development of the CAIS Technical Specifications and building of CAIS. In addition, Kingland continued to work on the CAIS Technical Specifications and build related to CCID Alternative, as well as the acceleration of the reporting of LTIDs.
CAT LLC did not incur costs related to change requests during FAM Period 1.
Capitalized developed technology costs for FAM Period 1 of $1,684,870 include capitalizable application development costs incurred in the development of the CAT by FCAT. Such costs include: (1) costs related to certain modifications, upgrades, or other changes to the CAT that were not contemplated by the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor, including separate production and industry test entitlements, and reprocessing of exchange event timestamps; (2) implementation fees; and (3) license fees.
The legal costs of $481,687 represent the fees paid for legal services provided by two law firms, WilmerHale and Pillsbury during FAM Period 1.
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafted related amendments and fee filings;
• Drafted exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements regarding, for example, verbal activity, options market maker quote sent time, TRF linkages, and allocations;
• Provided interpretations related to CAT NMS Plan requirements, including the Financial Accountability Milestone amendment;
• Assisted with compliance with Regulation SCI;
• Provided support for the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittee, working groups and Leadership Team, including with regard to meetings with the SEC staff;
• Assisted with the drafting of the Implementation Plan required pursuant to Section 6.6(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Assisted with communications and presentations for the industry regarding CAIS;
• Drafted SRO rule filings related to the CAT Compliance Rule;
• Provided support for Compliance Subcommittee, including with regard to responses to OCIE examinations and the annual assessment;
• Provided guidance regarding CAT technical specifications;
• Assisted with third-party vendor agreements; and
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues.
The consulting costs of $137,209 represent the fees paid to Deloitte as project manager during FAM Period 1. CAT LLC continued to employ Deloitte during FAM Period 1 based on, among other things, their expertise and cumulative experience with the CAT. The fee rates for Deloitte during FAM Period 1 were negotiated and in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. The consulting fees during FAM Period 1 were paid by CAT LLC to the consulting firm. CAT LLC reviewed the consulting fees each month and approved the invoices. During FAM Period 1, Deloitte's CAT-related activities included the following:
• Implemented program operations for the CAT project;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assisted with cost and funding matters for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT;
• Assisted with the transition from the Initial Plan Processor to the successor Plan Processor; and
• Provided support for third-party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT, Anchin and the law firms engaged by CAT LLC.
Although insurance was in effect during FAM Period 1, CAT LLC did not incur costs related to insurance during FAM Period 1.
• Maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Facilitated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups; and
• Prepared monthly and quarterly financial statements.
The public relations costs of $7,700 represent the fees paid to Peak Strategies during FAM Period 1. CAT LLC continued to employ Peak Strategies during FAM Period 1 based on, among other things, their expertise and history with the project. The fee rates for this firm were reasonable and in line with market rates for these types of services. The fees for these services during FAM Period 1 were paid by CAT
Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs incurred by CAT LLC and already funded by Participants during Period 2 of the Financial Accountability Milestones (“FAM Period 2”),
By the completion of FAM Period 2, CAT LLC was required to implement the following with regard to the CAT:
(a) Industry Member reporting (excluding reporting by Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) for equities transactions, excluding Customer Account Information, CustomerID, and Customer Identifying Information, is developed, tested, and implemented at a 5% Error Rate or less and with sufficient intra-firm linkage, inter-firm linkage, national securities exchange linkage, and trade reporting facilities linkage to permit the Participants and the Commission to analyze the full lifecycle of an order across the national market system, excluding linkage of representative orders, from order origination through order execution or order cancellation; and (b) the query tool functionality required by Section 6.10(c)(i)(A) and Appendix D, Sections 8.1.1-8.1.3 and Section 8.2.1 incorporates the Industry Member equities transaction data described in condition (a) and is available to the Participants and to the Commission.
CAT LLC completed the requirements of FAM Period 2 by December 31, 2020. The following describes the costs for each of the categories for FAM Period 2.
CAT LLC continued to utilize AWS in FAM Period 2 to provide a broad array of cloud hosting services for the CAT, including data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools. AWS continued to provide storage services, databases, compute services and other services (such as networking, management tools and DevOps tools), as well as various environments for CAT, such as development, performance testing, test, and production environments, during the FAM 2 Period. Accordingly, the $20,709,212 in technology costs for cloud hosting services represent costs incurred for services provided by AWS, as the cloud services provider, during FAM Period 2. The fee arrangement for AWS described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period and FAM Period 1 continued in place during FAM Period 2 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement.
The cost for AWS cloud services for the CAT continued to be a function of the volume of CAT Data. During the FAM 2 Period, the volume of CAT Data continued to far exceed the original predictions for the CAT as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. During this period, data submitted to the CAT included options and equities Participant Data, Phase 2a and Phase 2b Industry Member Data (including certain linkages) as well
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, FCAT continued in its role as the Plan Processor for the CAT during FAM Period 2. Accordingly, the $9,108,700 in technology costs for operating fees represent costs incurred for the services provided by FCAT under the Plan Processor Agreement during FAM Period 2. The fee arrangement for FCAT described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period and FAM Period 1 continued in place during FAM Period 2 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 2, FCAT's activities with respect to the CAT included publishing the Technical Specifications for Phase 2d and overseeing the reporting of firm to firm and intrafirm linkages by Industry Members. In addition, FCAT also continued to engage in the following activities during FAM Period 2:
• Addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing Regulation SCI requirements;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with interpretive efforts and exemptive requests regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversaw the development and implementation of the security of the CAT;
• Monitored the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provided support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provided support in discussions with the Participants and the SEC and its staff;
• Operated the FINRA CAT Helpdesk;
• Facilitated communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administered the CAT website and all of its content; and
• Provided technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, Kingland continued in its role as a subcontractor for the development and implementation of CAIS during FAM Period 2. Accordingly, the $1,590,298 in technology costs for CAIS operating fees represent costs incurred for services provided by Kingland during FAM Period 2. The fee arrangement for Kingland described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period and FAM Period 1 continued in place during FAM Period 2 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 2, Kingland continued the development of the CAIS Technical Specifications and building of CAIS. In addition, Kingland continued to work on the CAIS Technical Specifications and build related to the CCID Alternative, as well as the acceleration of the reporting of LTIDs.
During FAM Period 2, CAT LLC engaged FCAT to pursue certain change requests in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement. The change request costs were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT. Specifically, during FAM Period 2, CAT incurred costs of $51,823 related to a change request regarding the addition of functionality for exchange Participants to report rejected messages to the CAT.
Capitalized developed technology costs for FAM Period 2 of $6,761,094 include capitalizable application development costs incurred in the development of the CAT by FCAT. Such costs include (1) development costs incurred during the application development stage to meet various agreed-upon milestones regarding the CAT, as defined in the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor; (2) costs related to certain modifications, upgrades, or other changes to the CAT that were not contemplated by the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor, including costs related to separate production and industry test entitlements, market maker reference data, and back-processing of exchange exception logic; (3) implementation fees; and (4) license fees.
The legal costs of $2,766,644 represent the fees paid for legal services provided by two law firms, WilmerHale and Pillsbury during FAM Period 2.
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafting related amendments and rule filings;
• Drafted exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements regarding, for example, allocations, exchange activity, OTQT, initial data validation, error corrections and recordkeeping;
• Provided interpretations related to CAT NMS Plan requirements, including with regard to the Financial Accountability Milestone amendment, FAQs and technical specifications;
• Provided support for the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittees, working groups and Leadership Team, including with regard to meetings with the SEC staff;
• Assisted with the Implementation Plan and Quarterly Progress Reports required pursuant to Section 6.6 of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Drafted SRO rule filings related to the CAT Compliance Rule;
• Provided support for the Compliance Subcommittee, including with regard to responses to OCIE examinations and the annual assessment;
• Provided guidance regarding the SEC's proposed security amendments to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided guidance regarding SRO rule filings for the retirement of systems;
• Provided legal support for Operating Committee meetings, including drafting resolutions and other materials and voting advice;
• Assisted with third-party vendor agreements (
• Assisted with change requests; and
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues.
The consulting costs of $532,146 represent the fees paid to Deloitte as project manager during FAM Period 2. CAT LLC continued to employ Deloitte during FAM Period 2 based on, among other things, their expertise and long history with the project. The fee rates for Deloitte during FAM Period 2 were negotiated and in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. The consulting fees during FAM Period 2 were paid to Deloitte by CAT LLC. CAT LLC reviewed the consulting fees each month and approved the invoices. During FAM Period 2, Deloitte's CAT-related activities included the following:
• Implemented program operations for the CAT project;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assisted with cost and funding matters for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT; and
• Provided support for third-party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT, Anchin and the law firms engaged by CAT LLC.
The insurance costs of $976,098 represent the fees paid for insurance during FAM Period 2. CAT LLC continued to maintain cyber security liability insurance, directors' and officers' liability insurance, and errors and omissions liability insurance offered by USI. After engaging in a process for renewing the coverage, CAT LLC determined to purchase these insurance policies from USI. The annual premiums for these policies were competitive for the coverage provided. The annual premiums were paid by CAT LLC to USI.
The professional and administration costs of $438,523 represent the fees paid to Anchin and Grant Thornton for financial services provided during FAM Period 2.
• Updated and maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Facilitated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepared tax returns;
• Addressed various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from the Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepared monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Supported the annual financial statement audit by an independent auditor; and
• Reviewed historical costs from inception.
The public relations costs of $41,940 represent the fees paid to Peak Strategies during FAM Period 2. CAT LLC continued to employ Peak Strategies during FAM Period 2 based
Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs incurred by CAT and already funded by the Participants during Period 3 of the Financial Accountability Milestones (“FAM Period 3”),
By the
CAT LLC completed the requirements of FAM Period 3 by December 31, 2021. The following describes the costs for each of the categories for FAM Period 3.
CAT LLC continued to utilize AWS in FAM Period 3 to provide a broad array of cloud hosting services for the CAT, including data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools. AWS continued to provide storage services, databases, compute services and other
The cost for AWS cloud services for the CAT continued to be a function of the volume of CAT Data. During FAM Period 3, the volume of CAT Data continued to far exceed the original predictions for the CAT as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. During this period, data submitted to the CAT included options and equities Participant Data, Phase 2a, Phase 2b, Phase 2c and Phase 2d Industry Member Data (including certain linkages), SIP Data, Other Data, including reference data, and LTID account information. The following chart provides data regarding the average daily volume, cumulative total events, total compute hours and storage footprint of the CAT during FAM Period 3.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, FCAT continued in its role as the Plan Processor for the CAT during FAM Period 3. Accordingly, the $23,106,091 in technology costs for operating fees represent costs incurred for the services provided by FCAT under the Plan Processor Agreement during FAM Period 3. The fee arrangement for FCAT described above with regard to the prior Periods continued in place during FAM Period 3 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 3, FCAT's activities with respect to the CAT included the following:
• Facilitated Phase 2c and Phase 2d testing for Industry Members;
• Oversaw creation of linkages of the lifecycle of order events based on the received data through Phase 2d;
• Addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing Regulation SCI requirements;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with interpretive efforts and exemptive requests regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversaw the security of the CAT;
• Monitored the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provided support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provided support in discussions with the Participants and the SEC and its staff;
• Operated the FINRA CAT Helpdesk;
• Facilitated communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administered the CAT website and all of its content; and
• Provided technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT discussed above, Kingland continued in its role as a subcontractor for the development and implementation of CAIS during FAM Period 3. Accordingly, the $5,562,383 in technology costs for CAIS operating fees represents costs incurred for services provided by Kingland during FAM Period 3. The fee arrangement for Kingland described above with regard to the prior Periods continued in place during FAM Period 3 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 3, Kingland continued the development of the CAIS Technical Specifications and building of CAIS. In addition, Kingland continued to work on the CAIS Technical Specifications and build related to the CCID Alternative, as well as the acceleration of the reporting of LTIDs. The full CAIS Technical Specifications were published during FAM Period 3.
During FAM Period 3, CAT LLC engaged FCAT to pursue certain change requests in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement. The change request costs were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT. Specifically, during FAM Period 3, CAT incurred costs of $396,169 related to change requests, including the following: (1) the addition of functionality for exchange Participants to report rejected messages to the CAT; (2) the migration of MIRS query engine to AWS to reduce operational costs and increase resiliency; and (3) updating the Participant Technical Specifications to allow for two-sided Participant option quote reporting.
Capitalized developed technology costs for FAM Period 3 of $10,763,372 include capitalizable application development costs incurred in the
The legal costs of $6,333,248 represent the fees paid for legal services provided by three law firms, WilmerHale, Pillsbury and Covington & Burling LLP (“Covington”) during FAM Period 3.
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafting related amendments and rule filings;
• Drafted exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements, including, for example, verbal activity regarding Phase 2c cutover, error reports, error corrections, Phase 2d Reporting, unique Order-ID on internal route events, reporting addresses, recordkeeping, and unique CCID for foreign customers;
• Provided interpretations related to CAT NMS Plan requirements, including with regard to the Financial Accountability Milestone amendment, FAQs, CAIS requirements, ADF, and technical specifications;
• Provided support for the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittee, working groups and Leadership Team, including with regard to meetings with the SEC staff;
• Assisted with the Implementation Plan and Quarterly Progress Reports required pursuant to Section 6.6(c) of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Drafted SRO rule filings related to the CAT Compliance Rule;
• Provided support for the Compliance Subcommittee, including with regard to responses to OCIE examinations and the annual assessment;
• Provided guidance regarding the SEC's proposed security amendments to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided guidance regarding SRO rule filings for the retirement of systems;
• Provided legal support for Operating Committee meetings, including drafting resolutions and other materials and voting advice;
• Provided assistance with change requests;
• Provided guidance and regulatory support for litigation regarding the response to the SEC's exemptive orders;
• Assisted with communications with the industry, including CAT Alerts and presentations;
• Provided guidance regarding the confidentiality of CAT Data, including third-party information requests;
• Assisted with cost management analysis and proposals; and
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues.
After Covington was hired in 2021 through the end of 2021, the firm provided legal assistance regarding the litigation with the SEC regarding the 2020 Orders. These services included researching, drafting, and filing motions to stay the 2020 orders and related materials in proceedings before the SEC, as well as researching, drafting, and filing petitions for judicial review of the 2020 Orders in proceedings before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Covington oversaw ongoing litigation proceedings on these matters, and also supported WilmerHale with respect to settlement negotiations with the SEC staff regarding the 2020 Orders.
In addition to these services, CAT LLC engaged Covington in November 2021 to provide assistance with respect to the SEC's disapproval of CAT NMS Plan amendments concerning a proposed limitation on liability in the event of a data breach or similar event. Covington provided advice concerning CAT's response to the SEC's disapproval order. This work accounted for a minority of Covington's fees in 2021.
The consulting costs of $1,408,209 represent the fees paid to Deloitte as project manager during FAM Period 3. CAT LLC continued to employ Deloitte during FAM Period 3 based on, among other things, their expertise and long history with the project. The fee rates for Deloitte during FAM Period 3 were negotiated and in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. The consulting fees during FAM Period 3 were paid to Deloitte by CAT LLC. CAT LLC reviewed the consulting fees each month and approved the invoices. During FAM Period 3,
• Implemented program operations for the CAT project;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assisted with cost and funding matters for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT; and
• Provided support for third-party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT, Anchin and the law firms engaged by CAT LLC.
The insurance costs of $1,582,714 represent the fees paid for insurance during FAM Period 3. CAT LLC continued to maintain cyber security liability insurance, directors' and officers' liability insurance, and errors and omissions liability insurance offered by USI. After engaging in a process for renewing the coverage, CAT LLC determined to purchase these insurance policies from USI. The annual premiums for these policies were competitive for the coverage provided. The annual premiums were paid by CAT LLC to USI.
The professional and administration costs of $595,923 represent the fees paid to Anchin and Grant Thornton for financial services during FAM Period 3.
• Updated and maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Faciliated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepared tax returns;
• Addressed various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepared monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Supported the annual financial statement audits by an independent auditor;
• Reviewed historical costs from inception; and
• Provided accounting and financial information in support of SEC filings.
The public relations costs of $92,400 represent the fees paid to Peak Strategies during FAM Period 3. CAT LLC continued to employ Peak Strategies during FAM Period 3 based on, among other things, their expertise and history with the project. The fee rates for this firm were in line with market rates for these types of services. The fees for these services during FAM Period 3 were paid by CAT LLC to Peak Strategies. During FAM Period 3, Peak Strategies continued to provide professional communications services to CAT, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. Specifically, the public relations firm provided services related to communications with the public regarding the CAT, including monitoring developments related to the CAT (
Historical CAT Costs 1 would not include three categories of CAT costs (“Excluded Costs”): (1) $14,749,362 of costs related to the termination of the relationship with the Initial Plan Processor; (2) $48,874,937, which are all CAT costs incurred from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018; and (3) $19,628,791, which are costs paid to the Initial Plan Processor from November 16, 2018 through February 2019 when the relationship with the Initial Plan Processor was concluded. The Participants would remain responsible for 100% of these costs, which total $83,253,090. CAT LLC determined to exclude these Excluded Costs from Historical CAT Costs 1 because these costs relate to the delay in the start of reporting to the CAT and the conclusion of the relationship with the Initial Plan Processor.
First, Historical CAT Costs 1 would not include $14,749,362 of costs related to the conclusion of the relationship with the Initial Plan Processor. Such costs include costs related to the American Arbitration Association, the legal assistance of Pillsbury with regard to the arbitration with the Initial Plan Processor, and the settlement costs related to the arbitration with the Initial Plan Processor. The Participants would remain responsible for 100% of these $14,749,362 in costs.
Second, Historical CAT Costs 1 would not include all CAT costs incurred from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018. CAT LLC determined to exclude all costs during this one-year period of $48,874,937 from fees charged to Industry Members due to the delay in the start of reporting to the CAT. The Participants would remain responsible for 100% of these $48,874,937 in costs. The following table breaks down these costs into the categories set forth in Section 11.3(b)(iii)(B)(II) of the CAT NMS Plan.
The following provides additional detail regarding the Excluded Costs.
CAT LLC did not incur technology costs related to the categories of cloud hosting services, operating fees, CAIS operating fees or change requests during the period from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018.
Capitalized developed technology costs for the period from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018 include capitalizable application development costs of $37,852,083 incurred in the development of the CAT by the Initial Plan Processor. Such costs include development costs incurred during the application development stage to meet various agreed-upon milestones regarding the CAT, as defined in the agreement between CAT LLC and the Initial Plan Processor. Such costs include costs related to Industry Member technical specifications for orders and transactions, the system security plan, testing and production for Participant CAT reporting, third-party security assessment and response, query portal, onboarding of the Chief Information Security Officer, and ingestion of FINRA TRF data and FINRA data related to halts and corporate actions.
The legal costs of $6,143,278 represent the fees paid to WilmerHale for legal services from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018. During this period, WilmerHale provided legal assistance to the CAT, including with regard to the following:
• Provided legal support for the governance of the CAT, including governance support for the Operating Committee, Advisory Committee, Compliance Subcommittee, and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafted related amendments of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided assistance related to CAT security;
• Drafted exemptive requests, including requests related to PII;
• Assisted with the Implementation Plan required pursuant to Section 6.6(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided interpretations of and related to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided advice with regard to regulator access to the CAT;
• Assisted with the Plan Processor transition;
• Provided assistance regarding communications with the industry regarding the CAT;
• Provided advice regarding Customer Account Information and PII;
• Provided support for litigation related to SEC exemptive orders; and
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretative and implementation issues.
The consulting costs of $4,452,106 represent the fees paid to Deloitte for their role as project manager for the CAT from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018. During this period, Deloitte engaged in the following activities with respect to the CAT:
• Implemented program operations for the CAT project;
• Provided governance support to the Operating Committee, including support for Subcommittees and working groups of the Operating Committee (
• Assisted with cost and funding issues for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT; and
• Provided active planning and coordination with and support for the Initial Plan Processor with regard to the development of the CAT, and reported to the Participants on the progress.
CAT LLC did not incur costs related to insurance during the period from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018.
The professional and administration costs of $340,145 represent the fees paid
• Developed, updated and maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Facilitated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepared tax returns;
• Addressed various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Addressed accounting and financial matters relating to the transition from CAT NMS, LLC to Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC, including supporting the dissolution of CAT NMS, LLC;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepared monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Supported the annual financial statement audits by an independent auditor;
• Reviewed historical costs from inception; and
• Provided accounting and financial information in support of SEC filings.
The public relations costs of $87,325 represent the fees paid to Sloane from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018. From the commencement of its engagment in March 2018 through November 15, 2018, Sloane provided professional communications services to CAT, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. Specifically, Sloane provided services related to communications with the public regarding the CAT, including monitoring developments related to the CAT (
Third, Historical CAT Costs 1 would not include the $19,628,791 in costs paid to the Initial Plan Processor from November 16, 2018 through February 2019 when CAT LLC's relationship with the Initial Plan Processor concluded. CAT LLC determined that Historical CAT Costs 1 would not include any fees paid to the Initial Plan Processor after November 15, 2017,
CEBBs and CEBSs collectively have been invoiced for $173,075,024 of the $212,039,879.34 of Historical CAT Costs 1 via Historical CAT Assessment 1, where $86,537,512 was invoiced collectively to CEBBs and $86,537,512 was invoiced collectively to CEBSs. Accordingly, Historical CAT Assessment 1A would seek to recover the remaining $38,964,855.34 of Historical CAT Costs 1 collectively from CEBBs and CEBSs, where CEBBs collectively will be responsible for $19,482,427.67, and CEBSs collectively will be responsible for $19,482,427.67.
Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee is required to reasonably establish the length of the Historical Recovery Period used in calculating each Historical Fee Rate based upon the amount of the Historical CAT Costs to be recovered by the Historical CAT Assessment, and to describe the reasons for its length.
The Operating Committee determined that the length of Historical Recovery Period 1A appropriately weighs the need for a reasonable Historical Fee Rate 1A that spreads the Historical CAT Costs over an appropriate amount of time and the need to repay the loans to the Participants in a timely fashion. The Operating Committee determined that 24 months for Historical Recovery Period 1A would establish a fee rate that is lower than other transaction-based fees, including fees assessed pursuant to Section 31.
The length of the Historical Recovery Period 1A and the reasons for its length are provided in this filing in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide such information in a fee filing for a Historical CAT Assessment.
The calculation of the fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1A also requires the determination of the projected total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for Historical Recovery Period 1A. Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee is required to “reasonably determine the projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for each Historical Recovery Period based on the executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the prior twelve months.”
The total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the 12-month period from March 2025 through February 2026 was 5,980,937,549,360.49 executed equivalent shares. The Operating Committee has determined to calculate the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the 24 months of Historical Recovery Period 1A by doubling the executed equivalent share volume for the prior 12 months. The Operating Committee determined that such an approach was reasonable as the CAT's annual executed equivalent share volume has increased from prior years (
The projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for Historical Recovery Period 1A and a description of the calculation of the projection is provided in this filing in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide such information in a fee filing for a Historical CAT Assessment.
The fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1A would be calculated by dividing the total amount of costs to be recovered by Historical CAT Assessment 1A by the reasonably projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for Historical Recovery Period 1A, and dividing by 2. Specifically, the fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1A would be calculated by dividing $38,964,855.34 by 11,961,875,098,720.98, and then dividing by 2, which equals $0.00000162871017371542 per executed equivalent shares. Rounding this to six decimal places results in a fee rate of $0.000002 per executed equivalent share.
Participants would not be required to pay any fees associated with Historical CAT Assessment 1A as the Participants previously have paid all Past CAT Costs. The CAT NMS Plan explains that:
Because Participants previously have paid Past CAT Costs via loans to the Company, Participants would not be required to pay any Historical CAT Assessment. In lieu of a Historical CAT Assessment, the Participants' one-third share of Historical CAT Costs and such other additional Past CAT Costs as reasonably determined by the Operating Committee will be paid by the cancellation of loans made to the Company on a pro rata basis based on the outstanding loan amounts due under the loans.
The CAT NMS Plan further states that “Historical CAT Assessments are designed to recover two-thirds of the Historical CAT Costs.”
CEBBs and CEBSs would be required to pay fees for Historical CAT Assessment 1A on a monthly basis for the period in which Historical CAT Assessment 1A is in effect.
The CAT NMS Plan states that, “[n]otwithstanding the length of the Historical Recovery Period used in calculating the Historical Fee Rate, each Historical CAT Assessment calculated using the Historical Fee Rate will remain in effect until all Historical CAT Costs for the Historical CAT Assessment are collected.”
To implement Historical CAT Assessment 1A, a new section would be added to the Exchange's fee schedule for “Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees”, and it would include the proposed paragraphs described below.
The CAT NMS Plan states that:
Each month in which a Historical CAT Assessment is in effect, each CEBB and each CEBS shall pay a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CEBB or CEBS from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data, where the Historical CAT Assessment for each transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by one-third and by the Historical Fee Rate reasonably determined pursuant to paragraph (b)(i) of this Section 11.3.
Accordingly, based on the factors discussed above, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph (a) to the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees section of its fee schedule. Proposed paragraph (a) would state the following:
(1) Each CAT Executing Broker shall receive its first invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1A in June 2026, which shall set forth the Historical CAT Assessment 1A fees calculated based on transactions in May 2026, and shall receive an invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1A for each month thereafter in which Historical CAT Assessment 1A is in effect.
(2) Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC shall provide each CAT Executing Broker with an invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1A on a monthly basis. Each month, such invoices shall set forth a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CAT Executing Broker in its capacity as a CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer (“CEBB”) and/or the CAT Executing Broker for the Seller (“CEBS”) (as applicable) from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data. The fee for each such transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by the fee rate of $0.000002 per executed equivalent share.
(3) Historical CAT Assessment 1A will remain in effect until $38,964,855.34 is collected from CAT Executing Brokers collectively, which is estimated to be approximately two years, but could be for a longer or shorter period of time. Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC will provide notice when Historical CAT Assessment 1A will no longer be in effect.
(4) Each CAT Executing Broker shall be required to pay each invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1A in accordance with paragraph (b).
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of the fee schedule would set forth the fee rate of $0.000002 per executed equivalent share for Historical CAT Assessment 1A, which is calculated as discussed above.
The proposed language in paragraph (a)(2) of the fee schedule would describe when CAT Executing Brokers would receive their first monthly invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1A. Specifically, CAT Executing Brokers would receive their first monthly invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1A in June 2026 and the fees set forth in that invoice would be calculated based on transactions executed in the prior month, that is, transactions executed in May 2026. The payment for the first invoice would be required within 30 days after the receipt of the first invoice (unless a longer period is indicated), as described in paragraph (a)(2) of the fee schedule.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of the fee schedule also would describe the monthly cadence of the invoices for Historical CAT Assessment 1A. Specifically, after the first invoices are provided to CAT Executing Brokers in June 2026, invoices will be sent to CAT Executing Brokers each month thereafter while Historical CAT Assessment 1A is in effect.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of the fee schedule would describe the invoices for Historical CAT Assessment 1A. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of the fee schedule would state that “Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC shall provide each CAT Executing Broker with an invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1A on a monthly basis.” Proposed paragraph (a)(2) of the fee schedule also would describe the fees to be set forth in the invoices for Historical CAT Assessment 1A. Specifically, it would state that “[e]ach month, such invoices shall set forth a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CAT Executing Broker in its capacity as a CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer (“CEBB”) and/or the CAT Executing Broker for the Seller (“CEBS”) (as applicable) from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data. The fee for each such transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by the fee rate of $0.000002 per executed equivalent share.”
Furthermore, proposed paragraph (a)(3) of the fee schedule would describe how long Historical CAT Assessment 1A would remain in effect. It would state that “Historical CAT Assessment 1A will remain in effect until $38,964,855.34 is collected from CAT Executing Brokers collectively, which is estimated to be approximately two years, but could be for a longer or shorter period of time.” This proposed paragraph would further state that “Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC will provide notice when Historical CAT Assessment 1A will no longer be in effect.”
Historical CAT Assessment 1A will be assessed for all transactions executed in each month through the end of the month in which $38,964,855.34 is assessed, and then CAT LLC will provide notice that Historical CAT Assessment 1A is no longer in effect. Since Historical CAT Assessment 1A is a monthly fee based on transaction volume from the prior month, Historical CAT Assessment 1A may collect more than $38,964,855.34. To the extent that occurs, any excess money collected during the final month in which Historical CAT Assessment 1A is in effect will be used to offset future fees and/or to fund the reserve for the CAT.
Finally, proposed paragraph (a)(4) of the fee schedule sets forth the requirement for the CAT Executing Brokers to pay the invoices for Historical CAT Assessment 1A. It would state that “[e]ach CAT Executing Broker shall be required to pay each invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1A in accordance with paragraph (b).”
Paragraph (b)(1) of the “Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees” section of its fee schedule describes the manner of payment of Industry Member CAT fees. Paragraph (b)(1) states that “[e]ach CAT Executing Broker shall pay its CAT fees as required pursuant to paragraph (a)
The CAT NMS Plan further states that:
Participants shall require each Industry Member to pay all applicable fees authorized under this Article XI within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). If an Industry Member fails to pay any such fee when due (as determined in accordance with the preceding sentence), such Industry Member shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of: (a) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points; or (b) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
Accordingly, the Exchange previously has added this requirement to the Exchange's fee schedule. Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) of the fee schedule states:
Each CAT Executing Broker shall pay the CAT fees required pursuant to paragraph (a) within thirty days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). If a CAT Executing Broker fails to pay any such CAT fee when due, such CAT Executing Broker shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of (i) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points, or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
The requirements of paragraph (b)(2) would apply to Historical CAT Assessment 1A.
The CAT NMS Plan states that:
Details regarding the calculation of a CAT Executing Broker's Historical CAT Assessment will be provided upon request to such CAT Executing Broker. At a minimum, such details would include each CAT Executing Broker's executed equivalent share volume and corresponding fee by (1) Listed Options, NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities, (2) by transactions executed on each exchange and transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange, and (3) by buy-side transactions and sell-side transactions.
Such information would provide CEBBs and CEBSs with the ability to understand the details regarding the calculation of their Historical CAT Assessment.
In addition, CAT LLC will make certain aggregate statistics regarding Historical CAT Assessments publicly available. Specifically, the CAT NMS Plan states that, “[f]or each Historical CAT Assessment, at a minimum, CAT LLC will make publicly available the aggregate executed equivalent share volume and corresponding aggregate fee by (1) Listed Options, NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities, (2) by transactions executed on each exchange and transactions executed otherwise on an exchange, and (3) by buy-side transactions and sell-side transactions.”
Furthermore, CAT LLC will make publicly available on the CAT website the total amount invoiced each month that Historical CAT Assessment 1A is in effect as well as the total amount invoiced for Historical CAT Assessment 1A for all months since its commencement. CAT LLC also will make publicly available on the CAT website the total costs to be collected from Industry Members for Historical CAT Assessment 1A. By reviewing statistics regarding how much has been invoiced and how much remains to be invoiced for Historical CAT Assessment 1A, Industry Members would have sufficient information to reasonably track how much longer Historical CAT Assessment 1A is likely to be in place.
To date, CAT LLC, via FCAT, has billed Industry Members for Historical CAT Assessment 1 and certain Prospective CAT Fees. Industry Members will be billed for Historical CAT Assessment 1A via the same processes established for Historical CAT Assessment 1 and the Prospective CAT Fees. Accordingly, Industry Members have substantial experience with the CAT billing processes.
The CAT NMS Plan states that “[n]o Participant will make a filing with the SEC pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act regarding any Historical CAT Assessment until any applicable Financial Accountability Milestone described in Section 11.6 has been satisfied.”
In accordance with Section 11.6(b) of the CAT NMS Plan, Historical CAT Assessment 1A seeks to recover costs that are related to “all fees, costs, and expenses (including legal and consulting fees, costs, and expenses) incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT from the effective date of [Section
The reporting by Industry Members (excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) of both: (a) equities transaction data, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID, and Customer Identifying Information; and (b) options transaction data, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID and Customer Identifying Information.
Under Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, this Financial Accountability Milestone is considered complete as of the date identified in the Participants' Quarterly Progress Reports.
Under the FAM Period 1 requirement of Initial Industry Member Core Equity and Options Reporting, Industry Members—excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters—were required to report two categories of data to the CAT: equites transaction data and options transaction data (both excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID, and Customer Identifying Information) by July 31, 2020. Pursuant to exemptive relief provided by the Commission, the Commission authorized the Participants' Compliance Rules to allow core equity reporting for Industry Members (Phase 2a) to begin on June 22, 2020 and core options reporting for Industry Members (Phase 2b) to begin on July 20, 2020.
In adopting the FAMs, the Commission stated that the equities transaction reporting required for FAM Period 1 “is consistent with the functionality that the Participants describe on the CAT NMS Plan website as `Production Go-Live for Equities 2a file submission and data integrity validations.' ”
• All events and scenarios covered by OATS, which includes information related to the receipt or origination of orders, order transmittal, and order modifications, cancellations and executions;
• Reportable Events for: (1) proprietary orders, including market maker orders, for Eligible Securities that are equities; (2) electronic quotes in listed equity Eligible Securities (
• Firm Designated IDs (“FDIDs”), which Industry Members must report to the CAT as required by Sections 6.3(d)(i)(A) and 6.4(d)(ii)(C) of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Industry Members would be required to report all street side representative orders, including both agency and proprietary orders and mark such orders as representative orders, except in certain limited exceptions as described in the Industry Member Technical Specifications;
• The link between the street side representative order and the order being represented when: (1) the representative order was originated specifically to represent a single order received either from a customer or another broker-dealer; and (2) there is (a) an existing direct electronic link in the Industry Member's system between the order being represented and the representative order and (b) any resulting executions are immediately and automatically applied to the represented order in the Industry Member's system;
• Manual and Electronic Capture Time for Manual Order Events;
• Special handling instructions for the original receipt or origination of an order during Phase 2a; and
• When routing an order, whether the order was routed as an intermarket sweep order (“ISO”).
In Phase 2a, Industry Members were not required to report modifications of a previously routed order in certain limited instances, nor were they required to report a cancellation of an order received from a Customer after the order has been executed.
The Quarterly Progress Report for the third quarter of 2020 states that “Interim Step: Production Go-Live for Equities 2a file submission and data integrity validation (Large Industry Members and Small OATS Reporters)” was completed on June 22, 2020. Accordingly, the FAM Period 1 requirement of reporting by Industry Members (excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) of “equities transaction data, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID, and Customer Identifying Information” was completed on June 22, 2020.
In adopting the FAMs, the Commission stated that the options transaction reporting required for FAM Period 1 is “consistent with the functionality that the Participants describe on the CAT NMS Plan website as `Production Go-Live for Options 2b file submission and data integrity validations.' ”
The Quarterly Progress Report for the third quarter of 2020 states that “Interim Step: Production Go-Live for Options 2b file submission and data integrity validations” was completed on July 20, 2020. Accordingly, the FAM Period 1 requirement of reporting by Industry Members (excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) of “options transaction data, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID and Customer Identifying Information” was completed on July 20, 2020.
As discussed above, the remaining Historical CAT Costs 1 to be recovered via Historical CAT Assessment 1A would include fees, costs and expenses incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT during the period from June 22, 2020 through July 31, 2020. The total costs for this period, as discussed above, are $6,377,343. Participants would remain responsible for one-third of this cost (which they have previously paid), and Industry Members would be responsible for the remaining two-thirds, with CEBBs paying one-third ($2,125,781) and CEBSs paying one-third ($2,125,781) through Historical CAT Assessment 1 and Historical CAT Assessment 1A.
Historical CAT Assessment 1A seeks to recover costs that are related to Post-Amendment Expenses incurred during FAM Period 2. FAM Period 2 began on August 1, 2020, and concluded on December 31, 2020, the date of the Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting. Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting” as:
Under Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, this Financial Accountability Milestone is considered complete as of the date identified in the Participants' Quarterly Progress Reports. As indicated by the Participants' Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2020,
Specifically, the Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting requires the satisfaction of two prongs. The first prong requires Participants to have fully implemented the first phase of equities transaction reporting for Industry Members (excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) at an Error Rate of less than 5%. In addition, equities transaction data produced by the CAT at this stage must also be sufficiently interlinked so as to permit full analysis of an order's lifecycle across the national market, excluding full linkage of representative orders. As CAT LLC reported on its Quarterly Progress Reports, Phase 2a was fully implemented as of October 26, 2020, including intra-firm, inter-firm, national securities exchange, and trade reporting facilities linkages.
• “Production Go-Live for Equities 2a Intrafirm Linkage validations” was completed on 7/27/2020;
• “Production Go-Live for Firm to Firm Linkage validations for Equities 2a (Large Industry Members and Small OATS Reporters)” was completed on October 26, 2020; and
• “Production Go-Live for Equities 2a Exchange and TRF Linkage validations (Large Industry Members and Small OATS Reporters)” was completed on October 26, 2020.
Furthermore, as CAT LLC reported on its Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2020, the average overall error rate for Phase 2a Industry Member Data was less than 5% as of December 31, 2020. The average overall error rate was calculated by dividing the compliance errors by processed records.
The second prong of this FAM requires that the equities transaction data collected by the CAT at this stage be made available to regulators through two basic query tools required by the CAT NMS Plan—a targeted query tool that will enable regulators to retrieve data via an online query screen with a variety of predefined selection criteria, and a user-defined direct query tool that will provide regulators with the ability to query data using all available attributes and data sources.
The Commission has determined that the Participants have sufficiently complied with the conditions set forth in the 2020 Orders and with the technical requirements for Quarterly Progress Reports set forth in Section 6.6(c) of the CAT NMS Plan for purposes of determining compliance with this FAM.
As discussed above, the remaining Historical CAT Costs 1 to be recovered via Historical CAT Assessment 1A would include fees, costs and expenses incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT during the period from August 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. The total costs for this period, as discussed above, are $42,976,478. Participants would remain responsible for one-third of this cost (which they have previously paid), and Industry Members would be responsible for the remaining two-thirds, with CEBBs paying one-third ($14,325,492.70) and CEBSs paying one-third ($14,325,492.70) through Historical CAT Assessment 1 and Historical CAT Assessment 1A.
Historical CAT Assessment 1A seeks to recover costs that are related to Post-Amendment Expenses incurred during FAM Period 3. FAM Period 3 began on January 1, 2021, and concluded on December 31, 2021, the date of the Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality. Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” as:
Under Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, this Financial Accountability Milestone is considered complete as of the date identified in the Participants' Quarterly Progress Reports. As indicated by the Participants' Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2021,
Specifically, the “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” requires the satisfaction of five prongs. The first prong requires that reporting to the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) is no longer required for new orders. As CAT LLC reported on its Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2021,
In addition to Phase 2a and Phase 2b Industry Member Data, the second and third prongs of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” require Industry Member reporting of Phase 2c Industry Member Data and Phase 2d Industry Member Data. The Phase 2c Industry Member Data is described in detail in the SEC's Phased Reporting Exemptive Relief Order. That Order states that “Phase 2c Industry Member Data” is Industry Member Data related to Eligible Securities that are equities other than Phase 2a Industry Member Data, Phase 2d Industry Member Data, or Phase 2e Industry Member Data. Specifically, the Phase 2c Industry Member Data includes Industry Member Data that is related to Eligible Securities that are equities and that is related to: (1) Allocation Reports as required to be recorded and reported to the Central Repository pursuant to Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan; (2) quotes in unlisted Eligible Securities sent to an IDQS operated by a CAT Reporter (reportable by the Industry Member sending the quotes) (except for quotes reportable in Phase 2d, as discussed below); (3) electronic quotes in listed equity Eligible Securities (
Phase 2c Industry Member Data also includes electronic quotes that are provided by or received in a CAT Reporter's order/quote handling or execution systems in Eligible Securities that are equities and are provided by an Industry Member to other market participants off a national securities exchange under the following conditions: (1) an equity bid or offer is displayed publicly or has been communicated (a) for listed securities to the ADF operated by FINRA; or (b) for unlisted equity securities to an “interdealer quotation system,” as defined in FINRA Rule 6420(c); or (2) an equity bid or offer which is accessible electronically by customers or other market participants and is immediately actionable for execution or routing;
The Phase 2d Industry Member Data is described in detail in the SEC's Phased Reporting Exemptive Relief Order. “Phase 2d Industry Member Data” is Industry Member Data that is related to Eligible Securities that are options other than Phase 2b Industry Member Data, Industry Member Data that is related to Eligible Securities that are equities other than Phase 2a Industry Member Data or Phase 2c Industry Member Data, and Industry Member Data other than Phase 2e Industry Member Data. Phase 2d Industry Member Data includes with respect to the Eligible Securities that are options: (1) simple manual orders; (2) electronic and manual paired orders; (3) all complex orders with linkages to all CAT-reportable legs; (4) LTIDs (if applicable) for accounts with Reportable Events for Phase 2d; (5) date account opened or Account Effective Date (as applicable) for accounts with an LTID and flag indicating the Firm Designated ID type as account or relationship for such accounts; (6) Allocation Reports as required to be recorded and reported to the Central Repository pursuant to Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan; (7) the modification or cancellation of an internal route of an order; and (8) linkage between a combined order and the original customer orders. Phase 2d Industry Member Data also would include electronic quotes that are provided by or received in a CAT Reporter's order/quote handling or execution systems in Eligible Securities that are options and are provided by an Industry Member to other market participants off a national securities exchange under the following conditions: a listed option bid or offer which is accessible electronically by customers or other market participants and is immediately actionable (
Phase 2d Industry Member Data also includes with respect to Eligible Securities that are options or equities (1) receipt time of cancellation and modification instructions through Order Cancel Request and Order Modification Request events; (2) modifications of previously routed orders in certain instances; and (3) OTC Equity Securities quotes sent by an Industry Member to an IDQS operated by an Industry Member CAT Reporter that does not match and execute orders. In addition, subject to any exemptive or other relief, Phase 2d Industry Member Data will include verbal or manual quotes on an exchange floor or in the over-the-counter market, where verbal quotes and manual quotes are defined as bids or offers in Eligible Securities provided verbally or that are provided or received other than via a CAT Reporter's order handling and execution system (
The Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2021 states that “Phase 2a was fully implemented as of October 26, 2020;” “Phase 2b was fully implemented as of January 4, 2021;” “Phase 2c was implemented as of April 26, 2021;” and “Phase 2d was fully implemented as of December 13, 2021.”
• “Production Go-Live for Equities 2c reporting requirements (Large Industry Members)” was completed on April 26, 2021;
• “LTID Account Information Reporting Go-Live for Phases 2a, 2b and 2c (Large Industry Members)” was completed on April 26, 2021;
• “FCAT Plan Processor creates linkages of the lifecycle of order events based on the received data through Phase 2d Production Go-Live for Options 2d reporting requirements (Large Industry Members)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “Production Go-Live for Options 2d reporting requirements (Large Industry Members)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “Production Go-Live for Options 2b reporting requirements (Small OATS Reporters and Small Non-OATS Reporters)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “Production Go-Live for Equities 2c reporting requirements (Small OATS Reporters and Small Non-OATS Reporters)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “Production Go-Live for Options 2d reporting requirements (Small OATS Reporters and Small Non-OATS Reporters)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “LTID Account Information Reporting Go-Live for Phases 2d (Large Industry Members)” was completed on December 13, 2021; and
• “LTID Account Information Reporting Go-Live for Phases 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d (Small Industry Members)” was completed on December 13, 2021.
The third prong of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” also imposes an Error Rate requirement of 5% or less. The Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2021 states the average overall error rate was less than 5% as of December 31, 2021. The average overall error rate was calculated by dividing the compliance errors by processed records.
The fourth prong of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” requires that the data collected by the CAT at this stage be made available to
The fifth prong requires the requirements of Section 6.10(a) of the CAT NMS Plan to have been met. Section 6.10(a) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Participants to use the tools described in Appendix D to “develop and implement a surveillance system, or enhance existing surveillance systems, reasonably designed to make use of the consolidated information contained in the Central Repository.” The Exchange implemented a surveillance system, or enhanced existing surveillance systems, reasonably designed to make use of the consolidated information contained in the Central Repository as of December 31, 2021 in accordance with Section 6.10(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.
The Commission has determined that the Participants have sufficiently complied with the conditions set forth in the 2020 Orders and with the technical requirements for Quarterly Progress Reports set forth in Section 6.6(c) of the CAT NMS Plan for purposes of determining compliance with this FAM.
As discussed above, the remaining Historical CAT Costs 1 to be recovered via Historical CAT Assessment 1A would include fees, costs and expenses incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT during the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. The total costs for this period, as discussed above, are $144,415,268. Participants would remain responsible for one-third of this cost (which they have previously paid), and Industry Members would be responsible for the remain two-thirds, with CEBBs paying one-third ($48,138,422.70) and CEBSs paying one-third ($48,138,422.70) through Historical CAT Assessment 1 and Historical CAT Assessment 1A.
As discussed above, CAT LLC has satisfied the Financial Accountability Milestones (“FAMs”) for Periods 1 through 3.
CAT LLC does not believe that the exemptive relief relating to the reporting of electronic responses for quotes (“RFQs”) that are not immediately actionable (“NIA Electronic RFQ Responses”) affect the conclusion that FAMs 1 through 3 have been satisfied. The only reason CAT LLC pursued this relief is because certain Industry Members introduced concerns that NIA Electronic RFQ Responses could be considered “orders” reportable pursuant to Rule 613(j)(8) and some Industry Members were not prepared to report such orders to CAT. Thus, the relief was requested on behalf of Industry Members. CAT LLC itself has not taken any position on whether NIA Electronic RFQ Responses are “orders,” as the definition of “order” is an SEC rule and the trading processes for NIA Electronic RFQ Responses are the Industry Members', not those of the Participants or CAT LLC. Accordingly, CAT LLC stated in its letter that “Industry Members must determine whether trading interest falls within the definition of an `order' for CAT purposes. To the extent an NIA Electronic RFQ Response is not considered an `order” as defined in Rule 613(j)(8) and the CAT NMS Plan, it would not be reportable to CAT.”
Only “orders” as defined in SEC Rule 613(j)(8) are reportable to CAT. There is no agreement across the industry or among regulators as to whether NIA Electronic RFQ Responses are “orders” reportable to CAT. Certain Industry Members have raised the question as to whether NIA Electronic RFQ Responses are orders, but others have argued that they are not orders under Rule 613(j)(8).
As further discussed in the prior FIF letters, even if the Commission had the legal authority to require the reporting of NIA RFQ responses to CAT without an amendment to Rule 613, the Commission has not provided guidance to industry members as to the conditions under which NIA RFQ responses would be reportable to CAT. In subsequent discussions with industry members, Commission representatives have agreed that, prior to NIA RFQ responses being reportable to CAT, it would be necessary for the Commission to provide further guidance to industry members as to the conditions under which NIA RFQ responses would be reportable to CAT.
On May 20, 2024, the Commission granted CAT LLC's request for exemptive relief from certain CAT reporting requirements pertaining to NIA Electronic RFQ Responses to the extent such responses are considered “orders” reportable pursuant to Rule 613(j)(8).
When the Commission proposed the FAMs, the Participants expressed concern that, “by conditioning the ability of CAT LLC and the Participants to collect Post-Amendment Industry Member Fees on factors dependent on the efforts of Industry Members, the Commission's proposals inadvertently establish a perverse incentive for Industry Members to devote less than maximum efforts to comply with their obligations related to the CAT as they will pay less fees in such instances.”
CAT LLC does not believe that the Commission's May 19, 2023 order granting temporary exemptive relief relating to certain verbal floor activity and unstructured verbal and electronic upstairs activity (the “2023 Verbal Quotes Exemption”) affects the conclusion that FAMs 1 through 3 have been satisfied. The 2023 Verbal Quotes Exemption, which was issued on May 19, 2023, is not relevant for purposes of FAM Periods 1 through 3, which only cover the period through December 31, 2021. The relevant exemption for this time period is the Commission's November 12, 2020 order, which granted relief for the same activity through July 31, 2023 (the “2020 Verbal Quotes Order”).
CAT LLC does not believe that the Commission's November 2, 2023 order granting relief from certain CAT NMS Plan requirements (the “November 2023 Order”) affects the conclusion that FAMs 1 through 3 have been satisfied. The November 2023 Order is not relevant for purposes of FAM Periods 1 through 3, which only cover the period through December 31, 2021. As described in the November 2023 Order, the relevant exemptive orders for this time period were issued on December 16, 2020, which also states that “the Commission has determined that the Participants have sufficiently complied with the conditions set forth in the prior Orders and with the technical requirements for Quarterly Progress Reports set forth in section 6.6(c) of the CAT NMS Plan, including for purposes of determining compliance with any applicable Financial Accountability Milestones.”
CAT LLC also completed the requirements of FAM Period 2, including the required linkages, by December 31, 2020. Although Participant exchanges may report the Executing Broker to CAT differently in certain situations, these reporting differences are irrelevant for linkage purposes as the fields used for CAT Executing Broker are not used for linkage.
The CAT Funding Model approved by the Commission permits the recovery of reasonable costs in each of the categories of CAT costs sought to be recovered via Historical CAT Assessment 1A.
CAT LLC believes that it is reasonable to seek recovery of costs incurred prior to when the CAT NMS Plan became effective in November 2016, such as legal and consulting fees incurred to create the CAT NMS Plan. Rule 613 specifically mandates that the CAT be created, implemented and maintained, and further provides that the CAT NMS Plan include a proposed allocation of estimated costs to fund the creation, implementation and maintenance of the CAT among the Participants (referred to as “plan sponsors”), and between the Participants and Industry Members (referred to as “members of the plan sponsors”).
Accordingly, the CAT NMS Plan specifically permits the recovery of costs, including legal and consulting costs, reasonably incurred prior to November 2016 in connection with the creation and implementation of the CAT.
Furthermore, the costs incurred to create and implement the CAT prior to the effective date of the CAT NMS Plan (“Pre-Formation Costs”) were reasonable both in scope and amount, in accordance with the requirements of Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan. During the four-year period from 2012 to 2016, a total of $13,842,881 in Pre-Formation Costs were incurred. This is an average of approximately $3.5 million per year over this period. The Pre-Formation Costs fell into three categories: legal costs, consulting costs and public relations costs. This includes legal costs of $3,196,434; consulting costs of $10,589,273; and public relations costs of $57,174. The legal, consulting and public relations services were performed by WilmerHale, Deloitte and Peppercomm, respectively. The selection considerations and fees for these three firms are described in detail above and are described further below. The Pre-Formation Costs are direct costs of CAT, which have been funded entirely by the Participants through non-interest-bearing notes. The Pre-Formation Costs do not include the significant costs incurred by each of the individual Participants in responding to the adoption of Rule 613.
The Pre-Formation Costs are reasonable and appropriate as they reflect the extensive efforts that were necessary to create the CAT NMS Plan as mandated after the SEC's adoption of Rule 613. As described in more detail below, these efforts included, among other things, developing a plan for selecting the Plan Processor, soliciting and evaluating bids, engaging a diverse set of market participants and the SEC in the development of the Plan, interacting with the SEC in their oversight of the development of the Plan, and seeking appropriate exemptive relief to address areas of concern in Rule 613.
The Participants determined to utilize an RFP to ensure that potential alternative solutions for creating the Plan could be presented and considered, and that a detailed and meaningful cost-benefit analysis could be performed. The SEC supported the use of an RFP, and approved its use as it is described in extensive detail in the CAT NMS Plan.
In the context of the SEC's adoption of Rule 613, commenters urged the Commission to utilize an RFP process to assist in the planning and design of the NMS plan.
In this regard, several commenters suggested that the Commission undergo a RFP or request for information (“RFI”) process to create and implement a consolidated audit trail. Specifically, FIF urged the Commission to perform a RFP process “to determine the best technical solution for developing a consolidated audit trail.” FIF suggested that the Commission “should outline a set of goals and guiding principles they are striving to achieve as part of the adopted CAT filing and leave the determination of data elements and other technical requirements to [an] industry working group.” Similarly, Direct Edge suggested that Commission staff should form and engage in a working group to develop an RFP for publication by the Commission. DirectEdge explained that an RFP process would facilitate the identification of the costs and benefits of the audit trail, as well as the consideration of a wider range of technological solutions. Further, commenters, including Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., a technology provider, also requested more specific information about the audit trail system to better assess the Commission's initial cost estimates and to determine the best approach to the consolidated audit trail.
In response to these comments, the Commission modified Rule 613 to require the Participants to address certain important considerations regarding the features and details of the NMS plan and to extend the timeframe for submission of the CAT NMS Plan by the Participants from the 90 days as originally proposed to 270 days, in part, to accommodate a process that would address these considerations.
The SEC specifically recognized that the Participants planned to use an RFP when it approved the Selection Plan, and stated that the RFP was a reasonable approach.
On February 26, 2013, the Participants published an RFP soliciting bids from parties interested in serving as the plan processor for the CAT. Initially, 31 firms submitted intentions to bid. In the following months, the Participants engaged with potential bidders with respect to, among other things, the selection process, selection criteria, and potential bidders' questions and concerns. On March 21, 2014, the Participants received ten bids in response to the RFP.
On September 4, 2013, the Participants filed with the Commission a national market system plan to govern the process for Participant review of the bids submitted in response to the RFP, the procedures for evaluating the bids, and, ultimately, selection of the plan processor (the “Selection Plan”).
The Selection Plan divided the review and evaluation of bids, and the selection of the plan processor, into various stages. Specifically, pursuant to the Selection Plan, a selection committee reviewed all bids and determined which bids contained sufficient information to allow the Participants to meaningfully assess and evaluate the bids. The ten submitted bids were deemed “Qualified Bids,” and so passed to the next stage, in which each bidder presented its bids to the Participants on a confidential basis. On July 1, 2014, after conducting careful analysis and comparison of the bids, the Selection Committee voted and selected a shortlist of six eligible bidders. The Selection Committee determined which shortlisted bidders would be provided the opportunity to revise their bids. After the Selection Committee assessed and evaluated the revised bids, the Selection Committee selected the plan processor via two rounds of voting by the Participants, as described in the Selection Plan.
The Selection Plan established an Operating Committee responsible for formulating, drafting, and filing with the Commission the CAT NMS Plan and for ensuring that the Participants' joint obligations under Rule 613 were met in a timely and efficient manner. In formulating the CAT NMS Plan, the Participants also engaged multiple persons across a wide range of roles and expertise, engaged the consulting firm Deloitte as project manager, and engaged the law firm WilmerHale to serve as legal counsel in drafting the Plan. Within this structure, the Participants focused on, among other things, comparative analyses of the proposed technologies and operating models, development of funding models to support the building and operation of the CAT, and detailed review of governance considerations. Given the complexity and scope of developing the CAT NMS Plan, these efforts were extensive.
When it approved the CAT NMS Plan in 2016, the Commission reiterated its belief that the Selection Plan remains a “reasonable approach,” that “the competitive bidding process to select the Plan Processor is a reasonable and effective way to choose a Plan Processor,” and that “the process set forth in the Selection Plan should be permitted to continue”:
In approving the Selection Plan, the Commission stated that the Selection Plan is reasonably designed to achieve its objective of facilitating the development of the CAT NMS Plan and the selection of the Plan Processor. The Commission also found that the Selection Plan is reasonably designed to govern the process by which the SROs will formulate and submit the CAT NMS Plan, including the review, evaluation, and narrowing down of Bids in response to the RFP, and ultimately choosing the Plan Processor that will build, operate, and maintain the consolidated audit trail. The Commission believes that the process set out in the Selection Plan for selecting a Plan Processor remains a reasonable approach, which will facilitate the selection of Plan Processor through a fair, transparent and competitive process and that no modifications to the Selection Plan are required to meet the approval standard. . . . In response to the comment that offered support for a specific Bidder, the Commission agrees with the Participants that the competitive bidding process to select the Plan Processor is a reasonable and effective way to choose a Plan Processor and thus believes that the process set forth in the Selection Plan should be permitted to continue.
During the process of developing the CAT NMS Plan, the Participants engaged in extensive and meaningful dialogue with market participants and the SEC. To this end, the Participants created a website to update the public on the progress of the CAT NMS Plan, published a request for comment on multiple issues related to the Plan, held multiple public events to inform the industry of the progress of the CAT and to address inquiries, and formed, and later expanded, a DAG to solicit more input from a representative industry group.
The DAG included representatives of Participants and Industry Members and conducted meetings to discuss, among other things, technical and operational aspects the Participants were considering for the Plan. The Participants issued press releases soliciting participants for the DAG, and a wide spectrum of firms was deliberately chosen to provide insight from various industry segments affected by CAT. The DAG meetings included discussions of topics such as option market maker quote reporting, requirements for capturing Customer IDs, timestamps and clock synchronization, reporting requirements for order handling scenarios, costs and funding, error handling and corrections, and potential elimination of systems made redundant by the CAT. From the inception of the DAG through September 2014, the DAG participated in 36 meetings, as well as a variety of DAG subcommittee meetings.
Following multiple discussions between the Participants and both the
After reviewing the exemptive request, the Commission determined that it was appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors to grant the requested exemptive relief.
[T]he Commission is persuaded to provide flexibility in the discrete areas discussed in the Exemption Request so that the alternative approaches can be included in the CAT NMS Plan and subject to notice and comment. Doing so could allow for more efficient and cost-effective approaches than otherwise would be permitted. The Commission at this stage is not deciding whether the proposed approaches detailed below are more efficient or effective than those in Rule 613. However, the Commission believes the proposed approaches should be within the permissible range of alternatives available to the SROs.
The Commission further stated that the requested exemptive relief is consistent with the protection of investors. The Commission noted that:
Doing so will provide the public an opportunity to consider and comment on whether these proposed alternative approaches would indeed be more efficient and cost-effective than those otherwise required by Rule 613, and whether such approaches would adversely affect the reliability or accuracy of CAT Data or otherwise undermine the goals of Rule 613. Moreover, if—as the SROs represent—efficiency gains and cost savings would result from including the proposed approaches in the CAT NMS Plan without adverse effects, then the resultant benefits could potentially flow to investors (
The Participants incorporated the exemptive relief into the proposed CAT NMS Plan, which was noticed for comment, and the Commission ultimately approved the CAT NMS Plan with the more efficient and cost-effective alternative approaches described in the exemptive relief. Accordingly, the Participants believe that the costs incurred in developing the exemptive request were critical to the creation of a better CAT than was originally contemplated by Rule 613, and therefore should be recoverable as part of Historical CAT Assessment 1A.
Rule 613(a)(1) under Regulation NMS required the Participants to jointly file the CAT NMS Plan on or before April 28, 2013, less than a year after the adoption of Rule 613. In recognition of the complexity of the project to create the CAT NMS Plan as well as industry interest in limiting or eliminating certain requirements of Rule 613 (
The SROs stated in their Request Letter that they do not believe that the 270-day time period provided for in Rule 613(a)(1) provides sufficient time for the development of the RFP, formulation and submission of bids, and review and evaluation of such bids. The SROs also stated that they believe additional time beyond the 270 days provided for in Rule 613(a)(1) is necessary in order to provide sufficient time for effective consultation with and input from the industry and the public on the proposed solution chosen by the SROs for the creation of the consolidated audit trail at the conclusion of the RFP process and the NMS plan itself.
In recognition of the need for additional time to refine the technical description of and requirements for the CAT and to allow for additional evaluation of the proposed cost and funding considerations, the SEC granted two extensions of this deadline.
This additional time to complete the RFP process should allow the SROs to engage in a more thoughtful and comprehensive process for the development of an NMS plan. In this regard, the Commission notes that the additional time to solicit comment from the industry and the public at certain key points in the development of the NMS plan could identify issues that can be resolved earlier in the development of the consolidated audit trail and prior to filing the NMS plan with the Commission.
Given the Commission's recognition of the reasonableness and value of the extension of the deadline to file the CAT NMS Plan, the Participants believe that the costs incurred in developing the extension request were important to the process of developing the CAT NMS Plan, and therefore should be recoverable as part of Historical CAT Assessment 1A.
After extensive analyses and discussions with the DAG, bidders, market participants and the SEC staff, the Participants finalized the draft of the CAT NMS Plan and filed the CAT NMS Plan with the SEC on September 30, 2014. Following additional discussions, the Participants filed several amendments to the CAT NMS Plan during 2015 and 2016. With these additional changes, the SEC published
The Pre-Formation Costs include legal costs of $3,196,434. The legal services were performed by WilmerHale. The selection considerations and fees for WilmerHale were described in detail above. Prior to the creation of CAT LLC, WilmerHale was engaged to represent the consortium of SROs, not the individual Participants. For administrative purposes, FINRA agreed to receive such legal bills, although such costs were shared among the Participants. Therefore, the legal costs incurred with respect to WilmerHale do not include legal costs incurred by the individual Participants. These pre-formation legal costs are described in detail above and are further described below:
• Analyzed various legal matters associated with the Selection Plan and drafted an amendment to Selection Plan;
• Assisted with the RFP and bidding process for the CAT Plan Processor;
• Analyzed legal matters related to the DAG;
• Drafted the CAT NMS Plan, analyzed various items related to the CAT NMS Plan, and responded to comment letters on the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided legal support for the formation of the legal entity, the governance of the CAT, including governance support prior to the adoption of the CAT NMS Plan, which involved support for the full committee of exchanges and FINRA as well as subcommittees of this group (
• Drafted exemptive requests;
• Provided interpretations related to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided support with regard to discussions among the exchanges, FINRA and other third parties, such as Deloitte;
• Provided tax advice with regard to CAT's status as a tax-exempt organization; and
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues.
The Pre-Formation Costs include consulting costs of $10,589,273. The consulting services were performed by Deloitte. The selection considerations and fees for Deloitte were described in detail above. Prior to the creation of CAT LLC, for administrative purposes, Deloitte was engaged by FINRA to provide consulting services related to CAT, but the costs were shared by the consortium of SROs per agreement. Therefore, the consulting costs incurred with respect to Deloitte do not include consulting costs incurred by the individual Participants. The pre-formation consulting costs include the following:
• Established and implemented program operations for the CAT project, including the program management office and workstream design;
• Assisted with the Plan Processor selection process, including but not limited to, the development of the RFP and the bidder evaluation process, and facilitation and consolidation of the Participants' independent reviews;
• Assisted with the development and drafting of the CAT NMS Plan, including conducting cost-benefit studies, reviewing technical requirements of other NMS plans, analyzing OATS and CAT requirements, and drafting appendices to the Plan;
• Provided governance support to the CAT, including governance support prior to the adoption of the CAT NMS Plan, which involved support for the full committee of exchanges and FINRA as well as subcommittees of this group (
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT;
• Provided support for industry outreach sessions, including with regard to program design and agenda development, program support and logistics and coordination; and
• Provided support in fact finding, drafting content and meeting coordination for WilmerHale with regard to the CAT and the development of the CAT NMS Plan.
Such Pre-Formation Costs did not include costs related to the Chair of the CAT NMS Plan Operating Committee, as the CAT NMS Plan had not yet been adopted.
The Pre-Formation Costs include public relations costs of $57,174. The public relations services were performed by Peppercomm. The selection considerations and fees for Peppercomm are described in detail above. The costs related to Peppercomm were shared among the SROs. Therefore, the public relations costs do not include public relations costs incurred by the individual Participants. The pre-formation public relations costs include services related to communications with the public regarding the CAT, including monitoring developments related to the CAT (
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover reasonable costs related to cloud hosting services as a part of Historical CAT Assessments. CAT LLC believes that the costs related to cloud hosting services described in detail above are reasonable and appropriate given the strict data processing timelines and storage requirements imposed by the Commission-approved CAT NMS Plan and should be recoverable as a part of Historical CAT Assessment 1A.
CAT LLC believes that the costs for the cloud hosting services are reasonable, both in terms of the level of the fees paid by CAT LLC for cloud hosting services provided by AWS and the scope of the services performed by AWS for CAT LLC. CAT LLC believes that both the scope and amount of the costs for cloud hosting services are reasonable given the current requirements of the CAT NMS Plan adopted pursuant to Rule 613, including the strict data processing timeline, storage and other technical requirements under the Commission-approved CAT NMS Plan.
CAT LLC believes that the level of fees for the cloud hosting services is reasonable, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the expected volume of data and the breadth of services provided and market rates for similar services.
CAT LLC also believes that the scope of services provided by AWS for the CAT are appropriate given the current requirements of the Commission-approved CAT NMS Plan. As described above, the cloud hosting services costs reflect a variety of factors including, among other things:
•
•
•
•
In addition, various requirements of the CAT NMS Plan adopted pursuant to Rule 613 contribute to the significant cloud hosting services costs, and that various Plan requirements could be amended or removed without affecting the regulatory purpose of the CAT. Indeed, CAT LLC has repeatedly sought exemptive relief and filed amendments to the CAT NMS Plan, and has even filed suit against the Commission, to seek to revise or eliminate certain costly requirements related to the CAT. However, despite these efforts, absent the Commission granting exemptive relief or approving cost savings amendments to the CAT NMS Plan, CAT LLC, the Participants and Industry Members are all required to comply with such requirements.
CAT is reasonably designed to efficiently and effectively utilize cloud computing and storage services, given the requirements of the Commission-approved CAT NMS Plan, including requirements related to security, operational reliance and quality assurance, and maintainability.
The Plan Processor uses state-of-the-art software that meets the strict security standards of the CAT NMS Plan. CAT utilizes a big data processing framework that is extensively used by large data processing companies, such as Apple, Meta, Netflix, IBM and Google. As such, it has substantial commercial support and support in the open-source community. It is also well suited for use with regard to iterative types of algorithms and query functions and analytics that the CAT requires, and it provides the heightened security necessary for the CAT.
The development and implementation of the design of CAT is not and has not been static. CAT LLC and the Plan Processor are always evaluating new innovations and service offerings from AWS and other providers to seek to maximize efficiency and cost avoidance while still satisfying the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. These efforts have led to substantial savings to date. The cloud hosting costs for 2023 were less than the cloud hosting costs for 2022 by $8 million despite processing seven trillion more events in 2023 due to the efficiency and cost avoidance efforts for cloud hosting services. For example, when AWS introduced new storage options, FCAT adopted the cost-efficient new storage option after establishing that the new offering would satisfy the security and other standards of the CAT NMS Plan. This change led to millions of dollars of savings in storage costs. Similarly, when AWS introduced a new compute processor, FCAT adopted this new compute processor, which lead to millions of dollars in savings in compute costs. However, in other cases, new cloud technology developments could not be implemented in CAT because they would not satisfy the security or other requirements of the CAT NMS Plan.
When evaluating the design of the CAT, it must be kept in mind that the CAT is not a typical commercial technology project. The ability to make use of technology approaches that may lead to cost avoidance is also subject to the restrictive requirements of the CAT NMS Plan, such as processing timeframes, requirements for retention of data versions, query requirements, and security standards. Because such requirements are set forth in the CAT NMS Plan, any modification of such requirements are subject to the time-consuming process of amending the CAT NMS Plan or seeking an exemption from the relevant requirement. For example, CAT LLC recently has filed an amendment to address several of these expensive Plan requirements.
The CAT System also was designed to minimize the extent to which Industry Members would need to alter their systems to report to CAT. During the design process, Industry Member groups argued that it would make more sense financially for the CAT to accommodate differences in industry systems, than for all Industry Members to change their systems. Moreover, such design choices would facilitate consistency, uniformity and accuracy in reporting. Requiring the CAT to make such accommodations may increase CAT costs while accommodating CAT Reporters.
Based on the requirements in the CAT NMS Plan and/or in response to industry requests for functionality to be embedded with the Plan Processor to streamline or limit Industry Member system changes, the CAT has been designed to limit the effect on Industry Members. The following provides examples of such accommodations:
•
•
•
To be clear, if OATS-like error correction tools are not made available on Day 1, hundreds of firms will be required to create and test their own tools or obtain vendor alternatives prior to the CAT Go-Live Date. Proprietary tools will require additional system builds, access to and ingestion of CAT data to perform system validation, and testing which will further stress the limited number of subject matter experts (“SMEs”) dedicated to the implementation of CAT reporting. Should this occur, inevitably firms (especially small firms who lack the necessary IT staff to write code and develop proprietary systems), may be put in the position of passing onto investors the cost required to build hundreds of redundant systems.
CAT provides various tools to help Industry Members identify and rectify errors.
•
FIF CAT WG is not proposing a specific format; rather, we are proposing flexibility of input formats which includes support of existing formats (
Mandating a uniform format for reporting data to the CAT simplifies the task for the Central Repository of consolidating/storing data, but it puts the burden on each CAT Reporter to accurately translate their current (
CAT provides such a flexible input format.
The costs for cloud hosting services are appropriate and have not been adversely affected by the original design and approaches of the Initial Plan Processor. FCAT's design costs are the result of the requirements of the Commission-approved CAT NMS Plan.
When FCAT took over as the Plan Processor from Thesys, it utilized certain aspects of the technical specifications created by Thesys in its design. However, FCAT has not maintained aspects of the original design that would not be appropriate for the CAT. FCAT revised and enhanced the original technical specifications of the CAT System to increase its efficiency and efficacy, and to ensure its compliance with the CAT NMS Plan. For example, the Initial Plan Processor's approach utilized many more fields than FCAT's approach, which relies on additional linkages. With the additional linkages, the CAT System takes on more of the CAT-related burdens than the Industry Members. Such an approach serves to facilitate consistency, uniformity and accuracy in reporting.
Moreover, FCAT did not utilize the system built by the Initial Plan Processor; it rebuilt the CAT System based on revised technical specifications. For example, the Initial Plan Processor used an on-premises processing approach which was not geared toward the huge amounts of data stored in the CAT, while FCAT adopted a cloud-based solution in response to such data demands.
Furthermore, given the very short timeframe to develop the CAT System and the prior optimization of certain query tools (
CAT LLC continues to support the selection of AWS as the cloud hosting services provider for CAT given the compliance, operational, and security requirements of the CAT. Independent analyses confirm these conclusions, noting that “AWS is an excellent choice for either strategic or tactical use and recommends considering AWS for almost all cloud IaaS or IaaS+PaaS scenarios.”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In addition, the nature of the CAT, including the amount of data it must process and the size of its data footprint, does not allow for a multi-cloud solution as this would be cost prohibitive and greatly increase the security boundary and associated risk profile of the CAT. For example, a multi-cloud hosting option would increase costs, complexity, and risk for operations with regard to, for example, DevOps, production support, and networking. Similarly, with regard to security, a multi-cloud solution would increase risk, including with regard to the need for data transfers between cloud providers and the expansion of the security boundary. With regard to labor, a multi-cloud solution would lose economies of scale due to the need to support unique cloud requirements. Accordingly, the use of a single-cloud solution continues to provide advantages with regard to cost, complexity, and risk. Indeed, “[t]he best practice is to focus on a single primary strategic provider.”
Furthermore, if another cloud service provider were determined to be a better match for the CAT at some future date, switching cloud service providers would be a very significant, expensive and time-consuming effort. Such an effort would likely be a 10-to-15-year commitment at a substantial expense. Such a move would require the replication or redesign of the underlying cloud environments (
CAT LLC believes that the recovery of costs related to the development of the funding model is appropriate, and that the amount and scope of such costs, as described above, are reasonable.
Funding the CAT is a critical aspect of Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan. Article XI of the CAT NMS Plan describes in detail the requirements for funding the CAT, and the Participants are required to comply with and enforce compliance with the funding requirements of the CAT NMS Plan, just as with other aspects of the Plan. Accordingly, the development and implementation of a funding model for the CAT is as much a part of the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan as the development and operation of the CAT System. CAT LLC sees no reason to distinguish the efforts to develop a funding model from, for example, efforts to develop the CAT System, in seeking to recover reasonable CAT costs.
Moreover, in approving the CAT Funding Model, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover reasonable costs for legal services as a part of Historical CAT Assessments. As approved by the SEC, the CAT NMS Plan states that “the reasonably budgeted CAT costs shall include . . . legal costs.”
In addition, the legal costs incurred for the assistance in developing the CAT Funding Model are reasonable in both amount and scope and should be recoverable as a part of Historical CAT Assessment 1A. As described above, the specialized services were performed by experienced counsel at negotiated rates for such services that reflect both the extent of the services and market rates. Moreover, the scope of the legal costs associated with the development of the funding model reflect the complexity of the task in satisfying the detailed requirements of the CAT NMS Plan, the standards of the Exchange Act, and the many perspectives of the different market constituents potentially affected by or interested in the funding model, including Industry Members, Participants and investors. The many and varied comments by market participants on CAT funding over the years demonstrate the complexity of the task.
CAT LLC believes that the recovery of legal costs related to the litigation with the SEC regarding the CAT NMS Plan is appropriate, and that the amount and scope of such costs, as described above, are reasonable.
As a preliminary matter, as discussed above, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover reasonable costs for legal services as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
The conditional exemptive relief in this Order allows for the implementation of alternative regulatory solutions that continue to advance the regulatory goals that Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan were intended to promote, while reducing the implementation and operational costs, burdens, and/or difficulties that would otherwise be incurred by the Participants and Industry Members that must fund the CAT.
CAT LLC believes it is reasonable and appropriate to incur costs to limit the need to incur even greater costs due to certain interpretations of the Plan.
In addition, the legal costs incurred during the litigation are reasonable in both amount and scope and should be recoverable as a part of Historical CAT Assessment 1A. As described above, the specialized services were performed by experienced counsel at market rates for such services. As such, the legal costs related to this litigation incurred during the period covered by Historical CAT Assessment 1A were reasonable.
Finally, Industry Members will directly benefit from the result of the litigation because it has addressed CAT NMS Plan requirements that would have imposed significantly greater costs on the CAT. Accordingly, it is reasonable and appropriate that the costs of such litigation be included in Historical CAT Costs 1.
CAT LLC believes that it is appropriate to recover costs related to the services performed by the Initial Plan Processor prior to November 15, 2017, which was the date by which Participants were required to begin reporting to the CAT, due to the delay
CAT LLC believes that it is appropriate to recover costs related to the services performed by the Initial Plan Processor prior to November 15, 2017. CAT LLC notes that the development and implementation of the CAT System, while unprecedented in scope and design, is like any other large and innovative technology project in that, inevitably, there were adjustments and refinements in the technical approach as the project developed, even with substantial planning efforts and oversight prior to the build. This is even more likely when the project faces a very tight implementation schedule, such as the one imposed by the Commission in Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan. However, an adjusted approach does not mean that the funds were not valid expenditures and should not be recovered.
The reasonableness of Thesys costs should be evaluated by the Commission as of the time they were incurred, not in hindsight. As detailed above, the Commission concluded in 2016 that “the competitive bidding process to select the Plan Processor is a reasonable and effective way to choose a Plan Processor,” and that “the process set forth in the Selection Plan should be permitted to continue.”
As noted in the CAT Funding Model Approval Order, the Commission recognized that “[t]he CAT NMS Plan contemplates that the costs of the CAT are to be allocated between the Participants and Industry Members.”
CAT LLC believes that the recovery of CAIS-related costs is appropriate, and that the amount and scope of such costs, as described above, are reasonable, and that the reasonableness of historical costs should be evaluated by the Commission as of the time they were incurred, not in hindsight.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover reasonable CAIS operating costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments. As approved by the SEC, the CAT NMS Plan states that “the reasonably budgeted CAT costs shall include . . . CAIS operating fees.”
In addition, CAT LLC determined that the CAIS operating fees described above are reasonable in both amount and scope and should be recoverable as a part of Historical CAT Assessment 1A. The “CAIS Operating Costs” for Historical CAT Costs 1 total $9,480,587, with Pre-FAM costs of $2,072,908, FAM 1 costs of $254,998, FAM 2 costs of $1,590,298, and FAM 3 costs of $5,562,383. As described above, the CAIS operating fees were incurred with regard to two categories of CAIS-related efforts: (1) the acceleration of the reporting of LTIDs; and (2) the development of the CAIS Technical Specifications and the building of CAIS. These two categories of costs are discussed in more detail below.
During the period covered by Historical CAT Assessment 1A, the CAIS operating costs included costs related to the acceleration of the reporting of LTIDs earlier than originally contemplated during this period at the request of the SEC and in accordance with exemptive relief granted by the SEC.
• After FCAT developed the LTID Technical Specifications, the LTID Technical Specifications were published on January 31, 2020, with additional updates provided to the LTID Technical Specifications through April 2021.
• The LTID account information testing environment opened on August 24, 2020.
• The LTID account information reporting production environment opened on December 14, 2020.
• CAT Reporters were required to request their production readiness certification for account information related to LTIDs by the deadline of April 9, 2021.
• The LTID account information reporting for Phases 2a, 2b and 2c for Large Industry Members went live on April 26, 2021.
• The LTID account information reporting for Phases 2d for Large Industry Members went live on December 13, 2021.
• The LTID account information reporting for Phases 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d for Small Industry Members went live on April 26, 2021.
Throughout this project, FCAT and CAT LLC worked closely with the industry on LTID and CAIS reporting. Between December 2019 and December 2021, at least 57 checkpoint calls, webinars, and technical working group meetings with industry representatives were hosted to address issues and to educate CAT Reporters regarding LTID and CAIS reporting.
The LTID reporting project was successfully completed in a timely fashion, and the fees related to the project were reasonable. Accordingly, CAT LLC appropriately seeks to recover such costs via Historical CAT Assessment 1A.
During the period covered by Historical CAT Assessment 1A, FCAT began the development of the full CAIS Technical Specifications and the building of CAIS. The CAIS Technical Specifications were developed during this period as follows:
• Iterative drafts of the CAIS Technical Specifications were published on June 30, 2020, December 1, 2020, and January 1, 2021.
• The full, final CAIS Technical Specifications were published on January 29, 2021.
• Updated versions of the CAIS Technical Specifications were published throughout 2021.
As discussed above, FCAT and CAT LLC frequently engaged with the industry regarding the development of CAIS, hosting regular checkpoint calls, webinars, and technical working group meetings with industry representatives to address any issues, including addressing the interplay between Industry Members' existing customer systems and CAIS, and to educate CAT Reporters regarding LTID and CAIS reporting. Such engagement was critical to the CAIS development process as the CAIS project was unprecedented in terms of its content, scope and complexity.
During this period, FCAT also commenced the building of the CAIS system in accordance with the CAIS Technical Specifications during the period covered by Historical CAT Assessment 1A. The CAIS system was ready for industry testing shortly after the end of this period in January 2022.
The CAIS Technical Specifications and the CAIS system, as developed during this period, continue to be used. Industry Members have been required to report, and have continuously reported, required data to CAIS on a daily basis since November 7, 2022, consistent with interim reporting obligations. The CAIS system accepts and validates the CAIS data submitted by Industry Members and provides Industry Members with initial feedback on data errors. In light of the unprecedented nature of the CAIS system, certain changes to the system, such as changes related to error corrections and the CAIS regulatory portal, were necessary to finalize CAIS reporting. FCAT worked to address these remaining issues,
CAT LLC believes that the recovery of public relations costs is appropriate and that the amount and scope of such costs, as described above, are reasonable.
The Commission has long recognized that external public relations costs are reasonably associated with creating, implementing and maintaining the CAT. In the CAT NMS Plan Approval Order, the Commission estimated that the Participants had collectively spent approximately $2,400,000 in preparation of the CAT NMS Plan on external public relations, legal, and consulting costs, and estimated that the Participants would continue to incur external public relations costs associated with maintaining the CAT upon approval of the CAT NMS Plan.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover reasonable costs for public relations services as a part of Historical CAT Assessments. As approved by the SEC, the CAT NMS Plan states that “the reasonably budgeted CAT costs shall include . . . public relations costs.”
In addition, CAT LLC determined that the public relations costs described above are reasonable in both amount and scope and should be recoverable as a part of Historical CAT Assessment 1A. The services performed by the public relations firms through 2021 were limited in scope to assist CAT LLC, which has no employees of its own, to be better positioned to understand and address CAT matters to the benefit of all market participants and to communicate on important CAT topics with the public. In addition, the costs for these services were appropriately limited. During the 10-year period covered by Historical CAT Assessment 1A, the average cost per year for these services was approximately $36,000.
CAT LLC believes that the recovery of legal costs related to the limitation of liability provision, including costs related to the proceedings before the SEC and costs related to the proposed amendment to the Consolidated Audit Trail Reporter Agreement and the Consolidated Audit Trail Reporting Agent Agreement (the “Reporting Agreements”) is appropriate and that the amount and scope of such costs as described above are reasonable.
As a preliminary matter, as discussed above, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover reasonable costs for legal services as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
Moreover, it is critical that CAT LLC, which has no employees of its own, have the ability to fund a legal defense in litigation and other legal proceedings against it. In response to CAT LLC requiring Industry Members to agree to
Although a limitation of liability provision ultimately was not adopted as proposed, it was a reasonable provision to propose for the CAT Reporter Agreements, given that such provisions are in accordance with industry norms. Limitations of liability are ubiquitous within the securities industry and have long governed the economic relationships between self-regulatory organizations and the entities that they regulate. For example, U.S. securities exchanges have adopted rules to limit their liability for losses that Industry Members incur through their use of exchange facilities.
Furthermore, as described above, the specialized services were performed by experienced counsel at market rates for such services. Accordingly, the legal costs for the efforts related to the limitation of liability provision were reasonable.
CAT LLC believes that the recovery of consulting costs related to the Chair of the CAT Operating Committee is appropriate and that the amount and scope of such costs are reasonable.
As a preliminary matter, the selection of the Chair of the Operating Committee complies with the requirements of Section 4.2 of the CAT NMS Plan. The initial Chair that served during the period covered by Historical CAT Assessment 1A was designated by a Participant as the Participant's alternate voting member. Accordingly, the Chair is a representative of the Participants, as required by the CAT NMS Plan.
In addition, in approving the CAT Funding Model, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover reasonable costs for consulting as a part of Historical CAT Assessments. As approved by the SEC, the CAT NMS Plan states that “the reasonably budgeted CAT costs shall include . . . consulting . . . ” costs.
The Participants determined that the position of the Chair was a critical role for the implementation of the CAT, and an independent Chair would appropriately consider and address the views of each of the Participants. The Participants also determined that it was important to have a Chair with a strong background regarding issues related to the regulatory obligations of self-regulatory organizations, including their obligations under national market system plans. The compensation paid to the Chair is appropriate for a person with such background and skills. The average annual amount paid to the Chair from 2017 through the end of FAM 3 was $292,733.30. Separate from the Chair, CAT LLC relies upon a Leadership Team of representatives of the SROs to oversee the day-to-day implementation of the CAT NMS Plan. CAT LLC does not compensate any member of the Leadership Team.
CAT LLC understands that there are three types of reconciliation processes related to the invoices:
•
•
•
As discussed further below, CAT LLC only considers the first type of process to be a “reconciliation” and the only type of process that is required under the CAT NMS Plan. CAT LLC provides the means to reconcile the CAT invoice amount to the underlying trades provided by CAT.
The CAT NMS Plan does not require CAT LLC to facilitate the second type of process: matching underlying trades for a CAT invoice with a firm's internal books and records. CAT LLC has access only to the underlying trades provided by CAT; it does not have access to a firm's internal books and records. Although beyond the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan and involving firm specific considerations, CAT LLC voluntarily has provided guidance and processes to assist CAT Reporters in their efforts to match the underlying trades with their own books and records.
The CAT NMS Plan also does not require CAT LLC to provide the ability to identify the order originator for the underlying trades for the CAT invoices. Accordingly, the billing guidance and processes do not provide CAT Reporters with the ability to identify the order originator for the underlying trades provided by CAT with CAT invoices. CAT LLC has been working closely with CAT Reporters to explain its billing approach and to address any outstanding billing questions. But, it should not be lost that CAT LLC
The CAT NMS Plan does not require CAT LLC to facilitate the matching of underlying trades for a CAT invoice with a firm's internal books and records, which may consist of trading data from various sources external to CAT. Although beyond the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan and involving firm specific considerations, CAT LLC voluntarily has provided guidance and processes to assist CAT Reporters in their efforts to match the underlying trades with their own books and records.
In this regard, it is important to recognize that CAT LLC has developed a billing approach that greatly improves upon existing billing practices for similar regulatory fees (
To facilitate the introduction of CAT fees, CAT LLC has worked with FCAT to develop an approach to CAT billing that is consistent with existing billing constructs used with regard to Section 31-related sales values fees, subject to certain enhancements. Under this billing approach, FCAT is providing additional linkage elements, not necessarily provided in the Section 31-sales value fee context, to facilitate CAT Reporters' ability to match the underlying trades provided by CAT with their internal books and records and to reduce the complexity of that process. Specifically, FCAT is providing various key elements of the trade itself, such as the tradeID and branch sequence,
With the Additional Trade Details, CAT LLC and FCAT believe that the overwhelming majority of underlying trades provided by CAT bills can be matched with a CAT Reporter's internal books and records. CAT LLC recognizes that there may be certain cases in which such matching is more difficult given various firm-specific considerations, but believes that such instances are significantly more limited than with regard to the SRO fees charged in relation to Section 31.
Similar to other regulatory fees, the CAT NMS Plan does not address the manner or extent to which CAT Executing Brokers may seek to pass any CAT fees on to their customers, nor does it impose any obligation on CAT LLC or the Plan Processor to facilitate firms' ability to do so. Accordingly, Historical CAT Assessment 1A does not address the process by which any CAT Reporters may pass through the fee to their customers. Likewise, the CAT billing approach provided by the Plan Processor is designed to address the needs of CAT Reporters with regard to the reconciliation of CAT invoices with the underlying trades provided by CAT LLC with the invoices; they are not designed to address issues related to any pass-through fees. Accordingly, facilitating CAT Reporters' ability to pass through fees to their clients is outside the scope of this fee filing. Nevertheless, as described below, CAT LLC and the Plan Processor have expended significant efforts to provide technical assistance to Industry Members regarding the implementation of Historical CAT Assessment 1A, including providing Additional Trade Details that provide significant details about each underlying trade.
In its approval of the CAT Funding Model, the Commission approved charging CAT fees to the CAT Executing Broker, rather than the originating broker. This fee filing must comply with the requirements of the CAT Funding Model, and, therefore, charges the Historical CAT Assessment 1A to CAT Executing Brokers.
Moreover, charging originating brokers would introduce significant complexity to the billing process from the CAT's perspective, and would increase the costs of implementing CAT fees. Charging the CAT Executing Broker is simple and straightforward, and leverages a one-to-one relationship between billable events (trades) and billable parties, similar to other transaction-based fees. In contrast, for a single trade event, there may be many originating brokers, and each trade must be broken down on a pro-rata basis, to account for one or more layers of aggregation, disaggregation, and representation of the underlying orders. While CAT is indeed designed to capture and unwind complex aggregation scenarios, the data and linkages are structured to facilitate regulatory use, and not a billing mechanism that assesses fees on a distinct set of executed trades; it is not simply a matter of using existing CAT linkages. Furthermore, charging originating brokers would implicate issues related to lifecycle linkage rates, and issues related to corrections, cancellations and allocations, while charging CAT Executing Brokers would avoid such issues.
As noted, the CAT NMS Plan does not address the manner or extent to which CAT Executing Brokers may seek to pass any CAT Fees on to their customers, nor does it impose any obligation on CAT LLC or the Plan Processor to facilitate firms' ability to do so. Nevertheless, the Additional Trade Details provided with regard to the underlying trades on CAT invoices may assist with this process. Like with Section 31-related sales value fees, however, it is not always possible to trace every fee on a transaction back to the originating party. Industry Members have faced these issues under Section 31-related sales values fees for
CAT LLC has worked with FCAT to provide significant technical assistance to Industry Members to allow the Industry Members to understand how Historical CAT Assessments will be implemented and billed, including webinars, CAT alerts, mock invoices, and responses to questions posed to the FCAT Help Desk.
•
•
•
•
•
•
By providing such detailed and sustained assistance to Industry Members regarding CAT fees and billing, CAT LLC has successfully addressed questions raised by Industry Members regarding the CAT fees and billing processes.
In keeping with past practice, CAT LLC provided notice of the proposed Historical CAT Assessment 1A via CAT Fee Alert on April 1, 2026,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements provisions of the Plan and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
First, the Historical CAT Assessment 1A fees to be collected are directly associated with the costs of establishing and maintaining the CAT, where such costs include Plan Processor costs and costs related to technology, legal, consulting, insurance, professional and administration, and public relations costs. The Exchange has already incurred such development and implementation costs and the proposed Historical CAT Assessment 1A fees, therefore, would allow the Exchange to collect certain of such costs in a fair and reasonable manner from Industry Members, as contemplated by the CAT NMS Plan.
The proposed Historical CAT Assessment 1A fees would be charged to Industry Members in support of the maintenance of a consolidated audit trail for regulatory purposes. The proposed fees, therefore, are consistent with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business operations. The proposed fees would not cover Exchange services unrelated to the CAT. In addition, any surplus would be used as a reserve to offset future fees. Given the direct relationship between CAT fees and CAT costs, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
As further discussed below, the SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding it was reasonable and that it equitably allocates fees among Participants and Industry Members. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees adopted pursuant to the CAT Funding Model approved by the SEC are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he Participants shall file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such fees on Industry Members that the Operating Committee approves.” Per Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan, the Exchange has filed this fee filing to implement the Industry Member CAT fees included in the CAT Funding Model. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act because it is consistent with, and implements, the CAT Funding Model in the CAT NMS Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. In approving the CAT NMS Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The SEC has determined that the CAT Funding Model is reasonable and satisfies the requirements of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the SEC has concluded that the method for determining Historical CAT Assessments as set forth in Section 11.3 of the CAT NMS Plan, including the formula for calculating the Historical Fee Rate, the identification of the parties responsible for payment and the transactions subject to the fee rate for the Historical CAT Assessment, is reasonable and satisfies the Exchange Act.
The formula for calculating a Historical Fee Rate requires the amount of Historical CAT Costs to be recovered. Specifically, Section 11.3(b)(iii)(B)(II) of the CAT NMS Plan requires a fee filing to provide:
a brief description of the amount and type of the Historical CAT Costs, including (1) the technology line items of cloud hosting services, operating fees, CAIS operating fees, change request fees, and capitalized developed technology costs, (2) legal, (3) consulting, (4) insurance, (5) professional and administration and (6) public relations costs.
In accordance with this requirement, the Exchange has set forth the amount and type of Historical CAT Costs 1 for each of these categories of costs above.
Section 11.3(b)(iii)(B)(II) of the CAT NMS Plan also requires that the fee filing provide “sufficient detail to demonstrate that the Historical CAT Costs are reasonable and appropriate.” As discussed below, the Exchange believes that the amounts set forth in this filing for each of these cost categories is “reasonable and appropriate.” Each of the costs included in Historical CAT Costs 1 are reasonable and appropriate because the costs are consistent with standard industry practice, based on the need to comply with the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan, incurred subject to negotiations performed on an arm's length basis, and/or are consistent with the needs of any legal entity, particularly one with no employees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to cloud hosting services as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
To comply with the requirements of the Plan, the breadth of the cloud activities related to the CAT is substantial. The cloud services not only include the production environment for the CAT, but they also include two industry testing environments, support environments for quality assurance and stress testing and disaster recovery capabilities. Moreover, the cloud storage costs are driven by the requirements of the Plan, which requires the storage of multiple versions of the data, from the original submitted version of the data through various processing steps, to the final version of the data.
Data volume is a significant driver of costs for cloud hosting services. When the Commission adopted the CAT NMS Plan in 2016, it estimated that the CAT would need to receive 58 billion records per day
In addition to the effect of the data volume on the cloud hosting costs, the processing timelines set forth in the Plan contribute to the cloud hosting costs. Although CAT LLC has proactively sought to manage cloud hosting costs while complying with the Plan, including through requests to the Commission for exemptive relief and an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan, stringent CAT NMS Plan requirements do not allow for any material flexibility in cloud architecture design choices, processing timelines (
The costs for cloud hosting services also reflect the need for specialized cloud hosting services given the data volume and unique processing needs of the CAT. The data volume as well as the data processing needs of the CAT necessitate the use of cloud hosting services. The equipment, power and services required for an on-premises data model, the alternative to cloud hosting services, would be cost prohibitive. Moreover, as CAT was being developed, there were limited cloud hosting providers that could satisfy all the necessary CAT requirements, including the operational and security criteria. Over time more providers offering cloud hosting services that would satisfy these criteria have entered the market. CAT LLC will continue to evaluate alternative cloud hosting services, recognizing that the time and cost to move to an alternative cloud provider would be substantial.
The reasonableness of the cloud hosting services costs is further supported by key cost discipline mechanisms for the CAT—a cost-based funding structure, cost transparency, cost management efforts (including regular efforts to lower compute and storage costs where permitted by the Plan) and oversight. Together, these mechanisms help ensure the ongoing reasonableness of the CAT's costs and the level of fees assessed to support those costs.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to operating fees as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to CAIS operating fees as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to change request fees as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to capitalized developed technology costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
These costs involve the activity of both the Initial Plan Processor and FCAT, as the successor Plan Processor.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to legal fees as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover consulting costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover insurance costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover professional and administration costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
CAT LLC determined to hire a financial advisory firm, Anchin, to assist with financial matters for the CAT. CAT LLC interviewed Anchin as well as other potential financial advisory firms to assist with the CAT project, considering a variety of factors in its analysis, including the firm's relevant expertise and fees.
CAT LLC also determined to engage an independent accounting firm, Grant Thornton, to complete the audit of CAT LLC's financial statements, in accordance with the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. CAT LLC interviewed this firm as well as another potential accounting firm to audit CAT LLC's financial statements, considering a variety of factors in its analysis, including the relevant expertise and fees of each of the firms. CAT LLC determined that Grant Thornton was well-qualified for the role given the balance of these considerations.
The professional and administrative costs also include costs related to the receipt of certain market data from Exegy. After performing an analysis of the available market data vendors to confirm that the data provided met the SIP Data requirements of the CAT NMS Plan and comparing the costs of the vendors providing the required SIP Data, CAT LLC determined to purchase market data from Exegy. Exegy provided the data elements required by the CAT NMS Plan, and the fees were reasonable and in line with market rates for the market data received.
The professional and administrative costs also include costs related to a third party security assessment of the CAT performed by RSM. The assessment was designed to verify and validate the effective design, implementation and operation of the controls specified by NIST Special Publication 800-53, Revision 4 and related standards and guidelines. Such a security assessment is in line with industry practice and important given the data included in the CAT. CAT LLC determined to engage RSM to perform the security assessment, after considering a variety of factors in its analysis, including the firm's relevant expertise and fees. The fees were reasonable and in line with market rates for such an assessment.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover public relations costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
The total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the 12-month period from March 2025 through February 2026 was 5,980,937,549,360.49 executed equivalent shares. CAT LLC determined the total executed equivalent share volume for the prior twelve months by counting executed equivalent shares in the same manner as it will count executed equivalent shares for CAT billing purposes.
CAT LLC has determined to establish a Historical Recovery Period of 24 months for Historical CAT Assessment 1A and that such length is reasonable. CAT LLC determined that the length of Historical Recovery Period 1A appropriately weighs the need for a reasonable fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1A that spreads the Historical CAT Costs over an appropriate amount of time and the need to repay the loans notes to the Participants in a timely fashion. CAT LLC determined that 24 months for Historical Recovery Period 1A would establish a fee rate that is lower than other transaction-based fees, including fees assessed pursuant to Section 31.
CAT LLC has determined to calculate the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the 24 months of Historical Recovery Period 1A by doubling the executed equivalent share volume for the prior 12 months. The Operating Committee determined that such an approach was reasonable as the CAT's annual executed equivalent share volume has increased from prior years (
As noted in the Plan amendment for the CAT Funding Model, as a practical matter, the fee filing for a Historical CAT Assessment would provide the exact fee per executed equivalent share to be paid for each Historical CAT Assessment, and describe the relevant number of decimal places for the fee rate.
The Exchange believes that imposing Historical CAT Assessment 1A with a fee rate of $0.000002 per executed equivalent share is reasonable because it provides for a revenue stream for the Company that is aligned with the remaining Historical CAT Costs 1 and such costs would be spread out over an appropriate recovery period, as discussed above. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the level of the fee rate is reasonable, as it is comparable to other transaction-based fees. Indeed, Historical CAT Assessment 1A is significantly lower than fees assessed pursuant to Section 31 (
Historical CAT Assessment 1A provides for an equitable allocation of fees, as it equitably allocates CAT costs between and among the Participants and Industry Members. The SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding that each aspect of the CAT Funding Model satisfied the requirements of the Exchange Act, including the formula for calculating Historical CAT Assessments as well as the Industry Members to be charged the Historical CAT Assessments.
Historical CAT Assessment 1A provides for an equitable allocation of fees as it complies with the requirements regarding the calculation of Historical CAT Assessments as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. For example, as described above, the calculation of Historical CAT Assessment 1A complies with the formula set forth in Section 11.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. In addition, Historical CAT Assessment 1A would be charged to CEBBs and CEBSs in accordance with Section 11.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. Furthermore, the Participants would continue to remain responsible for their designated share of Past CAT Costs through the cancellation of loans made by the Participants to CAT LLC.
In addition, as discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of Historical CAT Assessment 1A—Historical CAT Costs 1 (including Excluded Costs) and the exclusion of costs previously invoiced via Historical CAT Assessment 1, the count for the executed equivalent share volume for the prior 12 months, the length of the Historical Recovery Period, and the projected executed equivalent share volume for the Historical Recovery Period—are reasonable. Moreover, these inputs lead to a reasonable fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1A that is
Historical CAT Assessment 1A is not an unfairly discriminatory fee. The SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding that each aspect of the CAT Funding Model satisfied the requirements of the Exchange Act. In reaching this conclusion, the SEC analyzed the potential effect of Historical CAT Assessments calculated pursuant to the CAT Funding Model on affected categories of market participants, including Participants (including exchanges and FINRA), Industry Members (including subcategories of Industry Members, such as alternative trading systems, CAT Executing Brokers and market makers), and investors generally, and considered market effects related to equities and options, among other things. Historical CAT Assessment 1A complies with the requirements regarding the calculation of Historical CAT Assessments as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. In addition, as discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of Historical CAT Assessment 1A and the resulting fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1A is reasonable. Therefore, Historical CAT Assessment 1A does not impose an unfairly discriminatory fee on Industry Members.
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed fees established pursuant to the CAT Funding Model promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, and are provided in a transparent manner and specificity in the fee schedule. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because they would provide ease of calculation, ease of billing and other administrative functions, and predictability of a fee based on fixed rate per executed equivalent share. Such factors are crucial to estimating a reliable revenue stream for CAT LLC and for permitting Exchange members to reasonably predict their payment obligations for budgeting purposes.
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
In addition, all Participants (including exchanges and FINRA) are proposing to introduce Historical CAT Assessment 1A on behalf of CAT LLC to implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. Therefore, this is not a competitive fee filing, and, therefore, it does not raise competition issues between and among the Participants.
Furthermore, in approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC analyzed the potential competitive impact of the CAT Funding Model, including competitive issues related to market services, trading services and regulatory services, efficiency concerns, and capital formation.
As discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of Historical CAT Assessment 1A is reasonable and the resulting fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1A calculated in accordance with the CAT Funding Model is reasonable. Therefore, Historical CAT Assessment 1A would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Exchange Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further 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.