Foreign Agricultural Service
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Final rule.
The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB) adopts as final, without changes, the proposed rule permitting the TSP record keeper to calculate gains and losses on late contributions, makeup contributions, loan payments even when the total amount on a late payment record or total agency contributions on a current payment record is less than $1.00.
The effective date is April 16, 2025.
The FRTIB administers the TSP, which was established by the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986 (FERSA), Public Law 99-335, 100 Stat. 514. The TSP is a retirement savings plan for Federal civilian employees and members of the uniformed services. It is similar to cash or deferred arrangements established for private-sector employees under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 401(k)). The provisions of FERSA that govern the TSP are codified, as amended, largely at 5 U.S.C. 8351 and 8401-79.
Under 5 U.S.C 8432, the Executive Director of the FRTIB is directed to prescribe regulations to establish an error correction procedure for lost earnings that result from employing agencies' errors.
Employing agencies submit agency matching contributions, deduct employee contributions from participants' basic pay, and deduct loan payments from participants' basic pay. Employing agencies also submit makeup contributions to the TSP.
Contribution and loan payment information are submitted by employing agencies to the TSP record keeper using a payment record. Occasionally, a payment record is not submitted timely or contains an error. As a result, the participant's funds are unavailable for investment by the TSP record keeper and do not experience gains realized or losses incurred that they would have otherwise. These missed gains or losses are referred to as breakage.
Previously, section 1605.2(a)(1) said the TSP does not calculate breakage if the total amount on a late payment record or total agency contributions on a current payment record is less than $1.00. We believe this rule existed due to technological and administrative limitations that no longer exist and is, therefore, obsolete. This final rule will direct the TSP record keeper to calculate breakage even when the total amount on a late payment record or total agency contributions on a current payment record is less than $1.00.
On December 18, 2024, the FRTIB published a proposed rule with request for public comments in the
Claims, Government employees, Pensions, Retirement.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the FRTIB amends 5 CFR part 1605 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 8351, 8432a, 8432d, 8474(b)(5) and (c)(1). Subpart B also issued under section 1043(b)of Public Law 104-106, 110 Stat. 186 and § 7202(m)(2) of Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388.
(a) * * *
(1) The TSP record keeper will not calculate breakage if contributions or loan payments are posted within 30 days of the “as of” date; and
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Airbus Helicopters (Airbus) Model EC175B helicopter. This model helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category helicopters. This design feature is a 30-minute all engines operating (AEO) power rating. This rating will be used for hovering at increased power for search and rescue missions. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Airbus on April 16, 2025. Send comments on or before June 2, 2025.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2025-0080 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Andrew Birkenheuer, Engine and Propulsion Section, AIR-625, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5246; email
Substantially identical proposed special conditions have been published in the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in § 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received without change to
Confidential Business Information (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 these special conditions contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, 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 the indicated comments will not be placed in the public docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to the individual listed in the
The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.
On September 14, 2022, Airbus requested FAA type certificate validation for the Airbus Model EC175B helicopter. The Model EC175B helicopter is a Transport Category, 14 CFR part 29, twin-engine conventional helicopter designed for civil operations. This model will be certificated with Category A performance and under dual pilot instrument flight rules, powered by two Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C-67E engines with a dual channel Full Authority Digital Engine Control system, has five main rotor blades, a maximum gross weight of 17,196 pounds, and a velocity not exceeding 175 knots. The Model EC175B helicopter features an integrated modular avionics suite with four 6x8-inch multi-function displays called Common Integrated Global Avionics for Light Helicopters. This rotorcraft is capable of carrying 18 passengers and two crew members. Its initial customer base includes offshore oil and search and rescue operations.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model EC175B helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by amendments 29-1 through 29-52.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model EC175B helicopter must comply with the exhaust-emission requirements of part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Airbus Model EC175B helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
A 30-minute AEO power rating.
Airbus proposes a novel and unusual design feature for the Model EC175B helicopter: a 30-minute power rating identified in the Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6C-67E engine type certificate data sheet (TCDS) No. E00068EN. Under 14 CFR 1.1, “rated takeoff power” is limited to no more than 5 minutes for takeoff operations. As such, regulations in 14 CFR 29 that reference takeoff power are not adequate to address the use of takeoff power for 30 minutes. Therefore, takeoff power for 30 minutes requires special airworthiness standards, known as special conditions, to address the use of this 30-minute power rating and its effects on the rotorcraft. This power will be limited to 50 minutes per flight due to engine durability considerations. These special conditions will add requirements to evaluate the use of 30-minute takeoff power to the existing airworthiness requirements in § 29.1049, “Hovering cooling test procedures,” requirements to track 30-minute takeoff power usage to the requirements in § 29.1305, “Powerplant instruments,” and limitations on the use of 30-minute takeoff power to the requirements in § 29.1521, “Powerplant limitations.” A summary of the final special conditions is as follows:
In addition to the hovering cooling test procedures requirements in § 29.1049, because § 29.1049 does not address the evaluation of cooling effects resulting from using a 30-minute power rating, these special conditions require evaluation through testing of aircraft cooling effects resulting from using the 30-minute power rating.
In addition to the powerplant instruments requirements in § 29.1305, because § 29.1305 does not address 30-minute takeoff power, these special conditions require the pilot be provided with means to identify the following with respect to 30-minute takeoff power:
• When the rated engine power level is achieved,
• When the event begins,
• When the time interval expires, and
• When the cumulative time in one flight is reached.
In addition to the powerplant limitations in § 29.1521, because § 29.1521 does not address 30-minute takeoff power, these special conditions limit the use of takeoff power for 30 minutes to:
• No more than 30 minutes per use, and
• No more than 50 minutes per flight.
Additionally, the Model EC175B helicopter flight manual must include the following limitations on the use of the 30-minute power rating per 14 CFR 29.1583(b)(1) (which requires furnishing the limitations required by § 29.1521):
• Continuous use above maximum continuous power (MCP) is limited to 30 minutes, and
• Cumulative use above MCP is limited to 50 minutes per flight.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions apply to the Airbus Model EC175B helicopter. Should Airbus later apply for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to that model.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on the Airbus Model EC175B helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, and 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus Helicopters Model EC175B helicopter. Unless stated otherwise, all requirements in 14 CFR 29.1049, 29.1305, and 29.1521 remain unchanged.
1.
a. At maximum weight or at the greatest weight at which the rotorcraft can hover (if less), at sea level, with the power required to hover but not more than the 30-minute power, in the ground effect in still air, until at least five minutes after the occurrence of the highest temperature recorded, or until the continuous time limit of the 30-minute AEO power rating if the highest temperature recorded is not stabilized before.
b. At maximum weight and at the altitude resulting in zero rate of climb for this configuration until at least five minutes after the occurrence of the highest temperature recorded, or until the continuous time limit of the 30-minute AEO power rating if the highest temperature recorded is not stabilized before.
2.
3.
a. The maximum rotational speed, which may not be greater than—
(1) The maximum value determined by the rotor design; or
(2) The maximum value shown during the type tests;
b. The maximum allowable turbine inlet or turbine outlet gas temperature.
c. The maximum allowable power or torque for each engine, considering the
d. The time limit for the use of the power corresponding to the limitations established in this section, sub-paragraphs a. through c. of this section, and
e. The maximum allowable engine and transmission oil temperatures.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2020-20-17 and AD 2021-15-05 for all General Electric Company (GE) Model GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B engines. AD 2020-20-17 prohibits dispatch of an airplane if certain status messages are displayed on the engine indicating and crew alerting system (EICAS) and if certain conditions are present; and as terminating action, requires revision of the existing FAA-approved minimum equipment list (MEL) by incorporating the dispatch restrictions into the MEL. AD 2021-15-05 requires initial and repetitive replacement of the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) integrated circuit (MN4) microprocessor. Since the FAA issued AD 2020-20-17 and AD 2021-15-05, the manufacturer has developed a software revision for the electronic engine control (EEC) FADEC that further mitigates the unsafe condition. This AD retains all the actions of AD 2020-20-17 and AD 2021-15-05, and also requires upgrading the EEC FADEC software to an EEC FADEC software version eligible for installation as a terminating action. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective May 21, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 21, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain other publications listed in this AD as of October 23, 2020 (85 FR 63443, October 8, 2020); and September 13, 2021 (86 FR 43409, August 9, 2021).
• For GE material identified in this AD, contact GE, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: (513) 552-3272; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Alexander Thickstun, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (202) 267-8292; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-20-17, Amendment 39-21273 (85 FR 63443, October 8, 2020) (AD 2020-20-17) and AD 2021-15-05, Amendment 39-21652 (86 FR 43409, August 9, 2021) (AD 2021-15-05). AD 2020-20-17 and AD 2021-15-05 applied to all GE Model GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B engines. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received comments from five commenters. The commenters were the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), The Boeing Company (Boeing), FedEx Express (FedEx), GE Aerospace (GE), and United Airlines (UAL). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
ALPA expressed support for the proposed AD. FedEx concurred with the intent and scope of the proposed AD and stated that the FedEx fleet has already upgraded the EEC FADEC software version to A.0.8.6. UAL indicated that it had no objections to the proposed AD.
GE requested that the FAA update the Material Incorporated by Reference under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph and revise the definition specified in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of the NPRM to include a later revision of the acceptable service information. GE mentioned that the FAA has approved a global alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to the corresponding paragraph in AD 2021-15-05, which allowed the use of the later service information. GE pointed out that including the later service information would prevent similar requests for AMOCs to the NPRM.
The FAA agrees with the request. The FAA has revised the Material Incorporated by Reference under 1 CFR part 51 paragraph and paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this AD to include reference to GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-
GE requested that the FAA include a service bulletin reference (GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0122) in the required actions specified in paragraph (j) of the NPRM. GE pointed out that field configuration management is tracked with service bulletins that are used to release part numbers to the field, and that including reference to GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0122 provides clarification.
The FAA agrees and has updated the new required actions specified in paragraphs (j) and (l) of this AD to refer to GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0122.
GE requested that the FAA include credit for previous versions of GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0122. GE pointed out that including credit would help avoid confusion about compliance with the required action.
The FAA disagrees with the request. The FAA has updated the new required actions specified in paragraphs (j) and (l) of this AD to include reference to GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0122. Since the reference is clarifying and does not require any action in accordance with the service information reference, there is no need for any credit related to the action. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.
Boeing requested that the FAA revise the unsafe condition specified in paragraph (e) of the NPRM. Boeing requested that the unsafe condition be reworded to focus on describing the unsafe condition or to include the new mitigations provided in the NPRM. Boeing also included proposed language to revise paragraph (e) of the NPRM. Boeing noted that paragraph (e) of the NPRM does not describe the potentially unsafe condition in detail and does not discuss the new mitigations that were added in the NPRM.
The FAA agrees to clarify. However, the FAA has determined that the unsafe condition described in paragraph (e) of this AD correctly describes the unsafe condition and is consistent with the verbiage used in the previous (superseded) ADs. Instead, the FAA has determined to include an additional clarifying sentence in the Background of this AD, which states: “Degradation of the MN4 integrated circuit microprocessor solder balls in the FADEC can result in the engine not following throttle commands.”
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0118 R02, which specifies procedures for replacing the FADEC MN4 microprocessor, which describes procedures for checking for an inbound FADEC EICAS “ENG EEC C1” status message and corresponding conditions.
The FAA also reviewed GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0117 R01, dated August 5, 2020, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of October 23, 2020 (85 FR 63443, October 8, 2020).
The FAA also reviewed GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0118, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2021, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of September 13, 2021 (86 FR 43409, August 9, 2021).
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 330 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effectiveMay 21, 2025.
(1) This AD replaces AD 2020-20-17, Amendment 39-21273 (85 FR 63443, October 8, 2020) (AD 2020-20-17).
(2) This AD replaces AD 2021-15-05, Amendment 39-21652 (86 FR 43409, August 9, 2021) (AD 2021-15-05).
This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) Model GE90-110B1 and GE90-115B engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7320, Fuel Controlling System.
This AD was prompted by an in-service occurrence of loss of engine thrust control resulting in uncommanded high thrust. The FAA is issuing this AD to prohibit dispatch of the airplane when certain faults caused by degradation of the MN4 integrated circuit in the full authority digital engine control (FADEC) are displayed and certain FADEC conditions are present, and to prevent failure of the electronic engine control (EEC) FADEC integrated circuit (MN4) microprocessor solder ball. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of engine thrust control and reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) After October 23, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-20-17), notwithstanding the provisions of the operator's minimum equipment list (MEL), dispatch of an airplane is prohibited if the engine indicating and crew alerting system (EICAS) displays the status message “ENG EEC C1 L” or “ENG EEC C1 R” and any condition is present that is listed in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.A.(2)(f), 3.A.3(a), or 3.A.(4) of GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0117 R01, dated August 5, 2020.
(2) As terminating action for the requirements of paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, within 120 days of October 23, 2020 (the effective date of AD 2020-20-17), revise the existing FAA-approved MEL by incorporating into the MEL the dispatch restrictions listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD as a required operation or maintenance procedure. Specific alternative MEL wording to accomplish the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD can be approved by the operator's principal operations or maintenance inspector.
(1) Within the following compliance times after September 13, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-15-05), replace the FADEC MN4 microprocessor using an approved overhaul procedure:
(i) For a FADEC MN4 microprocessor with 10,500 or more cycles since new (CSN), replace the FADEC MN4 microprocessor before accumulating 500 additional cycles on the FADEC MN4 microprocessor.
(ii) For a FADEC MN4 microprocessor with 5,000 CSN or more, but fewer than 10,500 CSN, replace the FADEC MN4 microprocessor at the next FADEC component shop visit or before accumulating 11,000 CSN on the FADEC MN4 microprocessor, whichever occurs first.
(2) Thereafter, repeat the replacement of the FADEC MN4 microprocessor at the first FADEC component shop visit after accumulating 5,000 cycles since the last replacement but before accumulating 11,000 cycles since the last replacement.
This paragraph restates the definitions of paragraph (h) of AD 2021-15-05, with new service information included for the definition of paragraph (h)(1)(ii). For the purpose of this AD:
(1) An “approved overhaul procedure” is one of the following:
(i) Replacement of the FADEC MN4 microprocessor using FADEC International-approved maintenance procedures; or
(ii) Replacement of the FADEC MN4 microprocessor using the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.A., of GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0118, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2021, or of GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0118, Revision 02, dated November 15, 2024.
(2) A “FADEC component shop visit” is the induction of the FADEC into a repair facility to perform internal maintenance on the FADEC.
Within 180 days after the effective date of this AD, replace any EEC FADEC software version that is earlier than A.0.8.6 (prior to GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0122) with an EEC FADEC software version that is eligible for installation.
The actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD constitute terminating action for all the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install on any engine, an EEC FADEC software version that is earlier than A.0.8.6 (prior to GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0122).
For the purpose of this AD, an “EEC FADEC software version that is eligible for installation” is any software version that is A.0.8.6 or later.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (o) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2021-15-05 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Alexander Thickstun, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (202) 267-8292; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on May 21, 2025.
(i) General Electric Company (GE) GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0118, Revision 02, dated November 15, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) The following material was approved for IBR on October 23, 2020 (85 FR 63443, October 8, 2020).
(i) GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0117 R01, dated August 5, 2020.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) The following material was approved for IBR on September 13, 2021 (86 FR 43409, August 9, 2021).
(i) GE GE90-100 Service Bulletin 73-0118, Revision 01, dated April 27, 2021.
(ii) [Reserved]
(6) For GE material identified in this AD, contact GE, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: (513) 552-3272; email:
(7) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(8) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E airspace at Marysville, OH. This action is the result of an airspace review conducted due to the decommissioning of the Marysville nondirectional beacon (NDB). The geographic coordinates are being corrected due to a typographical error and updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action brings the airspace into compliance with FAA orders and supports instrument flight rule (IFR) procedures and operations.
Effective 0901 UTC, June 12, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Union County Airport, Marysville, OH to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-2114 in the
1. Carson Benedict stated: “Extending the Marysville (Union County) class echo airspace will provide greater coverage for pilots (FAA,2025). This is beneficial for IFR pilots as Union County has two RNAV approaches, so the expansion of the airspace would offer pilots under IFR plans additional protection. This extension also protects those pilots who are transitioning from the airport to NAVIDS, such as a VOR or GPS waypoint (Martin, 2023). Along with this action, the decommissioning of the Marysville NDB is a much-needed process as the aviation industry leads the world in modernized navigation utilizing GPS and similar navigation sources. As a pilot training for my instrument rating, GPS approaches are considered more accurate than any other approach, making this extension in controlled airspace especially valuable for IFR pilots.”
2. Spencer Raver states: “The amendment to the Class E airspace surrounding Marysville, OH, is crucial due to the discontinuation of the Marysville NDB. The western extension of class E airspace provides a smooth transition to and from en route flight for aviators operating under instrument flight rules.” The commenter further stated that, with removal of NDBs expected to be removed from the NAS, this “calls for an expansion of airspace around airports like KMRT, who are losing their local NDB, to accommodate local traffic that would otherwise be using the NDB's approach procedure.”
“Furthermore, the expansion of the airspace may attract more pilots operating under instrument flight rules due to the added efficiency to enter and exit the airport, meaning there would be more traffic to the airport. If this influx of traffic is to occur, there may be issues with the adjacent airports of KDLZ and KOSU to the east and southeast with their departing and arriving traffic, especially during MVFR and IFR conditions when visibility and clouds are low.”
3. Hayden Damrow submitted a comment that was unrelated to the proposal. FAA notes the two comments in support of the proposal as well as extraneous information submitted that does not substantively bear upon the proposal.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.7-mile (increased from a 6.3-mile) radius of Union County Airport, Marysville, OH; removes the Marysville NDB and associated extension from the legal descriptions; adds an extension 2 miles each side of the 263° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius of the airport to 9.8 miles west of the airport; removes exclusionary language as it is no longer required; and removes the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2P, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updates the typographical error in the geographic coordinates to (lat 40°13′28″N) vs (lat 40°13′2847″N), of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is the result of an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Marysville NDB and to support IFR operations at this airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.7-mile radius of Union County Airport; and within 2 miles each side of the 263°bearing from the airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 9.8 miles west of the airport.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) that were submitted by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) in coordination with the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency (SRCAA). In 2021, the EPA approved a comprehensive update to the SRCAA general air quality regulations in the SIP, which include new source review permitting requirements as well as other general requirements for sources regulated under SRCAA's jurisdiction. In this action, the EPA is approving additional updates to the SRCAA general air quality regulations promulgated since our comprehensive approval in 2021.
This final rule is effective May 16, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2024-0433. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, WA 98101, at (206) 553-0256 or
Throughout this document, wherever “we” or “our” is used, it means the EPA.
On November 14, 2024, the EPA proposed to approve minor revisions to the Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency
The EPA is approving and incorporating by reference into the Washington SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(c)—
• 1.01,
• 1.04,
• 2.08,
• 2.13,
• 4.04,
• 5.02,
• 5.04,
• 5.05,
• 5.07,
• 5.08,
• 5.10,
• 5.13,
• 6.04,
• 8.01,
• 8.02,
• 8.03,
• 8.04,
• 8.05,
• 8.06,
• 8.07,
• 8.08,
• 8.09,
• 8.10,
In addition to the regulations approved and incorporated by reference in section II.A. of this preamble, the EPA reviews and approves State and local air agency submissions to ensure they provide adequate enforcement authority and other general authority to implement and enforce the SIP. However, regulations describing such agency enforcement and other general authority are generally not incorporated by reference so as to avoid potential conflict with the EPA's independent authorities. Therefore, we are approving but not incorporating by reference the submitted revisions, effective July 15, 2023, to SRCAA Regulation I, sections 2.01, 2.03, 2.04, 2.05, 2.11, 2.12, and 8.11 in 40 CFR 52.2470(e),
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of SRCAA Regulation I revisions, State effective July 15, 2023, as described in section II of this preamble and set forth in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 in this document. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, this action is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal Governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 16, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The revisions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(e) * * *
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Direct final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2025, from President Donald J. Trump, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action delays the effective date of the direct final rule published on January 16, 2025, to May 16, 2025.
As of April 16, 2025 the effective date of the rule published at 90 FR 4669 on January 16, 2025, is delayed to a new effective date of May 16, 2025.
Jeremiah Williamson, Senior Attorney, telephone: (208) 334-1915, email:
The direct final rule, “Joint Policies of the Departments of the Interior and of the Army Relative to Reservoir Project Lands,” published on January 16, 2025, at 90 FR 4669, included a 60-day public comment period that ended on March 17, 2025. The effective date of the direct final rule is April 16, 2025. The Department of the Interior is taking this action in response to Memorandum M-25-10, “Implementation of Regulatory Freeze,” of January 20, 2025, from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, regarding the postponement of effective dates of certain published regulations. The memorandum directed the heads of executive departments and agencies to consider postponing for 60 days from the date of the memorandum the effective date for any rules that have been published in the
The Department is delaying the effective date of the direct final rule without opportunity for public comment and making the delay effective immediately, based on the good cause exemptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). The Department concluded that seeking public comment on the delay is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The delay in effective date until May 16, 2025, is necessary to give Department officials the opportunity for further review and consideration of new regulations, consistent with the memorandum of the President, dated January 20, 2025. Given the imminence of the effective date of the direct final rule, seeking prior public comment on this delay is impractical, and contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations. For the foregoing reasons, the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) also applies to the Department's decision to make this action effective immediately.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary final rule.
In this action, NMFS adjusts the base annual commercial quotas for the 2025 Atlantic shark commercial fishing year as allowable based on underharvests from the 2024 fishing year. The 2025 Atlantic shark commercial fishing year opened on January 1, 2025 under the base annual commercial quotas and default commercial retention limits. This action is necessary to provide additional fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen to harvest optimum yield from the Atlantic shark fisheries.
This temporary final rule is effective April 16, 2025 through December 31, 2025.
Electronic copies of this temporary final rule and supporting documents (including the annual Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report) are available from the HMS Management Division website at:
Ann Williamson (
NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, is responsible for managing Federal HMS fisheries (
For the Atlantic shark commercial fisheries, the HMS FMP and its amendments established commercial quotas for shark species and management groups (§ 635.27(b)) and adjustment procedures for underharvests and overharvests (§ 635.27(b)(2)). The Atlantic shark commercial fishing year automatically opens on January 1 of each year under base quotas (§ 635.27(b)(2)).
Previously, NMFS adjusted quotas and retention limits and established the opening date for the upcoming fishing year for the Atlantic shark commercial fisheries (80 FR 50074, August 18, 2015). Under the process established in 2015, NMFS proposed and finalized adjustments to quota levels for the various shark stocks and management groups, along with proposing and finalizing the fishery opening dates and retention limits for directed shark permit holders. These measures were set prior to the start of the upcoming fishing year, based on incomplete data available from the previous fishing year. In 2023, NMFS changed the management measures for the 2024 and future fishing years to automatically open the commercial fishing year on January 1 of each year under the base quotas and default retention limits (88 FR 77039, November 8, 2023). Now with the Atlantic shark commercial fishery automatically opening on January 1, NMFS can then make an in-season adjustment to the base quotas, as required or allowable per existing regulations on underharvest/overharvest carryover at § 635.27(b)(2), based on complete data from the previous fishing year. NMFS would continue to propose and finalize any changes to the base quotas and/or changes to the formula used to calculate any annual quota adjustments as it did in Amendment 9 to the HMS FMP (80 FR 73128, November 24, 2015). The Atlantic shark fishery in-season quota adjustment process is consistent with the in-season quota adjustment process for other HMS fisheries with set opening dates, including those for Atlantic bluefin tuna, North Atlantic albacore tuna, and South Atlantic swordfish (see 89 FR 77029, September 20, 2024 and 88 FR 64831, September 20, 2023).
The 2025 Atlantic shark commercial fishing year opened on January 1, 2025 under the base annual commercial quotas. In this action, NMFS adjusts those base annual commercial quotas based on commercial landings estimates from 2024.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14172 (Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness). As part of the order, the Gulf of Mexico is renamed as the Gulf of America. Consistent with the order, this action uses Gulf of America for all references to the area known as the Gulf of Mexico in the specific regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS the authority to take this regulatory action as 16 U.S.C. 1855(d) provides for the promulgation of such regulations as may be necessary to implement a fishery management plan and its amendments such as the HMS FMP. The Magnuson-Stevens Act among other things, requires FMP and FMP implementing measures necessary for the conservation and management of the fishery to be consistent with the ten National Standards set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1851(a). While all of the National Standards are relevant, specific to the objectives of this action, the National Standards state that measures must: prevent overfishing while achieving optimum yield from the fishery (National Standard 1); be based on the best scientific information available (National Standard 2); and take into account and allow for variations among fisheries, fishery resources, and catches (National Standard 6). Furthermore, the Magnuson-Stevens Act allows NMFS to implement annual specifications at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, including measures to ensure accountability (16 U.S.C. 1853(a)(15)). The Magnuson-Stevens Act also allows management actions to establish specified limitations which are necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery on the catch of fish (based on area, species, size, number, weight, sex, bycatch, total biomass, or other factors) (16 U.S.C. 1853(b)(3)(A)). This action is necessary to implement HMS FMP measures responsive to these Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and provisions in relation to commercial shark quota adjustments.
In this action, NMFS adjusts the quotas for the various shark stocks and management groups for the 2025
Based on 2024 harvests (January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024), and after considering catch rates and landings from previous years, NMFS adjusts the 2025 quotas for certain management groups as shown in Table 1.
As described above, NMFS can carry over 2024 underharvests to the 2025 fishing year for the following management groups because the stocks or management groups are not overfished and overfishing is not occurring: Gulf of America blacktip shark, Atlantic smoothhound sharks, and Gulf of America smoothhound sharks. There were no overharvests to account for in these management groups in 2024. Thus, available underharvest (up to 50 percent of the base quota) from the 2024 fishing year for these management groups may be added to their respective 2025 base quotas. NMFS accounts for any underharvest of Gulf of America blacktip sharks by dividing underharvest between the eastern and western Gulf of America sub-regional quotas based on the sub-regional quota split percentage (§ 635.27(b)(1)(ii)(C)).
NMFS cannot carry over 2024 underharvests to the 2025 fishing year for the following management groups because the stocks or management groups are overfished, are experiencing overfishing, or have an unknown status:
• Aggregated large coastal sharks (LCS), given the unknown status of some species in the aggregated LCS complex;
• Hammerhead sharks, given the overfished status of the scalloped hammerhead shark;
• Non-blacknose small coastal sharks (SCS), given the unknown status of bonnethead sharks within Atlantic and Gulf of America non-blacknose SCS management groups;
• Blacknose shark, given the overfished status of the blacknose shark;
• Blue, porbeagle, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks), given that all of these pelagic species are overfished, have overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status; and
• Sandbar shark and research LCS, given sandbar sharks and scalloped hammerhead sharks are either overfished or overfishing is occurring.
For the management groups listed above, there were no overharvests in 2024. Thus, for these management groups, the 2025 commercial quotas reflect the codified base annual commercial quotas, without adjustment for over- or underharvest.
See Table 1 for the 2024 commercial quotas, landings, and quota utilization by species and management group and the 2025 commercial quotas by species and management group. As mentioned above, NMFS may carryover unharvested quota (up to 50 percent of the base quota) to the next fishing year for shark species and management groups comprised of stocks that NMFS has determined are not overfished and not experiencing overfishing. All quotas and landings are in dressed weight (dw) metric tons (mt). Table 1 includes landings data from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024.
NMFS is issuing this rule pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The reason for using this regulatory authority is: in a previous action taken pursuant to section 304(c), NMFS designed the HMS FMP to authorize the Department of Commerce to take this action pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 305(d). The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this temporary final rule is consistent with the HMS FMP, its amendments, and other applicable law.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The rulemaking processes for Amendment 2 to the HMS FMP (73 FR 35778, June 24, 2008; corrected 73 FR 40658, July 15, 2008), Amendment 5a to the HMS FMP (78 FR 40318, July 3, 2013), Amendment 6 to the HMS FMP (80 FR 50073, August 18, 2015), Amendment 9 to the HMS FMP (80 FR 73128, November 24, 2015), and the 2024 Atlantic shark commercial fishing year rule (88 FR 77039, November 8, 2023) specifically provided prior notice of, and accepted public comment on, the base quotas that are being adjusted and the formulaic quota adjustment processes to carry over overharvests and underharvests for the commercial Atlantic shark fishery. These processes have not changed, and the application of these formulas to the relevant quotas in this temporary final rule is a routine action that does not have discretionary aspects requiring additional consideration. There are no new base annual quotas for the relevant species for 2025. Additionally, similar actions to adjust the quotas based on the previous year's underharvest occur annually. NMFS has carried over underharvested quota from the previous fishing year to the maximum extent allowed since 2020. Thus, it is unnecessary to provide prior notice and an additional opportunity for public comment on this rule.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effective date. This rule is an annual, routine action that the regulated community does not need time to prepare for. The 2025 Atlantic shark commercial fishery opened on January 1, 2025. NMFS monitors Atlantic shark annual catch and uses the previous year's catch data to calculate the legally allowable quotas for the current year. However, these adjustments to the 2025 quotas could not occur earlier in the year because the final 2024 landings data were not available until early 2025. Given that these fisheries are currently open and permit-holders are actively fishing, delaying the effective date of this rule's quota adjustments could in turn lead to premature closure of one or more affected fisheries if the unadjusted quota limit is reached within the next 30 days. Such an event would negatively affect the regulated fisheries' reasonable opportunity to catch the available quotas, contrary to Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements and overall purpose of sound conservation and management of fisheries—including Atlantic sharks—in a manner that achieves optimum yield.
This temporary final rule is exempt from review under E.O. 12866. This temporary final rule is not a regulatory action under E.O. 14192.
NMFS has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; therefore, consultation with Tribal officials under E.O. 13175 is not required, and the requirements of sections (5)(b) and (5)(c) of E.O. 13175 also do not apply. A Tribal summary impact statement under section (5)(b)(2)(B) and section (5)(c)(2)(B) of E.O. 13175 is not required and has not been prepared.
Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS announces the closure of the Northern Gulf of Maine (NGOM)
Effective 1800 hour local time, April 16, 2025, through March 31, 2026.
Ashley Trudeau, Fishery Resource Management Specialist, (978) 281-9252.
The regulations governing fishing activity in the NGOM Scallop Management Area are located in 50 CFR 648.54 and 648.62. These regulations authorize vessels issued a valid Federal scallop permit to fish in the NGOM Scallop Management Area under specific conditions, including the NGOM Set-Aside for the 2025 fishing year, and a State Waters Exemption Program for the State of Maine and Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Section 648.62(b)(2) requires the NGOM Scallop Management Area to be closed to scallop vessels issued Federal Limited Access General Category (LAGC) scallop permits, except as provided below, once the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator provides notice that 100 percent of the NGOM Set-Aside has been harvested. Any vessel that holds a Federal NGOM (LAGC B) or Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) (LAGC A) permit may continue to fish in the Maine or Massachusetts state waters portion of the NGOM Scallop Management Area under the State Waters Exemption Program found in § 648.54 provided it has a valid Maine or Massachusetts state scallop permit and fishes only in that state's respective waters.
Based on trip declarations by federally permitted LAGC scallop vessels fishing in the NGOM Scallop Management Area and analysis of fishing effort, NMFS projects that the default 2025 NGOM Set-Aside has been harvested. Thus, in accordance with § 648.62(b)(2), the NGOM Scallop Management Area is closed to all federally permitted LAGC scallop vessels as of the effective date and time of this action, the quickest date NMFS was able to close. As of this date, no vessel issued a Federal LAGC scallop permit may fish for, possess, or land scallops in or from the NGOM Scallop Management Area after the effective date and time of this action, unless the vessel is fishing exclusively in state waters and is participating in an approved state waters exemption program as specified in § 648.54. Any federally permitted LAGC scallop vessel that has declared into the NGOM Scallop Management Area, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the vessel monitoring system demarcation line on the way to the area before the effective date and time of this action, may complete its trip and land scallops. This closure is in effect until the end of the 2025 scallop fishing year, through March 31, 2026, or until replaced by Framework 39, if approved and appropriate.
The proposed rule for Framework Adjustment 39 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (90 FR 12510) published on March 18, 2025, and the public comment period ended on April 2, 2025. Framework 39 would increase the NGOM set-aside from the current default allocation of 315,449 lb (143 mt) to 675,563 lb (306 mt). If Framework 39 is approved, the final rule implementing final 2025 scallop fishery specification would subtract NGOM harvest made under the default specifications from the Framework 39 2025 NGOM Set-Aside amount and reopen the NGOM Management Area, if appropriate given the landings already accrued, with the remaining NGOM Set-Aside for the remainder of fishing year 2025.
This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest and impracticable. NMFS also finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause to waive the 30-day delayed effectiveness period. Exigent circumstances necessitate this closure action and any delay would harm the public interest. The NGOM Scallop Management Area opened for the 2025 fishing year on April 1, 2025, under default measures implemented under Framework Adjustment 38 (89 FR 20341, March 22, 2024). Applicable regulations at § 648.60(b)(2) require this closure to ensure that federally permitted scallop vessels do not harvest more than the allocated NGOM Set-Aside. However, NMFS can only make projections for the NGOM closure date as trips into the area occur on a real-time basis and as activity trends appear. As a result, accurate projections are only available shortly before the set-aside is harvested. Since the April 1, 2025, opening, scallops have been harvested at an average rate of 33,800 lb (1533 kg) per day with a resulting estimated harvest of 198,000 lb (89,811 kg), 63 percent of the NGOM Set-Aside. The rapid harvest rate that has occurred does not allow for projections far enough in advance that would allow for notice of a proposed rule, a comment period, or a delay in rule effectiveness. Accordingly, earlier rule publication was not possible. Allowing federally permitted LAGC scallop vessels to continue taking trips in the NGOM Scallop Management Area during the period necessary to publish and receive comments on a proposed rule, or delay rule effectiveness, would result in vessels harvesting more than the 2025 NGOM Set-Aside for the NGOM Scallop Management Area. This would result in excessive fishing effort in the area thereby undermining conservation and management objectives of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan and requiring more restrictive future management measures to make up for the excessive harvest. Applicable regulations at § 648.62(b)(3) require that overages of the NGOM set-aside are subject to pound-for-pound payback in a subsequent fishing year. In addition, reductions in NGOM scallop biomass associated with excessive harvest would result in lower NGOM total allowable landings in future years. As such, delaying this closure action to afford the public with a comment period or a delay in effectiveness would harm the public. The public had prior notice and full opportunity to comment on this closure process during notice and comment rulemaking for Framework 38. Stakeholders are also aware that NMFS closes the NGOM Scallop Management Area when it projects the NGOM Set-Aside is fully harvested. This process occurs annually dating back to the adoption of Amendment 11 to the Scallop FMP in 2007. As stated above, any scallop vessel that has declared into the NGOM Scallop Management Area, complied with all trip notification and observer requirements, and crossed the vessel monitoring system demarcation line on the way to the area before the effective date of this closure, may complete its trip and land scallops. Therefore, those affected by this regulation are given the reasonable opportunity to complete a trip in progress and those who have not begun any such trip do not need 30 days in which to comply with the effective date
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule; inseason adjustments to biennial groundfish management measures.
This final rule announces routine inseason adjustments to management measures in commercial and recreational groundfish fisheries. This action is intended to allow commercial and recreational fishing vessels to access more abundant groundfish stocks while protecting overfished and depleted stocks.
This final rule is effective April 16, 2025.
Christopher Biegel, 503-231-6291,
This rule is accessible via the internet at the Office of the Federal Register website at
The Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PCGFMP) and its implementing regulations at title 50 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 660, subparts C through G, regulate fishing for over 90 species of groundfish off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) develops groundfish harvest specifications and management measures for 2-year periods (
At its March 4-11, 2025 meeting, the Council recommended two inseason actions for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. The first involves the recreational groundfish limit in the long-leader fishery off Oregon and the second involves the trip limit of incidental halibut caught in the sablefish fishery.
During the 2025-26 biennial process, the Council adopted a five-fish sub-bag limit for canary rockfish in the Oregon recreational long-leader fishery. Since the completion of the biennial process, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) staff examined data through 2023 and most of 2024. Based on catch rates of canary rockfish in the long-leader gear fishery, the sub-bag limit needs to be decreased to reduce the chance of the Oregon recreational share of canary rockfish being exceeded. In December 2024, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted a one-fish sub-bag limit for canary rockfish in the recreational long-leader gear fishery off Oregon beginning January 1, 2025. The ODFW requested conforming Federal action to reduce the sub-bag limit from five fish to one fish for canary rockfish, as effort in the long-leader gear fishery occurs primarily in Federal waters.
The Council moved, and NMFS is implementing, a decrease in the sub-bag limit for canary rockfish from five fish to one fish in the recreational Oregon long-leader gear fishery as recommended by ODFW.
At the March Council meeting, the Groundfish Advisory Subpanel (GAP) recommended the Pacific halibut incidental landing limit for the primary sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis be 75 pounds of halibut per 1,000 pounds of dressed sablefish plus two halibut. This is a reduction from the 150 pounds of halibut per 1,000 pounds of dressed sablefish in 2024. The reduction was recommended due to the large increase in sablefish harvest limits of about 238 percent. The 2025 allotment of Pacific halibut for this sector is 70,000 pounds which could be quickly harvested by just a few top primary tier vessels if a reduction in incidental halibut is not implemented. Lowering the halibut limit will allow more vessels to participate in the fishery and for the fishery to continue throughout the year without exceeding the halibut allocation. Therefore, the Council moved and NMFS is implementing a trip limit of 75 pounds of Pacific halibut per 1,000 pounds of sablefish plus two additional Pacific halibut for the primary fixed gear sablefish fishery north of Point Chehalis, Washington, as recommended in the supplementary GAP Report 1, March 2025.
This final rule makes routine inseason adjustments to groundfish fishery management measures, based on the best scientific information available, consistent with the PCGFMP and its implementing regulations.
This action is taken under the authority of 50 CFR 660.60(c) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
The aggregate data upon which these actions are based are available for public inspection by contacting Christopher Biegel in NMFS West Coast Region (see
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The adjustments to management measures in this document are designed to keep catch within allocations established by the 2025-2026 harvest specifications. No aspect of this action is controversial, and changes of this nature were anticipated in the final rule for the 2025-2026 harvest specifications and management measures, which published on December 16, 2024 (89 FR 101514).
The Council recommended, and NMFS is implementing, a decrease to
These inseason changes are in response to new information about the fishery, and to conservation issues that need to be addressed for the 2025 fishing year. Delaying implementation to allow for public comment would impact NMFS's ability to keep the fishery within catch targets set for sustainable fishing. For these same reasons, NMFS finds reason to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) so that this final rule may become effective upon publication in the
Fisheries, Fishing, Indian Fisheries.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 660 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Incidental Pacific halibut retention north of Pt. Chehalis, WA (lat. 46°53.30′ N). Pacific halibut may be retained north of Pt. Chehalis by vessels participating in the sablefish primary fishery with the requisite Pacific halibut commercial fishery permit. Pacific halibut incidentally caught in the primary sablefish fishery when using bottom longline gear may be retained from April 1 through the Pacific halibut commercial fishing closure date set by the International Pacific Halibut Commission. Vessels permitted as described in this section may possess and land up to 75 lb (34 kg) dressed weight of Pacific halibut for every 1,000 lb (454 kg) dressed weight of sablefish landed, plus two additional Pacific halibut. Pacific halibut retained as described in this section may not be possessed or landed south of Pt. Chehalis.
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) * * *
(A)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that cracks were found following fatigue tests for the new lower wing cover material on airplanes equipped with sharklets. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections for discrepancies, and corrective action, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 2, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Nathan Weigand, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3531; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address 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 Nathan Weigand, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3531; email:
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2024-0201R1, dated December 2, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0201R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that cracks were found following fatigue tests for the new lower wing cover material on airplanes equipped with sharklets. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the outer wing.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2024-0201R1 specifies procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections (SDIs) for discrepancies (cracking) of the bottom wing surface area between rib 19 and rib 21, forward of stringer 8, both left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action (contacting Airbus for repair instructions). 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
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it 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 EASA AD 2024-0201R1 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would also require inspection reports.
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 EASA AD 2024-0201R1 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0201R1 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0201R1 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2024-0201R1. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0201R1 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,924 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.
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 June 2, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD.
(1) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.
(2) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
(3) Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a report that cracks were found following fatigue tests for the new lower wing cover material on airplanes equipped with sharklets. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the lower wing cover material. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could reduce the structural integrity of the outer wing.
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, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0201R1, dated December 2, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0201R1).
(1) Where EASA AD 2024-0201R1 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2024-0201R1 refers to “04 November 2024 [the effective date of the original issue of this AD],” this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(3) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0201R1.
(4) Where any service information referenced in EASA AD 2024-0201R1 specifies reporting, this AD requires reporting all inspection results at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(4)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
(i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
(ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.
(5) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0201R1 specifies if “any discrepancies are detected, as identified in the AOT, before next flight, contact Airbus for approved repair instructions and within the compliance time(s) specified therein, accomplish those instructions accordingly,” this AD requires replacing that text with “any discrepancy is detected, as identified in the AOT, the discrepancy must be repaired before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.”
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-231-3531; 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) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0201R1, dated December 2, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
This action extends the comment period for a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that was published on March 20, 2025. In that document, the FAA proposed to establish restricted areas R-5305A, R-5305B, and R-5305C at Camp Lejeune, NC; and restricted areas R-5307A, R-5307B, and R-5307C at Cherry Point, NC. This extension is a result of a planned outage of the eRulemaking General Services Administration (GSA) Cloud Migration website necessitating an extension to the comment period.
The comment period for the NPRM published on March 20, 2025 (90 FR 13112), scheduled to close on May 5, 2025, is extended until May 9, 2025.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-0273 and Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-43 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
Subsequent to publication of the NPRM, the FAA was advised that there is a planned outage of the
The FAA has determined that extension of the comment period is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause exists for taking this action. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the comment period for Docket No. FAA-2025-0273; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-43 published in the
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notification of upcoming revision of FMR Case 2022-01.
GSA plans to issue a final rule revising the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Case 2022-01, “Federal Advisory Committee Management,” published on April 18, 2024.
April 16, 2025.
Those interested can view FMR Case 2022-01 at
Ms. Lorelei Kowalski, Director, Committee
GSA plans to revise FMR Case 2022-01 (FR Doc. 2024-08215 (89 FR 27673, April 18, 2024)) consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14148 of January 20, 2025, titled “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” E.O. 14192 of January 31, 2025, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and E.O. 14219 on February 19, 2025, titled “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory Initiative.” GSA will amend the FMR to apply these revisions to the Federal Advisory Committee Management regulation in order to align the regulation with current Administration priorities, improve Federal advisory committee management policies and processes, remove unnecessary language and information, and reduce (or eliminate where possible) unnecessary administrative burdens on executive branch agencies and departments.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP); General Services Administration (GSA).
Notification of partial planned recission of FMR Case 2024-01.
GSA will be issuing a final rule partly rescinding the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Case 2024-01, “Updating the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) with Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Language,” published on August 22, 2024.
April 16, 2025.
Those interested may view FMR Case 2024-01 at
Mr. William Garrett, Director, Personal Property Policy Division, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 202-368-8163 or email at
GSA plans to rescind portions of FMR Case 2024-01 (FR Doc. 2024-18460 (89 FR 67865, August 22, 2024)) consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14148 of January 20, 2025 entitled “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions” and E.O. 14168 of January 20, 2025 entitled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”. GSA will amend FMR parts 102-5 and 102-33 through 102-42 to replace non-gendered pronouns with gendered pronouns and to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion language inserted by the previous administration.
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP); General Services Administration, (GSA).
Notification of upcoming rescission of FTR Case 2022-05.
GSA plans to issue a final rule that rescinds Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Case 2022-05, titled “Updating the FTR With Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Language,” published on February 16, 2024.
April 16, 2025.
Those interested can view FTR Case 2022-05 at
For clarification of content please contact Mr. Sean Lambert, OGP, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 771-233-2475, or by email at
GSA plans to rescind FTR Case 2022-05 (FR Doc. 2024-02852 (89 FR 12250, February 16, 2024)) in line with two Executive orders (E.O.(s) or Orders), both signed on January 20, 2025:
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notification of upcoming rescission of FMR Case 2022-02.
GSA plans to issue a final rule rescinding the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Case 2022-02, “Soliciting Union Memberships Among Contractors in GSA-Controlled Buildings,” published on September 2, 2022.
April 16, 2025.
Those interested can view FMR Case 2022-02 at
For clarification of content please contact Alexander Kurien, Office of Government-wide Policy, at (202) 208-7642, or by email at
GSA plans to rescind FMR Case 2022-02 (FR Doc. 2022-17949 (87 FR 54166, September 2, 2022)) in line with Executive Order 14192,
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notification of upcoming rescission of FMR Case 2021-02.
GSA plans to issue a final rule rescinding the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Case 2021-02, “Art in Architecture,” published on February 2, 2022.
April 16, 2025.
Those interested can view FMR Case 2021-02 at
For clarification of content please contact Alexander Kurien, Office of Government-wide Policy, at (202) 208-7642, or by email at
GSA plans to rescind FMR Case 2021-02 (FR Doc. 2022-02158 (87 FR 5711, February 2, 2022)) in line with Executive Order (E.O.) 14148,
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notification of upcoming revision of FMR Case 2023-102-1.
GSA plans to issue a final rule revising the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Case 2023-102-1, “Designation of Authority and Sustainable Siting” published on April 22, 2024.
April 16, 2025.
Those interested can view FMR Case 2023-102-1 at
For clarification of content please contact Alexander Kurien, Office of Government-wide Policy, at (202) 208-7642, or by email at
GSA plans to revise FMR Case 2023-102-1 (FR Doc. 2024-08452 (89 FR 29261)) in line with Executive Order (E.O.) 14148,
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notification of upcoming rescission of FMR Case 2024-03.
GSA plans to issue a final rule rescinding Federal Management Regulation (FMR) Case 2024-03, “Federal Management Regulation; Updating Transportation Management, With Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Language,” published on November 26, 2024.
April 16, 2025.
Those interested can view FMR Case 2024-03 at
For clarification of content please contact Mr. Sean Lambert, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 771-233-2475, or by email at
GSA plans to rescind FMR Case 2024-03 (FR Doc. 2024-27565 (89 FR 93198, November 26, 2024)) consistent with Executive Order (E.O.) 14148 of January 20, 2025, “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” and E.O. 14168 of January 20, 2025, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” GSA will amend the FMR to ensure compliance with the current Administration's priorities, to remove
Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP); General Services Administration, (GSA).
Notification of upcoming rescission of FTR Case 2022-03.
GSA plans to issue a final rule rescinding Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) Case 2022-03, “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Usage During Relocations,” published on March 26, 2024.
April 16, 2025.
Those interested can view FTR Case 2022-03 at
For clarification of content please contact Mr. Sean Lambert, OGP, Office of Asset and Transportation Management, at 771-233-2475, or by email at
GSA plans to rescind FTR Case 2022-03 (FR Doc. 2024-06352 (89 FR 20857, published on March 26, 2024)) in line with Executive Order (E.O.) 14148,
Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
Notification of invocation of special agricultural safeguard duty on imports of articles containing over 65 percent by dry weight of sugars described in additional U.S. note 2 to chapter 17.
After reviewing the volume of articles containing over 65 percent by dry weight of sugars described in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service has determined that the yearly special safeguard trigger level has been met and a special safeguard duty on articles containing over 65 percent by dry weight of sugars will be imposed.
The additional safeguard duty will be imposed from April 16, 2025 through September 30, 2025.
Multilateral Affairs Division, Trade Policy and Geographic Affairs, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1070, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-1070
Sonya Wahi-Miller,
U.S. Notes 1 and 2 to Subchapter IV, Chapter 99, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) contain safeguard measures established pursuant to Article 5 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture, as approved pursuant to Section 101 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465). These safeguard measures include the imposition of additional duties based upon the volume of articles containing over 65 percent by dry weight of sugars described in additional U.S. note 2 to chapter 17 imported into the United States. Subheadings 9904.17.39 through 9904.17.48 of the HTS provide for the imposition of additional safeguard duties for articles containing over 65 percent by dry weight of sugars described in additional U.S. note 2 to chapter 17 upon notification in the
Section 405(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act requires, among other things, that the President shall determine and cause to be published in the
Further to the application of such special agricultural safeguard duties, the President proclaimed on December 23, 1994 (Presidential Proclamation No. 6763) the provisions of U.S. Notes 1 and 2 to Subchapter IV, Chapter 99, of the HTS as well as the automatically applicable safeguard duties set forth in such subchapter upon satisfaction of the requisite conditions. Such U.S. Notes 1 and 2 set forth the other terms and conditions for application of any such duty.
As also provided in Presidential Proclamation 6763, the President delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to make the determinations and effect the publications described in section 405(a) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. The Secretary of Agriculture has further delegated this authority to the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs (7 CFR 2.15(a)(1)(xlii)), who has in turn further delegated the authority to determine the quantity trigger levels to the Administrator of the Foreign Agricultural Service (7 CFR 2.601(a)(42)). The Administrator determined that the October 1, 2024-September 30, 2025 trigger level for articles containing over 65 percent by dry weight of sugars described in additional U.S. note 2 to chapter 17 is 1,252 metric tons (89 FR 55217, July 3, 2024).
The Administrator has determined that the amount of articles containing over 65 percent by dry weight of sugars described in additional U.S. note 2 to chapter 17 imported during the October 1, 2024-September 30, 2025 period has exceeded the trigger level of 1,252 metric tons. In accordance with U.S. Notes 1 and 2, Subchapter IV, Chapter 99 of the HTS and HTS subheadings 9904.17.39, 9904.17.40, 9904.17.41, 9904.17.42, 9904.17.43, 9904.17.44, 9904.17.45, 9904.17.46, 9904.17.47, and 9904.17.48, additional duties of 11.3 cents per kilogram plus 1.7 percent; 13.3 cents per kilogram plus 3.5 percent; 11.2 cents per kilogram; 10.2 cents per kilogram plus 2.8 percent; 12.4 cents per kilogram plus 2 percent; 14.1 cents per kilogram plus 2.8 percent; 7.9 cents per kilogram plus 2.8%; 10.2 cents per kilogram plus 2.8 percent; 23.5 cents per kilogram plus 2.8 percent; and 9.6 cents per kilogram plus 2.8 percent shall apply to articles containing over 65 percent by dry weight of sugars described in additional U.S. note 2 to chapter 17 imported under HTS subheadings 1701.91.48 and 1702.90.68, 1704.90.68, 1806.10.28 and 1806.10.55, 1806.20.73, 1806.90.49, 1901.20.25 and 1901.20.60, 1901.90.54, 2101.12.48 and 2101.20.48, 2106.90.76, and 2106.90.94, respectively, from the date of publication of this notice through September 30, 2025.
As provided in U.S. Note 1 to Subchapter IV, Chapter 99 of the HTS, goods of Canada, Mexico, Jordan, Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua,
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the Oregon Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meeting via ZoomGov on Monday, April 28, 2025, from 12 p.m.-1:00 p.m. PT. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss potential topics for the Committee's first project.
The meeting will take place on Monday, April 28, 2025, from 12 p.m.-1 p.m. PT.
Kayla Fajota, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialist,
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments can be sent via email to Kayla Fajota (DFO) at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of request for public comments.
The Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of semiconductors and semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME), and their derivative products. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce's (Department) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security. This notice identifies issues on which the Department is especially interested in obtaining the public's views.
Comments may be submitted at any time but must be received by May 7, 2025.
Comments on this notice may be submitted to the Federal rulemaking portal at:
All filers using the portal should use the name of the person or entity submitting the comments as the name of their files, in accordance with the instructions below. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion at the time of submission, file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential version of the submission.
For comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC.” Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. The corresponding non-confidential version of those comments must be clearly marked “PUBLIC.” The file name of the non-confidential version should begin with the character “P.” Any submissions with file names that do not begin with either a “BC” or a “P” will be assumed to be public and will be made publicly available at:
Stephen Astle, Director, Defense Industrial Base Division, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2533,
On April 1, 2025, the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (19 U.S.C. 1862) to determine the effects on national security of imports of semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and their derivative products. This includes, among other things, semiconductor substrates and bare wafers, legacy chips, leading-edge chips, microelectronics, and SME components. Derivative products include downstream products that contain semiconductors, such as those that make up the electronics supply chain.
This investigation is being undertaken in accordance with part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR parts 700 through 709) (“NSIBR”). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or information pertinent to this investigation to BIS's Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security no later than May 7, 2025. The Department is particularly interested in comments and information directed at the criteria listed in § 705.4 of the regulations as they affect national security, including the following:
(i) the current and projected demand for semiconductors (including as embedded in downstream products) and SME in the United States, differentiated by product type and node size;
(ii) the extent to which domestic production of semiconductors can or is expected to be able to meet domestic demand at each node size for each product type, and similarly the extent to which domestic production of SME can or is expected to be able to meet domestic demand;
(iii) the role of foreign fabrication and assembly, test and packaging facilities in meeting United States semiconductors demand, and similarly the role of foreign supply of SME in meeting domestic demand;
(iv) the concentration of United States semiconductors imports (including as embedded in downstream products) from a small number of fabrication facilities and the associated risks, and similarly the concentration of United States SME imports from a small number of foreign sources;
(v) the impact of foreign government subsidies and predatory trade practices on United States semiconductor and SME industry competitiveness;
(vi) the economic or financial impact of artificially suppressed semiconductor and SME prices due to foreign unfair trade practices and state-sponsored overcapacity;
(vii) the potential for export restrictions by foreign nations, including the ability of foreign nations to weaponize their control over semiconductors and SME supply chains;
(viii) the feasibility of increasing domestic semiconductors capacity (in different product types and node sizes) to reduce import reliance, and similarly the feasibility of increasing domestic SME capacity to reduce import reliance;
(ix) the impact of current trade and other policies on domestic semiconductor and SME production and capacity, and whether additional measures, including tariffs or quotas, are necessary to protect national security;
(x) what product types and node sizes could be built only using SME from U.S. companies;
(xi) what SME is manufactured abroad and faces limited competition from U.S.-made products;
(xii) what SME parts or components are only available outside the United States;
(xiii) where the U.S. workforce faces a talent gap in production of semiconductors, SME or SME components; and
(xiv) any other relevant factors.
Material submitted by members of the public that contains business confidential information will be exempted from public disclosure as provided for by § 705.6 of the regulations (see the
Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of request for public comments.
The Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, including finished drug products, medical countermeasures, critical inputs such as active pharmaceutical ingredients, and key starting materials, and derivative products of those items. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended. Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce's (Department) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security. This notice identifies issues on which the Department is especially interested in obtaining the public's views.
Comments may be submitted at any time but must be received by May 7, 2025.
Comments on this notice may be submitted to the Federal rulemaking portal at:
All filers using the portal should use the name of the person or entity
For comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC.” Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. The corresponding non-confidential version of those comments must be clearly marked “PUBLIC.” The file name of the non-confidential version should begin with the character “P.” Any submissions with file names that do not begin with either a “BC” or a “P” will be assumed to be public and will be made publicly available at:
Stephen Astle, Director, Defense Industrial Base Division, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-2533,
On April 1, 2025, the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (19 U.S.C. 1862) to determine the effects on national security of imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, and their derivative products. This includes both finished generic and non-generic drug products, medical countermeasures, critical inputs such as active pharmaceutical ingredients and key starting materials, and derivative products of those items.
This investigation is being undertaken in accordance with part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR parts 700 through 709) (“NSIBR”). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or information pertinent to this investigation to BIS's Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security no later than May 7, 2025. The Department is particularly interested in comments and information directed at the criteria listed in § 705.4 of the regulations as they affect national security, including the following:
(i) the current and projected demand for pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients in the United States;
(ii) the extent to which domestic production of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients can meet domestic demand;
(iii) the role of foreign supply chains, particularly of major exporters, in meeting United States demand for pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients;
(iv) the concentration of United States imports of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients from a small number of suppliers and the associated risks;
(v) the impact of foreign government subsidies and predatory trade practices on United States pharmaceuticals industry competitiveness;
(vi) the economic impact of artificially suppressed prices of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients due to foreign unfair trade practices and state-sponsored overproduction;
(vii) the potential for export restrictions by foreign nations, including the ability of foreign nations to weaponize their control over pharmaceuticals supplies;
(viii) the feasibility of increasing domestic capacity for pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients to reduce import reliance;
(ix) the impact of current trade policies on domestic production of pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients, and whether additional measures, including tariffs or quotas, are necessary to protect national security; and
(x) any other relevant factors.
Material submitted by members of the public that is business confidential information will be exempted from public disclosure as provided for by § 705.6 of the regulations (see the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on strontium chromate from Austria and France would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD orders.
Applicable April 10, 2025.
Ann Heilman-Dahl, AD/CVD Operations, Trade Agreements Policy and Negotiations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0705.
On November 27, 2019, Commerce published in the
On April 10, 2025, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the
The merchandise covered by these
Strontium chromate that has been blended with another product or products is included in the scope if the resulting mix contains 15 percent or more of strontium chromate by total formula weight. Products with which strontium chromate may be blended include, but are not limited to, water and solvents such as Aromatic 100 Methyl Amyl Ketone (MAK)/2-Heptanone, Acetone, Glycol Ether EB, Naphtha Leicht, and Xylene. Subject merchandise includes strontium chromate that has been processed in a third country into a product that otherwise would be within the scope of these
The merchandise subject to these
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that Xingyi Metalworking Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. (XMT) and Hangzhou Evernew Machinery & Equipment Company Limited (Hangzhou Evernew) sold certain metal lockers and parts thereof (metal lockers) from the People's Republic of China (China) at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), August 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023.
Applicable April 16, 2025.
Deborah Cohen or Matthew Palmer, 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) 482-4521 or (202) 482-1678, respectively.
On September 13, 2024, Commerce published the
The products covered by the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached as the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding the
Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
In the
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period August 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), where XMT reported the entered values of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific antidumping duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of dumping calculated for the examined sales of each importer and dividing each of these amounts by the total entered value associated with those sales. Where XMT 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
For ZXM and Wanlong Special Containers, which Commerce determined had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR, we will instruct CBP to assess any suspended entries of subject merchandise that entered under those exporters' CBP case numbers during the POR at the rate for the China-wide entity.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on, or after, the publication date of the final results of review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the companies identified above in the “Final Results of Review” section will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for a previously investigated or reviewed exporter of subject merchandise not listed in the final results of review that has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter's existing cash deposit rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that do not have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the China-wide entity,
This notice also 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 this POR. 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.
This notice also serves as the final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (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 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 sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain producers and exporters of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils (SSSS in coils) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
Applicable April 16, 2025.
Patrick Barton, 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) 482-0012.
On September 13, 2024, Commerce published the
The product covered by this
As noted in the
A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
We determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
Because Commerce has not modified its analysis or calculations from the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
For the company for which this review is rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the notice of rescission in the
If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies subject to this review for shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposits, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
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). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public webinar/conference call.
NMFS will hold a 3-day Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Advisory Panel (AP) meeting via webinar in May 2025. The intent of the meeting is to consider options for the conservation and management of Atlantic HMS. The meeting is open to the public.
The AP meeting and webinar will be held on Tuesday, May 6, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET; Wednesday, May 7, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET; and Thursday, May 8, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET.
The meeting will be accessible via WebEx conference call and webinar. Conference call and webinar access information are available at:
Participants are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. NMFS will show the presentations via webinar and allow public comment during identified times on the agenda.
Peter Cooper (
Atlantic HMS fisheries (tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish) are managed under the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments pursuant to the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the establishment of APs and requires NMFS to consult with and consider the comments and views of AP members during the preparation and implementation of FMPs or FMP amendments (16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(A)-(B)). NMFS meets with the HMS AP approximately twice each year to consider potential alternatives for the conservation and management of Atlantic tunas, swordfish, billfish, and shark fisheries, consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Generally, AP meetings are held in-person, but because of current restrictions on travel this AP meeting will be conducted via webinar.
Some of the discussion topics are:
• HMS rulemaking updates;
• Outcomes of the 2024 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas Annual Meeting; and
• Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery update.
We anticipate inviting other NMFS offices and the U.S. Coast Guard to provide updates, if available, on their activities relevant to HMS fisheries. Additional information on the meeting and a copy of the draft agenda will be posted prior to the meeting (see
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Peter Cooper at 301-427-8503, at least 7 days prior to the meeting.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from the City of Ketchikan (COK), Alaska, for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the Berth III Mooring Dolphins Project in the Port of Ketchikan in the Tongass Narrows, Alaska. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS requests comments on its proposal to issue an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to incidentally take marine mammals during the specified activities. NMFS also requests comments on a possible one-time, 1-year renewal that could be issued under certain circumstances, and, if all requirements are met, as described in Request for Public Comments at the end of this notice. NMFS will consider public comments before making any final decision on issuing the requested MMPA authorization, and agency responses will be summarized in the final notice of our decision.
Comments and information must be received no later than May 16, 2025.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, and should be submitted via email to
Krista Graham, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking would have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and would not have an unmitigable adverse effect on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below. They can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and NMFS regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
On July 17, 2024, NMFS received a request from the applicant (COK) for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with the project. Following NMFS' application review, COK submitted a revised version on October 16, 2024. Following additional NMFS questions and COK's subsequent responses, COK submitted a final revised application on February 7, 2025. The application was deemed adequate and complete on February 24, 2025. The COK requests to take 13 species (16 stocks) of marine mammals by Level B harassment, and a limited number of individuals from 8 of those stocks by Level A harassment. Neither COK nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality from this activity; therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
This proposed IHA would be the fourth IHA issued to COK for the Berth III Mooring Dolphins Project. NMFS initially issued an IHA to COK for the Berth III Mooring Dolphins Project on March 3, 2021 (86 FR 12411), effective from October 1, 2021, through September 30, 2022. The reissued IHA (September 10, 2021, 86 FR 50704) was effective from October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023. The third IHA (December 8, 2022, 87 FR 75233) was effective from October 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024. Due to COVID-19 pandemic-related tourism and funding delays, COK did not start construction, and no work was conducted under any of the three previous IHAs. For this fourth proposed IHA, project details have been revised slightly, new sound source information is available, and additional species not previously included have been added. The effective dates of this proposed IHA would be from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026.
The purpose of the COK's Berth III construction expansion project is to accommodate a new fleet of large cruise ships (
Construction activities would include erecting temporary weather structures and templates, vibratory pile driving and removal, impact pile driving, down-the-hole (DTH) pile driving, pile splicing, pile-to-dolphin cap welding, and setting a catwalk. The underwater sound generated by these in-water activities may result in Level A and Level B harassment of marine mammal species.
Construction is expected to occur between October 1, 2025, and May 1, 2026. In-water work is estimated to take approximately 166 days (5.5 months or approximately 24 weeks) between October 1, 2025, and March 15, 2026. Above-water work is required to install prefabricated steel dolphin caps and an approximately 66-ft prefabricated grated catwalk. The daily duration of construction activities would vary based on the daylight hours available. In the winter, shorter 7- to 10-hour workdays in available daylight are anticipated; in the early fall and early spring, longer daylight workdays of up to 12-hours are expected (however, 14 hours of noise-generating activity is used in the application for conservative isopleth calculations). While COK may work these hours, not all activity in a workday would generate in-water noise. Work may not begin without sufficient daylight to conduct pre-activity monitoring and may extend into twilight hours as needed to embed the pile far enough to leave piles in place until installation can resume safely.
COK is located in Southeast Alaska on the western coast of Revillagigedo Island, near the southernmost boundary of Alaska. Ketchikan encompasses approximately 3 square miles (sq mi) of land (7.8 square kilometers (km
At the project site where piles would be driven, water depths range between approximately 60 feet (ft) (18.3 meters (m)) to 160 ft (48.8 m) (Peratrovich and Nottingham Engineers, Inc. (PND) 2006). Tidal currents generally range from 0.3 miles (0.5 km) to 1.6 miles (2.6 km) per hour during flood and ebb tides (PND 2006). The tide range in Ketchikan is significant, with the highest observed tides of 21.4 ft (6.5 m) and the lowest observed tides of −5.2 ft (−1.6 m), based on a mean lower low water (MLLW) elevation of 0.0 ft (0 m). Water depths in Tongass Narrows that would be ensonified are generally 160 ft (48.8 m) or shallower, but they get deeper past the southern end of Pennock Island, reaching depths up to 625 ft (190.5 m) (NOAA 2015).
The proposed project would install three new mooring dolphins (MD), with one at the north end of Berth III (MD#2) and two at the south end (MD#3 & MD#4), as shown in figure 2 in COK's IHA application (available online at
Installation of MD#2 would require six 48-inch diameter steel pipe piles up to 190 ft (57.9 m) in length each. MD#3 and MD#4 each would require three 36-inch diameter steel pipe piles up to 120 ft (36.6 m) in length each. These piles would be installed in water depths ranging between approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) and 160 ft (48.8 m) deep and driven through approximately 10 ft (3.1 m) of loose, overburden substrate.
Due to the nature of deep-water pile installation in loose sediment, various means and methods are required to install a single pile. Each pile would be installed using various installation methods: vibratory, impact, and DTH pile driving installation. COK may alternate between installation methods depending on the conditions encountered. Only one installation method would occur at a time, but all three methods may be used in a single day. COK may also be required to splice on additional lengths of the pile (
COK would initially vibratory drive all permanent piles to first refusal, which occurs when they cannot advance the pile tip further with a vibratory hammer. This would likely happen at bedrock elevation. COK would seat (or secure) the tip of the pile into bedrock with an impact hammer, usually to a depth of 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m) into fractured bedrock. Once the pile has been seated (or secured) into bedrock with the impact hammer, DTH equipment would be employed to create rock sockets. Due to limited overburden, all piles require rock sockets. Sockets up to 20 ft (6.1 m) deep would be hammered through the pile shaft to the width of the associated pile. COK would then socket hammer the pile up to 20 ft (6.1 m) into bedrock. The pile would be drawn into the socket through the hammering action. Finally, a smaller 12-inch diameter DTH device would be used on several piles to drill a rock anchor hole into bedrock 60 ft (18.3 m) past the pile tip. A 16-inch diameter casing would be inserted into the pile, and an approximately 12-inch diameter hole would be drilled up to 60 ft (18.3 m) from the base of the rock socket. Three anchor rods would be inserted inside the casing, extending from the top of the pile to the bottom of the 12-inch hole. After component installation, the hammered 12-inch hole and pile casing would be filled with grout.
Temporary template piles would be required to install the permanent piles at MD#2, #3, and #4 to aid with construction. The temporary template piles would be removed after the permanent dolphin piles have been installed. At MD#2, temporary template piles would include up to eight 30-in (0.8 m) diameter piles or smaller (Table 1). MD#3 and MD#4 would each have up to four piles of up to 30 inches in diameter or smaller. Between all 3 MDs, there would be 16 temporary template piles. Once installed, each temporary template pile would measure around 150 ft (46 m) in length and would consist of up to three sections that would be spliced together as they are installed. Installation methods for the temporary template piles include vibratory driving piles to first refusal, and then secured into the bedrock with an impact hammer. Removal of the temporary template piles would only involve using a vibratory hammer.
Finally, once all dolphin piles are installed, an off-site prefabricated steel dolphin cap would be set on top of the piles and welded to the cap. No in-water work is associated with this feature. Additionally, one new off-site prefabricated grated catwalk, approximately 66 ft (20.1 m) in length and 264 ft
The proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures for this project are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding the status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions in the application instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. The MMPA defines PBR as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that comprise a given stock, or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Alaska SAR (Young
As indicated above, all 13 species with 16 managed stocks in table 2 temporally and spatially co-occur with the activity to the degree that take is reasonably likely to occur.
For all species except humpback whales, there are no known biologically important areas (BIA) near the project site that COK's proposed activity would impact. For humpback whales, the inland waters of Southeast Alaska are a seasonal feeding BIA from May through September (Wild
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals can hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities
For a review of available information on these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2024).
This section discusses how components of the specified activity may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals expected to be taken by this activity. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section, and the Proposed Mitigation section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of these activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activity can occur from impact pile driving, vibratory driving and removal, and DTH. The effects of underwater noise from COK's proposed activity have the potential to result in Level A and Level B harassment of marine mammals in the action area.
The marine soundscape is composed of both ambient and anthropogenic sounds. Ambient sound is defined as the all-encompassing sound in a given place and is usually a composite of sound from many sources, both near and far. The sound level of an area is defined by the total acoustical energy generated by known and unknown sources. These sources may include physical (
The sum of the various natural and anthropogenic sound sources at any given location and time—which are composed of “ambient” or “background” sound—depends not only on the source levels (as determined by current weather conditions and levels of biological and shipping activity) but also on the ability of sound to propagate through the environment. In turn, sound propagation depends on the spatially and temporally varying properties of the water column and sea floor and is frequency-dependent. As a result of the dependence on many varying factors, ambient sound levels can be expected to vary widely over both coarse and fine spatial and temporal scales. Sound levels at a given frequency and location can vary by 10-20 dB from day to day (Richardson
In-water construction activities associated with the project would include vibratory pile driving and pile removal, impact pile driving, and DTH pile installation. The sounds produced by these activities fall into one of two general sound types: impulsive and non-impulsive. Impulsive sounds (
Three types of hammers would be used in this project: impact, vibratory, and DTH. Impact hammers repeatedly drop a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. The sound generated by impact hammers is characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the hammer's weight to push them into the sediment. Vibratory hammers produce significantly less sound than impact hammers. Peak sound pressure levels (SPLs) may be 180 dB or greater but are
A DTH hammer is used to place hollow steel piles or casings by drilling. A DTH hammer is a drill bit that drills through the bedrock using a pulse mechanism that functions at the bottom of the hole. This pulsing bit breaks up the rock to allow for the removal of debris and insertion of the pile. The head extends so that the drilling takes place below the pile. The sounds produced by DTH hammers were previously thought to be continuous. However, recent sound source verification (SSV) monitoring has shown that a DTH hammer can create an impulsive sound (Denes
COK's proposed activity could impact marine mammals through non-acoustic and acoustic stressors. Potential non-acoustic stressors could result from the physical presence of the equipment, vessels, and personnel; however, any impacts on marine mammals are expected to be primarily acoustic. Acoustic stressors include the effects of heavy equipment operation during pile installation and removal.
Introducing anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from pile driving and removal is the primary way COK's specified activity may harass marine mammals. In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall
NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS 2024). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2024), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequences of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern (
Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration (
Currently, TTS data only exist for four species of cetaceans (bottlenose dolphin (
Installing piles for the project requires a combination of impact pile driving, vibratory pile driving, and DTH hammering. These activities would not occur simultaneously for the project, and there would likely be pauses in activities that produce the sound each day. Given these pauses and the fact that many marine mammals are likely moving through the action area and not remaining for extended periods, the potential for TS declines.
Disturbance may result in changing durations of surfacing and dives, number of blows per surfacing, or moving direction and/or speed; reduced/increased vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fluke slapping or jaw clapping); and avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. Pinnipeds may increase their haul-out time to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff 2006). Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific. Any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors (
The disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators (
In 2016, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) documented observations of marine mammals during construction activities (
Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. All stress-related neuroendocrine functions—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in the secretion of pituitary hormones have been implicated in failed reproduction, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbance (
The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not usually place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses glycogen stores that can quickly replenish once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other
Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals (
Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for swimming or hauled-out pinnipeds near the project site, within the range of noise levels above the acoustic thresholds. We recognize that pinnipeds in the water could be exposed to airborne sound that may result in behavioral harassment when looking with their heads above water. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above about underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as reduced vocalizations, or cause them to abandon the area and move further from the source temporarily. However, these animals would previously have been “taken” because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are generally larger than those associated with airborne sound. Additionally, there are no haul outs near the project site. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in underwater estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted, and airborne sound is not further discussed.
COK's construction activities could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat and their prey by increasing in-water sound pressure levels and slightly decreasing water quality. Increased noise levels may affect the acoustic habitat (see masking discussion above) and adversely affect marine mammal prey near the project area (see discussion below). During DTH, impact, and vibratory pile driving or removal, elevated underwater noise levels would ensonify the project area where fish and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during construction. However, displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and not result in long-term effects on the individuals or populations.
As previously mentioned, the project area does not contain habitat of known importance other than being designated as a feeding BIA for humpback whales between May and September. While the entirety of southeast Alaska is considered a feeding BIA for humpback whales, Tongass Narrows represents only a tiny segment. Additionally, the project area is highly influenced by anthropogenic activities.
The total seafloor area affected by pile installation and removal is small compared to the vast foraging area available to marine mammals in the area. At best, the impact area provides marginal foraging habitat for marine mammals and fish. Furthermore, pile driving and removal at the project site would not obstruct the movement or migration of marine mammals.
A temporary and localized increase in turbidity near the seafloor would occur in the immediate area surrounding the area where piles are installed or removed. In general, turbidity associated with pile installation is localized to about a 25-ft (7.6-m) radius around the pile (Everitt
The potential for prey (
Sound may affect marine mammals by impacting the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species (
Fish use the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning (
Fish react to sounds that are powerful and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short-duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on the physiological state of the fish, past exposures, motivation (
SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fish and fish mortality. However, in most fish species, hair cells in the ear continuously regenerate, and loss of auditory function is likely restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen
The most likely impact on fish from DTH and pile driving and removal activities at the project area would be temporary behavioral avoidance of the area. The duration of fish avoidance in this area after pile driving stops is unknown, but a rapid return to regular recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated.
There are times of known seasonal marine mammal foraging in Tongass Narrows around fish processing/hatchery infrastructure (PND 2024) or when fish are congregating, but the affected areas of Tongass Narrows are a small portion of the total foraging habitat available in the region. In general, effects on marine mammal prey species are expected to be minor and temporary due to the short timeframe of the project and the small project footprint.
Increased turbidity from construction activities can adversely affect forage fish and juvenile salmonid out-migratory routes in the project area. Both herring and salmon form a significant prey base for Steller sea lions, whereas herring is the primary prey species of humpback whales; both herring and salmon are components of the diet of many other marine mammal species that occur in the project area. Increased turbidity is expected to happen near construction activities. However, suspended sediments and particulates are expected to dissipate quickly within a single tidal cycle. Given the limited area affected and high tidal dilution rates, any effects on forage fish and salmon are expected to be minor or negligible. In addition, best management practices would be in effect, limiting the extent of turbidity to the immediate project area. Finally, exposure to turbid waters from construction activities is not expected to differ from the current exposure; fish and marine mammals in the Tongass Narrows region are routinely exposed to substantial levels of suspended sediment from glacial sources.
In summary, given the temporary nature of the construction project and relatively small areas being affected, the DTH and pile driving and removal activities associated with the proposed action are not likely to have a permanent, adverse effect on any fish habitat or populations of fish species. Any behavioral avoidance by fish in disturbed areas would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitats nearby. Thus, we conclude that the impacts of the specified activity are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts on marine mammal habitats are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or to contribute to the adverse effects on their populations.
This section estimates the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization through the IHA. This information will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except for certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by disrupting behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes would predominantly be by Level B harassment, as using acoustic sources (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates that marine mammals would likely be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (2) the area or volume of water that would be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and (4) the number of days of activities. While these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends using acoustic criteria to identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would reasonably expect to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). We note that the criteria for AUD INJ and the names of two hearing groups have been recently updated (NMFS 2024), as reflected below in the Level A Harassment section.
COK's proposed activity includes continuous (vibratory pile driving, DTH drilling) and impulsive (impact pile driving, DTH hammering) sources; therefore, the RMS SPL thresholds of 120 and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable.
The 2024 Updated Technical Guidance criteria include updated thresholds and weighting functions for each hearing group, provided in table 4 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used to develop the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at
Here, we describe the operational and environmental parameters of the activity used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, bottom composition, and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:
This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source depends on various factors, most notably the water bathymetry and the presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions, including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used under conditions such as the project site, where water increases with depth as the receiver moves away from the shoreline, resulting in an expected propagation environment that would lie between spherical and cylindrical spreading loss conditions. Practical spreading loss is assumed here.
The intensity of pile driving sounds is greatly influenced by factors such as the type of piles, hammers, and the physical environment in which the activity occurs. To calculate the distances to the Level A harassment and the Level B harassment sound thresholds for the methods and piles being used in this project, NMFS used acoustic monitoring data from other locations to develop proxy source levels for the various pile types, sizes, and methods. The project includes vibratory and impact pile installation of steel pipe piles, vibratory removal of steel pipe piles, and DTH. Source levels for each pile size and driving method are presented in table 5.
Using the practical spreading model, NMFS determined underwater noise would fall below the behavioral effects threshold of 120 dB rms for marine mammals at a maximum radial distance of 11,659.1 m for vibratory pile driving of 30- and 36-inch diameter piles, and 25,118.9 m for vibratory pile driving of 48-inch diameter piles. Other activities, including rock anchoring and impact pile driving, have smaller Level B harassment zones. All Level B harassment isopleths are reported in table 7 below. It should be noted that based on the geography of Tongass Narrows and the surrounding islands, the sound would not reach the entire distance of the Level B harassment isopleths. Land masses would truncate the largest Level B Harassment isopleth at approximately 12,500 m to the southeast and approximately 3,590 m northwest of the project area. Constraining land masses include Revillagigedo Island, Gravina Island, Pennock Island, and Spire Island.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional
This section provides information about the marine mammals that are anticipated or could potentially occur in the action area during the project construction. For ease, this information has been summarized in table 8 and includes the frequency, average group size, expected occurrence, and source reference of each marine mammal species. It is based on historical data of occurrence, seasonality, and group size in the Tongass Narrows and around the Ketchikan area specifically, where possible. This information is based on consultation with previous IHAs, monitoring reports, information from the application, and references cited. For more detailed information, Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. This occurrence information then informs the take calculation in the next section (please see Take Estimation and table 9).
To accurately describe species occurrence near the action area, marine mammals were described as either common (confirmed and regular/daily sightings), frequent (confirmed and with some consistency during most monitoring efforts in the project vicinity; assumes weekly occurrence), infrequent (confirmed but irregular sightings during most monitoring efforts in the project vicinity; assumes monthly or every other month occurrence), or rare (a few sightings annually).
Here, we describe how the information provided above is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and is proposed for authorization. Once again, NMFS carefully considered all information and analyses the applicant presented as well as information in recent IHAs and monitoring reports for projects in the nearby area. Since reliable densities are not available, the applicant requests take based on the maximum number of animals that may occur in the area in a specified measure of time multiplied by the total duration of the activity.
The number of marine mammals that may be exposed to harassment thresholds was calculated by estimating the likelihood of a marine mammal being present within a harassment zone during the associated activities (table 9). That is, group size was multiplied by the frequency (
The calculations were modified for humpback whales and Steller sea lions. For humpback whales, group size (2) is multiplied by frequency (2x/week, which is 23.7 weeks × 2) multiplied by 0.976 percent, which is the apportionment of whales for the Hawai'i stock (Lizewski
As table 9 shows, we calculated Level B takes for all 13 species (16 stocks). However, several species were calculated as having just one Level A take. Therefore, we considered the size of the animal, the frequency of the animal in the project area, as well as the shutdown zone sizes for each species. No Level A takes are proposed for authorization for minke, fin, gray, and killer whales, and northern fur seal and California sea lion. The proposed Level A takes for two other species were rounded up based on average group size. Since Pacific white-sided dolphins have an average group size of 20 animals, we increased the proposed Level A takes for Pacific white-sided dolphins to 20. Similarly for Dall's porpoise, because the average group size is 15, we increased the proposed Level A takes to 15.
Table 9 summarizes the proposed authorized take by Level A and Level B harassment, the total proposed take, and the proposed take as a percentage of stock abundance.
To issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat. NMFS pays particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, as well as the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses (latter not applicable for this action). NMFS regulations require applicants for incidental take authorizations to include information about the availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting the activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, and their habitat (50 CFR 216.104(a)(11)).
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) How and the degree to which the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts on marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse effects being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure would be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability of implementation as planned), and
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider cost and impact on operations.
In addition to the measures described later in the Proposed Monitoring and Reporting section and all mitigation measures described in COK's Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan, the following mitigation measures would also apply to COK's in-water construction activities.
•
An employee of the construction contractor would be identified as the monitoring coordinator for PSOs at the start of each construction day. PSOs would report directly to the monitoring coordinator when a shutdown is deemed necessary. Briefings must be conducted between construction supervisors and crews and the marine mammal monitoring team before the start of all pile driving activity and when new personnel join the work to explain responsibilities, communication procedures, marine mammal monitoring protocol, and operational procedures.
•
•
•
•
•
•
• If a marine mammal enters or is observed within an established shutdown zone, pile driving must be halted or delayed. Pile driving may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily left and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone, or 15 minutes have passed without subsequent detections.
• All personnel, including construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and relevant staff, must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such activity, operations must cease, and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction.
• For those marine mammals for which take has not been authorized, in-water pile installation and removal would shut down immediately if such species are observed within or entering the Level A or Level B harassment zone.
• If take reaches the authorized limit for an authorized species, pile installation and removal would be stopped as these species approach the Level A or Level B harassment zone to avoid additional take.
NMFS notes that sighting ranges for species depend on the species' size and activity level in combination with observer positioning. For example, a realistic expectation for sighting large mysticetes is a maximum of approximately 2 km. Similarly, it would be difficult for PSOs to see small or cryptic species at ranges over approximately 300 m (
NMFS and the applicant considered the use of a bubble curtain as a mitigation measure. Bubble curtains are used to reduce the extent of the ensonified areas as well as reduce the sound levels within the ensonified areas. However, the applicant has not proposed a bubble curtain as a mitigation measure because sound transmission would be truncated by land masses, thereby obstructing sound transmission and confining the action area. These land masses are Revillagigedo Island, Gravina Island, Pennock Island, and Spire Island, at approximately 12.5 km to the southeast and approximately 3.59 km northwest of the project area. Given the proposed locations of PSOs and the relatively narrow channels, NMFS concurs that use of a bubble curtain is not necessary to effect the least practicable adverse impact on marine mammals.
In summary, based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
To issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that would result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical to compliance and ensuring the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic) through better understanding of the: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs must conduct monitoring in accordance with COK's Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan and Section 5 of the IHA. PSOs would be present during all pile installation and removal activities, including vibratory, impact, and DTH methods, in accordance with the following:
• Observer training must be provided before the project starts and shall include instruction on species identification (sufficient to distinguish the species in the project area), description and categorization of observed behaviors, and interpretation of behaviors that may be construed as being reactions to the specified activity, proper completion of data forms, and other basic components of biological monitoring, including tracking of observed animals or groups of animals such that repeat sound exposures may be attributed to individuals (to the extent possible).
• All PSOs must have no other project-related tasks while conducting monitoring.
• PSOs shall be placed at the best vantage point(s) practicable to monitor for marine mammals and implement shutdown or delay procedures when applicable through communication with the equipment operator.
• Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after pile driving/removal activities. In addition, observers shall record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and shall document any behavioral reactions in concert with the distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving/removal activities include the time to install or remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
• At least three PSOs would be on duty during all vibratory installation/removal, impact installation, and DTH. PSOs would be stationed along Tongass Narrows at locations that provide optimal visual coverage for shutdown and monitoring zones (see figure 3 in COK's Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan). PSOs would monitor for marine mammals entering the Level B harassment zones; the position(s) may vary based on the construction activity and the location of piles or equipment. To maximize the visual coverage of shutdown and monitoring zones, observers would use elevated platforms at observation points to the extent practicable. Observers would contact each other via two-way radio and a cellular phone used as backup communication.
• PSOs would scan the waters using binoculars and/or spotting scopes and a handheld range-finder device to verify the distance to each sighting from the project site.
• COK would adhere to the following PSO qualifications: (i) Independent observers (
• Additional standard observer qualifications include: (i) Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols; (ii) Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including the identification of behaviors; (iii) Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations; (iv) Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including but not limited to the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates and times when in-water construction activities were suspended to avoid potential incidental injury from construction sound of marine mammals observed within a defined shutdown zone; and marine mammal behavior; and (v) Ability to communicate orally, by radio, or in person with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
A draft marine mammal monitoring report would be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving and removal activities or 60 days before the requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for projects at the exact location, whichever comes first. The report would include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report must include:
• Dates and times (beginning and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including the number and type of piles driven or removed and by what method (
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring; and
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at the beginning and end of a PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions, including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance. Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information is required:
• The name of the PSO who sighted the animal(s), the PSO's location, and activity at the time of the sighting;
• The time of the sighting;
• Identification of the animal(s) (
• The distance and bearing of each marine mammal observed relative to the pile being driven for each sighting (if pile driving was occurring at the time of sighting);
• The estimated number of animals (min/max/best estimate);
• The estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, juveniles, neonates, group composition, sex class,
• The animal's closest point of approach and estimated time spent within the harassment zone;
• A description of any marine mammal behavioral observations (
• The number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones by species (differentiated by month as appropriate); and
• Detailed information about any implementation of any mitigation triggered (
Finally, COK must also submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data in an electronic tabular format with the draft report, as specified in Section 6 of the IHA. If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft report would constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments.
In the unanticipated event that the specified activity causes the take of a marine mammal in a manner prohibited by the IHA (if issued), such as an injury,
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
Activities would not resume until NMFS can review the circumstances surrounding the prohibited take. NMFS would work with COK to determine what is necessary to minimize the likelihood of further prohibited take and ensure MMPA compliance. COK cannot resume their activities until NMFS has notified them via letter, email, or telephone.
If COK discovers an injured or dead marine mammal, and the lead PSO determines that the cause of the injury or death is unknown and the death is relatively recent (
Finally, in the event that COK discovers an injured or dead marine mammal and the lead PSO determines that the injury or death is not associated with or related to the activities authorized in the IHA (
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the discussion of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 8, given that the anticipated effects of this activity on these different marine mammal stocks are expected to be similar. There is little information about the nature or the severity of the impacts or the size, status, or structure of any of these species or stocks that would lead to a different analysis for this activity.
Pile driving, removal, and DTH activities associated with the project, as outlined previously, have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the specified activities may result in take in the form of Level A harassment and Level B harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile driving and removal. Potential takes could occur if individuals of these species are present in zones ensonified above the thresholds for Level A or Level B harassment identified above when these activities are underway.
Given the nature of the activity, NMFS does not anticipate serious injury or mortality due to COK's planned project, even in the absence of required mitigation. The Level A harassment zones identified in table 7 are based upon an animal exposed to vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, and DTH pile installation for periods ranging from up to 30 minutes for impact driving, up to 14 hours for vibratory driving/removal (although actual daily durations would not exceed 12 hours, and may be less than 12 hours), and up to 8 hours for DTH. Exposures of this length are, however, unlikely for vibratory driving/removal and DTH pile installation scenarios, given marine mammal movement throughout the area. Even during impact driving scenarios, an animal exposed to the accumulated sound energy would likely only experience limited AUD INJ at the lower frequencies where pile driving energy is concentrated.
As stated in the Proposed Mitigation section, COK would implement shutdown zones that equal or exceed many of the Level A harassment isopleths shown in table 7. Take by Level A harassment is authorized for 7 marine mammal species (8 stocks). This is precautionary to account for the potential that an animal could enter and remain within the area between a Level A harassment zone and the shutdown zone for long enough to be taken by Level A harassment. Additionally, in some cases, this precaution would account for the possibility that an animal could enter a shutdown zone without detection, given the various obstructions along the shoreline, and remain in the Level A harassment zone for a duration long enough to be taken by Level A harassment before being observed and a shutdown occurring. That said, any take by Level A harassment is expected to arise from, at most, a small degree of AUD INJ because animals would need to be exposed to higher levels and/or longer duration than are expected to occur here to incur any more than a small degree of AUD INJ. Additionally, and as noted previously, some subset of the individuals that are behaviorally harassed could also simultaneously incur some small degree of TTS for a short duration of time. Because of the small degree anticipated, any AUD INJ or TTS potentially incurred here is not expected to adversely impact individual
For all species and stocks, take is expected to occur within a limited, confined area (adjacent to the project site) of the stock's range. The intensity and duration of take by Level A and Level B harassment would be minimized through the mitigation measures described herein. Further, the amount of take authorized is small compared to the stock abundance.
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving, pile removal, and DTH at the project site, if any, are expected to be mild, short-term, and temporary. Given that the installation of 12 permanent piles and 16 temporary piles would occur over 8 months, any harassment would be temporary and intermittent. Effects on individuals that are taken by Level B harassment, based on reports in the literature as well as monitoring from other similar activities, would likely be limited to reactions such as increased swimming speeds, increased surfacing time, or decreased foraging (if such activity were occurring) (
The potential for harassment is minimized by implementing the proposed mitigation measures. During all impact driving, implementation of soft start procedures and monitoring of established shutdown zones shall be required, significantly reducing any possibility of injury. Given sufficient notice through soft start (for impact driving), marine mammals are expected to move away from an irritating sound source before it becomes potentially injurious. To reduce the severity of in-water noise, vibratory pile driving would be the primary installation method for the project, and impact hammers would only be used to seat pile tips into fractured bedrock ahead of the hammering operations or if the material is too dense to penetrate with a vibratory hammer.
Any effects on marine mammal prey during in-water construction would have a short-term impact on individual marine mammals' foraging and likely no effect on the populations of marine mammals. Indirect effects on marine mammal prey during the construction are expected to be minor, and these effects are unlikely to cause substantial effects on marine mammals at the individual level, with no expected impact on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The area likely impacted by the project is relatively small compared to the available habitat in the surrounding waters of Southeast Alaska and Tongass Narrows. Although Tongass Narrows is part of an identified BIA for feeding humpback whales (NOAA 2023, Wild
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our preliminary determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect any of the species or stocks through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed for authorization;
• Any Level A harassment exposures are anticipated to result in slight AUD INJ (
• The anticipated incidents of Level B harassment would consist of, at worst, temporary modifications in behavior that would not result in fitness impacts to individuals;
• The area affected by the specified activity is very small relative to the overall habitat ranges of all species, does not include any rookeries, does not include ESA-designated critical habitat, and only temporally overlaps with the southeast Alaska humpback whale feeding BIA for one month (May) of the planned eight months of activity;
• The project area is located in an industrialized and commercial marina; and
• The proposed mitigation measures, such as employing vibratory driving to the maximum extent practicable, soft-starts, and shutdowns, are expected to reduce the effects of the specified activity to the least practicable adverse impact level.
In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities would have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to affect the reproduction or survival of any individual marine mammal and, therefore, would not affect the recruitment or survival rates for any species or stock.
Based on the analysis of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat and considering the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total number of marine mammals taken from the proposed activity would have a negligible impact on all affected species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers, and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is less than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
Table 7 demonstrates the number of animals that could be exposed to the received noise levels that could cause Level A and Level B harassment for the proposed work in the Port of Ketchikan. Our analysis shows that less than one-third of each affected stock could be taken by harassment. The number of animals proposed to be taken for these stocks would be considered small relative to the relevant stock's abundances, even if each estimated taking occurred to a new individual—an extremely unlikely scenario.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals would be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
In order to issue an IHA, NMFS must find that the specified activity would not have an “unmitigable adverse impact” on the subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal species or stocks by Alaskan Natives. NMFS has defined “unmitigable adverse impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity: (1) that is likely to reduce the availability of the species to a level insufficient for a harvest to meet subsistence needs by (i) causing the marine mammals to abandon or avoid hunting areas, (ii) directly displacing subsistence users, or (iii) placing physical barriers between the marine mammals and the subsistence hunters, and (2) that cannot be sufficiently mitigated by other measures to increase the availability of marine mammals to allow subsistence needs to be met.
Alaska Native hunters in the Ketchikan vicinity do not traditionally harvest cetaceans (Muto
Based on the available information, there are no known haul-out locations for either species in the project area. The harbor seal and the Steller sea lion may be temporarily displaced from the project area. However, neither the local population nor individual pinnipeds are likely to be adversely impacted by the proposed action beyond noise-induced harassment or slight injury, nor is the activity expected to impact subsistence hunting of pinnipeds or other marine mammals. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that there will not be an unmitigable adverse impact on subsistence uses from the COK activities.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize the take of fin whales and the Mexico-North Pacific stock of humpback whales, listed as endangered and threatened, respectively, under the ESA.
The Permits and Conservation Division has requested the initiation of ESA section 7 consultation with the Alaska Region for the issuance of this IHA. NMFS would conclude the ESA consultation before reaching a determination regarding the proposed authorization issuance.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the City of Ketchikan for conducting the in-water construction activities as part of the Berth III New Mooring Dolphins Project in Ketchikan between October 1, 2025, and September 30, 2026, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at:
We request comments on our analyses, the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed Berth III New Mooring Dolphins Project. We also request comments on the potential renewal of this proposed IHA, as described in the paragraph below. Please include any supporting data or literature citations with your comments to help inform decisions on the request for this IHA or a subsequent renewal IHA.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice is planned, or (2) the activities as described in the Description of Proposed Activity section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days before the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from the expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures would remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) announces that the Commission has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for approval of a new information collection for a bathtub slip resistance study to support work on a voluntary Safety Standard for Bathtub and Shower Structure. On January 6, 2025, CPSC published a notice in the
Submit comments on the collection of information by May 16, 2025.
Submit comments about this request by email:
Cynthia Gillham, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7791, or by email to:
CPSC seeks approval for the following collection of information:
Most commenters expressed support for the proposed information collection with some commenters offering suggestions that were out of scope. Other comments included discussing the sample size, requesting clarity about the development of the standard, suggesting ways to measure data, and seeking information about the equipment that will be used to measure friction data.
An engineering consultant, a biomedical consultant, and an anonymous commenter opined that the proposed research includes a small sample size of bathtubs. The bathtubs in the study are representative of three types of bathtub surfaces. Staff assessed that this is adequate for gathering preliminary data on whether a minimum frictional performance for reducing slips and falls exists.
The engineering consultant further commented seeking clarity on how the results will be used to develop a standard. As stated in the
The Tile Council of North America (TCNA) commented that transition from dry to wet surfaces should be considered, as unexpected changes in traction can cause slip incidents. Staff notes that the study will include transitions from dry to wet surfaces. TCNA also requested clarification on how friction data will be collected. Friction data will be collected using a force plate
Another engineering consultant commented that CPSC's proposed collection of information does not have practical utility because it will not provide useful information to replace ASTM F462, and they pointed to other research that should be considered.
The National Floor Safety Institute (NFSI) also submitted comments to suggest that CPSC should not conduct their own research and instead rely on NFSI's research and standard. As stated in the
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Corporation for National and Community Service (operating as AmeriCorps) is proposing to renew an information collection.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:
(1) Electronically through
(2)
(3) By hand delivery or by courier to the AmeriCorps mailroom at the mail address given in paragraph (2) above, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Comments submitted in response to this notice may be made available to the public through
Elizabeth Appel, 202-606-3614, or by email at
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. All written comments will be available for public inspection on
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Corporation for National and Community Service, operating as AmeriCorps, has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled AmeriCorps Member Application, Enrollment, and Exit Forms for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling AmeriCorps, Elizabeth Appel, at 202-967-5070 or by email at
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
Department of the Navy (DoN), Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
This notice provides information on the proposed conveyance of approximately 5.2 acres of underutilized land at Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola, Special Area Bronson Field, Florida, to Escambia County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, in exchange for a restrictive easement over approximately 31.15 acres of Escambia County owned land within portions of NAS Pensacola's Accident Potential Zones 1 and 2, which will limit encroachment and constraints on military training, testing, and operations.
Written objection must be filed no later than May 1, 2025.
Submit written objection to NAVFAC Southeast, Real Estate Contracting Officer, Box 30, Bldg. 903, Jacksonville, FL 32212-0030.
Mr. Heath Adams, 904-735-8930, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Southeast, Box 30, Bldg. 903, Jacksonville, FL 32212-0030.
Pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2684a, the United States of America and its assigns, acting by and through the Department of the Navy, and Escambia County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, entered into a Multi-Year Agreement (MYA) to acquire long-term real property interests in the vicinity of NAS Pensacola, Florida. The purpose of the MYA is the identification and acquisition of long-term, real property interests to achieve conservation objectives, prevent encroachment and limit incompatible development in the vicinity of NAS Pensacola, including all Navy owned facilities located within the legal jurisdiction of Escambia County, Florida.
10 U.S.C. 2869 provides authority for the Department of the Navy to convey real property to carry out a land acquisition, including the acquisition of all right, title, and interest or a lesser interest in real property,
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 16, 2025.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact April Trice, (202) 245-6421.
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.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, May 15, 2025; 5:30-7 p.m. CDT.
West Kentucky Community and Technical College (WKCTC), Emerging Technology Center, Room 215, 5100 Alben Barkley Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001. This meeting will be held in-person at the WKCTC Emerging Technology Center, Room 215 and virtually. The meeting will be streamed on YouTube at
Robert “Buz” Smith, Federal Coordinator, by Phone: (270) 441-6821 or Email:
On March 21, 2025, California State Water Resources Control Board 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 Pacific Gas and Electric Company in conjunction with the above captioned project on February 20, 2025. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
Date of Receipt of the Certification Request: February 20, 2025.
Reasonable Period of Time to Act on the Certification Request: One year, February 20, 2026.
If California State Water Resources Control Board 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).
Take notice that on March 31, 2025, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. (WBI Energy), 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and WBI Energy's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-487-000, for authorization to abandon six natural gas storage wells, approximately 4.07 miles of associated three-inch, four-inch and twelve-inch-diameter natural gas storage pipeline and appurtenant facilities. All of the above facilities are located in WBI Energy's Baker Storage Field in Fallon County, Montana (2025 Baker Storage Well Abandonment Project). WBI Energy concludes that the abandonment will limit integrity risk in alignment with the guidance of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Storage Final Rule. The estimated cost for the project is $7,600,000, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to Andrew Bates, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, by phone (701) 530-1576, or by email
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before June 9, 2025. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-166-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP25-166-000.
To file via USPS: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
To file via any other method: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: Andrew Bates, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., 1250 West Century Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota 58503, or by email
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the pre-filing materials listed in paragraph j above, including the draft license application and monitoring plans. All comments should be sent to the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments must be filed with the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
l. With this notice, we are approving OPALCO's request to be designated as the non-federal representative for section 7 of the ESA and its request to initiate consultation under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; and recommending that it begin informal consultation with: (a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries as required by section 7 of ESA; and (b) the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
m. With this notice, we also are asking federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments described in paragraph “k” above.
n. This notice does not constitute the Commission's approval of OPALCO's request to use the Pilot Project Licensing Procedures. Upon its review of the project's overall characteristics relative to the pilot project criteria, the draft license application contents, and any comments filed, the Commission will determine whether there is adequate information to conclude the pre-filing process.
o.
p. A copy of the draft license application and all pre-filing materials are available for review on the Commission's website (
q. Pre-filing Process Schedule. The pre-filing process will be conducted pursuant to the following tentative schedule. Revisions to the schedule below may be made based on staff's review of the draft application and any comments received.
r. Register online at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
April 17, 2025, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Open to the public.
Open.
Agenda.
*
Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
For a recorded message listing items Stricken from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed online at the Commission's website at
A free webcast of this event is available through the Commission's website. Anyone with internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to
Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters but will not be telecast.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 16, 2025. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
On May 12, 2006, the Commission released a
(a) Within 90 days of the effective date of the Second Report and Order, facilities based broadband internet access and interconnected Voice over Interconnected Protocol (VoIP) providers newly identified in the First Report and Order in this proceeding were required to file system security and integrity statements under the Commission's rules. (System security and integrity statements are currently approved under the existing OMB 3060-0809 information collection.)
(b) All telecommunications carriers, including broadband internet access and interconnected VoIP providers, must file updates to their system security and integrity statements on file with the Commission as their information changes.
(c) Petitions filed under section 107(c), request for additional time to comply with CALEA; these provisions apply to all carriers subject to CALEA and are voluntary filings.
(d) Section 109(b), request for reimbursement of CALEA; these provisions apply to all carriers subject to CALEA and are voluntary filings.
(e) As of June 29, 2023, under Section 1.20005(c), any filings required by section 1.20005(a) shall be submitted electronically through the Commission's CALEA Electronic Filing System (CEFS).
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than May 16, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than May 1, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
April 22, 2025 at 10 a.m. ET.
Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-202-599-1426, Code: 466 112 000#; or via web:
James Kaplan, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 864-7150.
4. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(9)(B) and (c)(10).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
On May 28, 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) guidance related to the “generic” clearance process. Generally, this is an expedited process by which agencies
Comments must be received by April 30, 2025.
When commenting, please reference the applicable form number (CMS-10398 #68) and the OMB control number (0938-1148). To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at 410-786-4669.
Following is a summary of the use and burden associated with the subject information collection(s). More detailed information can be found in the collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
1.
On December 30, 2020, CMS issued State Health Official Letter (SHO) #20-005 entitled, “Mandatory Medicaid State Plan Coverage of Medication-Assisted Treatment” which describes the requirements of the mandatory MAT benefit and opportunities for increasing treatment options for substance use disorders as described at section 1905(a)(29) of the Act and the process for an exemption from the mandatory coverage requirement if there was a documented shortage of qualified providers or facilities providing such treatment in either fee-for-service or managed care arrangements in accordance with section 1905(ee)(2) of the Act.
On March 9, 2024, section 201 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (CAA, 2024) made the mandatory MAT benefit permanent. Section 201 also amended section 1905(ee)(2) of the Act to allow states to request an exemption from the mandatory coverage requirement due to a documented provider shortage if the state re-certifies not less than every five years and to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the provider shortage continues. The process to request an exemption will be conducted every five years and is the same as described in SHO #20-005 except for and, as noted, the reference to the limited timeframe of this provision which has been removed.
On November 19, 2024, CMS issued State Medicaid Director Letter (SMD) #24-004 entitled “Extension of Medicaid Coverage of Substance Use Disorder Treatment and Managed Care Medical Loss Ratio Provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024”, providing subregulatory guidance to states regarding these requirements.
The amendments to the Act as a result of the passage of the SUPPORT Act and section 201 of the CAA, 2024, as well as the subregulatory guidance provided in SMD #24-004 provides the authority for States to add this mandatory Medicaid coverage for MAT. In this April 2025 iteration, we propose to update an active SPA template to comport with the statutory updates as described above now that the benefit is permanent.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to provide opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.
To obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, submit comments in writing, or request more information on the proposed project, Email your comment or request, including your address to:
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize
OMB approval is requested for three years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 1,373.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of an investigation and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1742 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of lattice-boom crawler cranes (LBCCs) from Japan, provided for in subheading 8426.49.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping duty investigation in 45 days, or in this case by May 27, 2025. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by June 3, 2025.
April 10, 2025.
Laurel Schwartz ((202) 205-2398), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office
For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
On July 3, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Henry-Norbert O. Ndekwe, M.D., of Lawton, Oklahoma (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), at 6, 8. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. BN5794587, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of Oklahoma, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, Registrant's Oklahoma medical license expired on June 1, 2023. RFAA, at 7. According to Oklahoma online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.”
With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
Under Oklahoma law, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled dangerous substance to an ultimate user or human research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labelling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for such distribution.” Okla. Stat. tit. 63, section 2-101(14) (2024). Further, a “practitioner” includes “a medical doctor or osteopathic physician . . . or any other person, licensed, registered or otherwise permitted to prescribe, distribute, dispense . . . or administer a controlled dangerous substance in the course of professional practice or research in th[e] state.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in Oklahoma. As discussed above, an individual must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in Oklahoma. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in Oklahoma and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in Oklahoma, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BN5794587 issued to Henry-Norbert O. Ndekwe, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Henry-Norbert O. Ndekwe, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Henry-Norbert O. Ndekwe, M.D., for additional registration in Oklahoma. This Order is effective May 16, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 10, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the
On January 18, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Moustafa M. Aboshady, M.D. (Applicant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Attachment (Attach.) A, at 1, 3. The OSC proposed the denial of Applicant's application for a DEA registration, No. W23147064C, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
The OSC notified Applicant of his right to “file with DEA a written request for a hearing,” and that if he failed to file such a request, he would “be deemed to have waived [his] right to a hearing and to be in default.”
On February 6, 2024, the OSC was served on Applicant by email. RFAA, at 1. On February 13, 2024, Applicant filed a timely hearing request with the DEA Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) and the matter was assigned to the Chief Administrative Law Judge (Chief ALJ).
On February 20, 2024, the day before the Chief ALJ's deadline for filing an answer, Applicant informed OALJ by email that he desired additional time to respond to the Order because he was in the process of hiring a lawyer. RFAA, Attach. C, at 1. That same day, the Chief ALJ denied the request for additional time, explaining that filing an answer could be completed within the allotted time and that “more time could be allowed for preparation if/when he was successful in procuring representation.”
On February 22, 2024, the day after the answer was due, the Government filed a Motion to Terminate Proceedings (Motion to Terminate), arguing that Applicant had waived his right to a hearing by failing to file an answer and by failing to show good cause for such failure.
“In the event that [an applicant] . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.” 21 CFR 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has requested final agency action based on Applicant's default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), because Applicant did not timely file an answer to the OSC, did not “otherwise defend” himself against the Government's Motion to Terminate, has not filed a motion with the Administrator to set aside the Termination Order, has indicated a desire to withdraw his hearing request or application, and has not filed a motion with the Administrator to set aside the default.
The Agency finds that Applicant is in default based on his failure to “plead . . . or otherwise defend himself,” as evidenced by his failure to substantively respond to the Government's Motion to Terminate, his failure to file a motion to set aside the Chief ALJ's termination order, and his request to withdraw his application.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration upon finding that the registrant “has been excluded (or directed to be excluded) from participation in a program pursuant to section 1320a-7(a) of Title 42.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Applicant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Applicant is deemed to have admitted that in 2018 he was convicted of one count of conspiracy to make false statements in connection with health care benefits programs in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and two counts of making false statements in connection with health care benefits programs or aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1035.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Applicant has been excluded from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs.
The OSC's sole allegation is that Applicant's application should be denied as a result of his mandatory exclusion “from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a).” RFAA, Attach. A, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5)). Here, the Agency found above that HHS/OIG mandatorily excluded Applicant from participation in Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a), for a minimum of 15 years.
Where, as here, the Government has met its
Here, although Applicant initially requested a hearing, he failed to “plead . . . or otherwise defend” and was deemed to be in default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(3). To date, Applicant has not filed any motion to set aside the default with the Office of the Administrator. 21 CFR 1301.43(c). Applicant has thus failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC and has not otherwise availed himself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, Applicant has made no representations as to his future compliance with the CSA nor made any demonstration that he can be entrusted with registration. Moreover, the evidence presented by the Government shows that Applicant was convicted of charges related to making false statements in connection with health care benefits programs, further indicating that Applicant cannot be entrusted.
Accordingly, the Agency will order the denial of Applicant's application.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny the pending application for a DEA Certificate of Registration, Control No. W23147064C, submitted by Moustafa M. Aboshady, M.D., as well as any other pending application of Moustafa M. Aboshady, M.D., for additional registration in Utah. This Order is effective May 16, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 10, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On October 31, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registrations (OSC/ISO) to Empire Pharmacy, Inc., and Skyline Pharmacy, Inc., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (collectively, Registrants). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 18. The OSC/ISO informed Registrants of the immediate suspension of their DEA Certificates of Registration, Nos. FE8167733 and FS0903840, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Registrants' continued registration constitutes “`an imminent danger to the public health or safety.'”
Specifically, the OSC/ISO alleged that between February 20, 2019, and August 30, 2023, Registrants failed to maintain accurate records of their purchasing, dispensing, and physical inventory of controlled substances, in violation of federal and Pennsylvania state law. RFAAX 2, at 4-6 (citing 21 CFR 1304.04(a), 1304.11(a)-(c), 1304.21(a); 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. sections 780-112(a)-(c), and 780-113(a)(21)).
The OSC/ISO notified Registrants of their right to file with DEA a written request for hearing and that if they failed to file such a request, they would be deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and be in default. RFAAX 2, at 7 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrants did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
As discussed above, the OSC/ISO alleges that Registrants violated multiple provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in
Here, the OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's “strict requirements regarding registration[,] . . . drug security, and recordkeeping” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.”
According to DEA's implementing regulations, pharmacies must maintain “a complete and accurate record of each controlled substance . . . sold . . . .” 21 CFR 1304.21(a). This includes conducting and maintaining an “initial inventory . . . of all stocks of controlled substances on hand on the date [the pharmacy] first engages in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances,” as well as a “biennial inventory . . . of all stocks of controlled substances on hand.” 21 CFR 1304.11(a)-(c). Pharmacies must retain these inventories “for at least 2 years from the date of such inventory or records, for inspection and copying.” 21 CFR 1304.04.
Pennsylvania law also requires pharmacies to keep accurate records and maintain proper inventories regarding the purchase, sale, or dispensing of any controlled substances. 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. section 780-112(a)-(c). In Pennsylvania, it is unlawful for a pharmacy to fail to “make, keep or furnish any record, notification, order form, statement, invoice or information” relating to the purchasing or dispensing of a controlled substance.
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrants' default, the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed admitted.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that each Registrant failed to maintain accurate records of its purchasing and dispensing
Under Section 304 of the CSA, “[a] registration . . . to . . . distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under . . . [21 U.S.C. 823] inconsistent with the public interest as determined by such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a “practitioner,” which is defined in 21 U.S.C. 802(21) to include a “pharmacy,” Congress directed the Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive.
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
Here, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence satisfies its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D);
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Factors B and D weigh in favor of revocation of Registrants' registrations and thus finds Registrants' continued registration to be inconsistent with the public interest. The Agency further finds that Registrants failed to provide any evidence to rebut the Government's
Here, the Government has met its
Here, Registrants did not timely or properly request a hearing and were deemed to be in default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1); RFAA, at 1-2. To date, Registrants have not filed a motion with the Office of the Administrator to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1). Registrants have thus failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC and have not otherwise availed themselves of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, Registrants have made no representations as to their future compliance with the CSA nor made any demonstration that they can be entrusted with registration. Moreover, the evidence presented by the Government shows that Registrants violated the CSA, further indicating that Registrants cannot be entrusted.
Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Registrants' registrations.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificates of Registration Nos. FE8167733 and FS0903840 issued to Empire Pharmacy Inc. and Skyline Pharmacy Inc. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Empire Pharmacy Inc. and/or Skyline Pharmacy Inc. to renew or modify the named registrations, as well as any other pending application of Empire Pharmacy Inc. and/or Skyline Pharmacy Inc. for additional registration in Pennsylvania. This Order is effective May 16, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 10, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On November 14, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Ajumobi Agu, M.D., of Las Vegas, Nevada (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the immediate suspension of his DEA Certification of Registration, Control No. FA4195459, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Registrant's continued registration constitutes “ `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' ”
Specifically, the OSC/ISO alleged that Registrant continued to dispense controlled substances after his state medical and controlled substances licenses were suspended.
The OSC/ISO notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing and an answer, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are admitted. Accordingly, Registrant admits that on July 14, 2023, the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy suspended Registrant's Nevada controlled substance license. RFAAX 1, at 3. Further, on September 19, 2023, the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners suspended Registrant's Nevada medical license.
According to Nevada's online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's Nevada controlled substance license is now revoked.
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Registrant is not licensed to practice medicine nor to handle controlled substances in Nevada, the state in which he is registered with DEA.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Nevada statute, “[e]very practitioner or other person who dispenses any controlled substance within th[e] State or who proposes to engage in the dispensing of any controlled substance within th[e] State shall obtain biennially a registration issued by the [Nevada State Board of Pharmacy] in accordance with its regulations.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.226(1) (2024). Further, according to Nevada statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user, patient or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to dispense controlled substances in Nevada because his Nevada controlled substance license is now revoked. As discussed above, an individual must hold a Nevada controlled substance license to dispense a controlled substance in Nevada. Thus, because Registrant lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Nevada, the state in which he is registered with the DEA, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
As discussed above, the OSC/ISO alleges that Registrant violated provisions of the CSA and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in
The OSC/ISO alleges that Registrant continued to dispense controlled substances after his state medical and controlled substances licenses were suspended. RFAAX 1, at 3. Under the CSA, a prescription for a controlled substance is valid only if “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a). Similarly, Nevada regulations prohibit the dispensing of controlled substances without a Nevada controlled substance license and prohibit the practice of medicine, which includes prescribing, without a Nevada medical license. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 453.226(1), 630.160(1), 630.020 (2024).
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that following the initial suspension of Registrant's Nevada medical license on June 30, 2023, Registrant went on to issue approximately 22 prescriptions for controlled substances, including oxycodone (a Schedule II opioid), alprazolam (a Schedule IV benzodiazepine), and carisoprodol (a Schedule IV muscle relaxant). RFAAX 1, at 3. Registrant prescribed these medications to 14 patients from June 30, 2023, through at least September 11, 2023.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant issued at least 22 controlled substance prescriptions while his Nevada medical and/or controlled substance license(s) were suspended.
When the CSA's strict requirements are not met, the Attorney General “may deny, suspend, or revoke [a] registration if . . . the [registrant's] registration would be ‘inconsistent with the public interest.’ ”
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive.
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the factors, it “need not make explicit findings as to each one.”
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered,
Here, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence satisfies its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D);
Here, the Registrant's conduct reflects negative experience in prescribing with respect to controlled substances.
The Agency further finds that after balancing the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), Respondent's continued registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). Accordingly, the Government satisfied its
Here, the Government has met its
The issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on the circumstances presented by the individual registrant.
Here, Registrant failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC/ISO and did not otherwise avail himself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, there is no record evidence that Registrant takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the founded violations, meaning, among other things, that it is not reasonable to believe that Registrant's future controlled substance-related actions will comply with legal requirements. Accordingly, Registrant did not convince the Agency that he can be entrusted with registration.
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of revocation. Given the foundational nature of Registrant's violations, a sanction less than revocation would send a message to the existing and prospective registrant community that compliance with the law is not a condition precedent to maintaining a registration.
Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Registrant's registration.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 10, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On May 13, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registrations (OSC/ISO) to Lona Bibbs-Walker, D.D.S., of Fayetteville, Georgia (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the immediate suspension of her DEA Certificates of Registration, Nos. FB3395806 and FB9305891, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Registrant's continued registration constitutes “ `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' ”
The OSC/ISO alleged that from May 19, 2020, through February 16, 2024, Registrant failed to maintain adequate records relating to her handling of controlled substances.
The OSC/ISO notified Registrant of her right to file with DEA a written request for hearing and an answer, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. RFAAX 2, at 5 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 2.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed admitted. Accordingly, Registrant admits that on March 5, 2024, the Georgia Board of Dentistry revoked Registrant's authority to practice dentistry in Georgia.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to Georgia statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, administering, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery . . . .” Ga. Code Ann. section 16-13-21(9) (2024). Further, a “practitioner” means a “physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise authorized under the laws of [Georgia] to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in [Georgia].”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to practice dentistry in Georgia,
As discussed above, the OSC/ISO alleges that Registrant violated provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in
Here, the OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's “strict requirements regarding registration . . . drug security, and recordkeeping” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.”
The OSC/ISO alleges that from May 19, 2020, through February 16, 2024, Registrant failed to maintain adequate records relating to her handling of controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 1. The OSC/ISO also alleges that Registrant was unable to account for hundreds of dosage units of highly diverted controlled substances.
Under the CSA, registrants are required to keep current and accurate records of all controlled substances handled. 21 CFR 1304.21(a). Further, registrants are required to take a complete and accurate inventory of all controlled substances on hand from the date they first engage in the dispensing of controlled substances and, thereafter, must take biennial inventories; such inventories must be kept for at least two years from the date of their creation.
Similarly, Georgia regulations require that practitioners maintain prescription records for two years from the date the prescriptions are filled, and such records must be kept available for inspection. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. section 480-28-.04(4). Further, Georgia regulations require that practitioners maintain records of “all controlled substance drugs received and disposed of” as well as maintain an inventory of all controlled substances, which must be taken biennially.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that from May 19, 2020, through at least February 16, 2024, she failed to maintain proper records regarding her inventory, purchasing, and dispensing of controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 3. Further, Registrant is deemed to have admitted that she failed to adequately maintain an initial or biennial inventory of controlled substances.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant failed to maintain proper records regarding her purchasing and dispensing of controlled substances, and her initial or biennial inventory of controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 3. These failures resulted in Registrant being unable to account for hundreds of dosage units of controlled substances.
Pursuant to the CSA, “[a] registration . . . to . . . distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under . . . [21 U.S.C. 823] inconsistent with the public interest as determined by such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a “practitioner,” Congress directed the Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive.
According to Agency decisions, the Agency “may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [it] deems appropriate in determining whether” to revoke a registration.
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the factors, it “need not make explicit findings as to each one.”
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
Here, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence satisfies its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D);
As such, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant violated 21 CFR 1304.04(a), 1304.11(a)-(c), 1304.21(a) and Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. section 480-28-.04(4), (5)(a)-(b). After weighing Factors B and D, the Agency further finds that Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, the Agency finds that the Government established a
Here, the Government has met its
The issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on the circumstances presented by the individual registrant.
Here, Registrant failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC/ISO and did not otherwise avail herself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, there is no record evidence that Registrant takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the founded violations, meaning, among other things, that it is not reasonable to believe that Registrant's future controlled substance-related actions will comply with legal requirements. Accordingly, Registrant did not convince the Agency that she can be entrusted with registration.
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of revocation. Given the foundational nature of Registrant's violations, a sanction less than revocation would send a message to the existing and prospective registrant community that compliance with the law is not a condition precedent to maintaining a registration.
Accordingly, I shall order the sanction the Government requested, as contained in the Order below.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificates of Registration Nos. FB3395806 and FB9305891 issued to Lona Bibbs-Walker, D.D.S. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Lona Bibbs-Walker, D.D.S., to renew or modify the named registrations, as well as any other pending application of Lona Bibbs-Walker, D.D.S., for
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 10, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On February 22, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Victor Augusto Silva, M.D., of Tampa, Florida (Respondent). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), at 1; RFAA Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Respondent of the immediate suspension of his DEA Certificate of Registration, No. FS3590266, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Respondent's continued registration constitutes “an imminent danger to the public health or safety.” RFAAX 1, at 1 (quoting 21 U.S.C. 824(d)). The OSC/ISO also proposed the revocation of Respondent's registration, No. FS3590266, alleging that Respondent's registration is inconsistent with the public interest.
More specifically, the OSC/ISO alleged that Respondent allowed an unauthorized person to use his registration to prescribe controlled substances in violation of federal regulations and Florida law. RFAAX 1, at 1-3. On April 18, 2024, the Government submitted an RFAA to the Administrator requesting that the Agency issue a default final order revoking Respondent's registration. RFAA, at 1.
As a preliminary matter, this decision addresses whether or not Respondent is in default and finds that he is. Thereafter, the decision makes specific factual findings on the alleged violations as set forth in the OSC. Next, the decision considers whether Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest by evaluating the found violations in the context of the public interest factors. Where, as here, the Agency determines that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest, the Respondent is then given an opportunity to argue for mitigation of the sanction by establishing that he can be trusted with a registration. After carefully reviewing the entire record and conducting the analysis as set forth in more detail below, the Agency grants the Government's request for final agency action and revokes Respondent's registration.
Under 21 CFR 1301.43, a registrant entitled to a hearing who fails to file a timely hearing request “within 30 days after the date of receipt of the [OSC] . . . shall be deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default” unless “good cause” is established for the failure. 21 CFR 1301.43(a) & (c)(1). In the absence of a demonstration of good cause, a registrant who fails to timely file an answer also is “deemed to have waived their right to a hearing and to be in default.” 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(2). Unless excused, a default constitutes “an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e).
Here, the OSC/ISO notified Respondent of his right to file with DEA a written request for a hearing and informed him that if he failed to file a hearing request or an answer, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. RFAAX 1, at 4. Respondent requested a hearing on April 2, 2024.
The Government's RFAA to the Administrator requested that the Agency issue a final order revoking Respondent's registration on the basis that his continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest. RFAA, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4)). The Government requested final agency action “pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c) and (f) . . . , because Respondent has neither timely requested a hearing, nor provided answers for the [OSC/ISO].”
Under these facts, the Agency finds that the ALJ's termination of the proceedings—where Respondent failed to timely file a request for a hearing and an answer and did not demonstrate good cause for the failures—was appropriate.
As the Supreme Court stated in
Congress was particularly concerned with the need to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels. To effectuate these goals, Congress devised a closed regulatory system making it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess any controlled substance except in a manner authorized by the CSA. . . . The CSA and its implementing regulations set forth strict requirements regarding registration, labeling and packaging, production quotas, drug security, and recordkeeping.
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, prescriptions may only be issued by an individual practitioner who is “[a]uthorized to prescribe controlled substances by the jurisdiction in which he is licensed to practice his profession” and has either been issued a DEA registration or is exempted from registration under DEA regulations. 21 CFR 1306.03. Furthermore, a lawful controlled substance order or prescription is one that is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a). A “practitioner must establish and maintain a
Similarly, under Florida law, “[p]rescribing . . . a legend drug, including any controlled substance, other than in the course of the physician's professional practice” is grounds for disciplinary action. Fla. Stat. section 458.331(1)(q). Moreover, Florida law states that the act of “[a]iding, assisting, procuring, or advising any unlicensed person to practice medicine contrary to [Chapter 458 of Florida Statutes Title XXXII] or to a rule of the [Department of Health] or the [Board of Medicine]” is a basis for disciplinary action of a physician. Fla. Stat. sections 458.305(a)-(b), 458.331(1)(f). The practice of medicine includes “the prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition.” Fla. Stat. section 458.305(4).
Based on the above, the Agency finds that it is a violation of both Florida and federal law for a registrant to allow a person who is not licensed to practice medicine in Florida (and therefore who is not authorized to prescribe controlled substances in Florida) to issue prescriptions for controlled substances using their DEA registration.
In light of Respondent's default, the factual allegations in the OSC—other than paragraph 5, which the Government asserts was incorrect,
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that in the year 2023 Respondent allowed a person who was not licensed to practice medicine, and therefore was not authorized to prescribe controlled substances, to access his DEA registration and use it to prescribe controlled substances.
When the CSA's strict requirements are not met, the Attorney General “may deny, suspend, or revoke [a] registration if . . . the [registrant's] registration would be `inconsistent with the public interest.'”
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive.
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the factors, it “need not make explicit findings as to each one.”
While the Agency has considered all the public interest factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1),
Here, the Respondent's conduct reflects negative experience in prescribing with respect to controlled substances.
The Agency further finds that after balancing the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), Respondent's continued registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). Accordingly, the Government satisfied its
Where, as here, the Government has met the burden of showing that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest, the burden shifts to Respondent to show why he can be entrusted with a registration.
Here, Respondent filed an untimely hearing request, did not file an answer, and was found to be in default. RFAAX 3, at 3-4. Thus, there is no record evidence that Respondent takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the misconduct. Accordingly, he has not convinced the Agency that his future controlled-substance-related actions will comply with the CSA such that he can be entrusted with the responsibilities of a registration.
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of revocation. Respondent's conduct in this matter concerns the CSA's “strict requirements regarding registration” and, therefore, goes to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.”
In sum, Respondent has not offered any credible evidence on the record that rebuts the Government's case for revocation of his registration, and Respondent has not demonstrated that he can be entrusted with the responsibility of registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Respondent's registration.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FS3590266 issued to Victor Augusto Silva, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any other pending application of Victor Augusto Silva, M.D., for registration in Florida. This Order is effective May 16, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 10, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters
On August 28, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to David Israel, M.D., of Bronx, New York (Registrant).
Specifically, the OSC/ISO alleges that “between . . . October 9, 2020, until at least . . . June 11, 2023, [Registrant] violated federal and New York state law by issuing prescriptions for controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and for other than a legitimate medical purpose, in violation of 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 10, § 80.65.” RFAAX 1, at 3.
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing within 30 days after the date of receipt of the OSC.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed admitted. According to the OSC/ISO, on August 23, 2023, the New York Department of Health suspended Registrant's medical license. RFAAX 1, at 4. According to New York online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Registrant's medical license has since been revoked.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to New York statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by lawful means, . . . and includes the packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for such delivery.” N.Y. Pub. Health Law section
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant lacks authority to practice medicine in New York. As discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in New York. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in New York and, therefore, is not authorized to handle controlled substances in New York, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration in New York. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
As already discussed, the OSC/ISO alleges that Registrant violated multiple provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in
The OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's “statutory and regulatory provisions . . . mandating . . . compliance with . . . prescription requirements” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances,” and “to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels.”
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, a lawful prescription for controlled substances is one that is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a);
DEA's implementing regulations permit registrants to issue electronic prescriptions for controlled substances in schedules II-V. 21 CFR 1311.100(b); RFAAX 1, at 2. To issue an electronic prescription for a controlled substance, the prescribing practitioner must authenticate the prescription using at least two of the following factors: a password or other knowledge factor, biometric data, and/or a hard token. 21 CFR 1311.115(a), 1311.120(b)(5), (11); RFAAX 1, at 2. The completion of the two-factor authentication process “constitute[s] the signing of the prescription by the practitioner.” 21 CFR 1311.140(a)(5); RFAAX 1, at 2. While DEA regulations permit a non-registered agent to enter data on the prescription, the registrant must sign the prescription himself with the two-factor authentication procedure. 21 CFR 1311.135(a); RFAAX 1, at 2.
DEA regulations make clear that “[t]he practitioner must retain sole possession of the hard token . . . and must not share the password or other knowledge factor, or biometric information, with any other person.” 21 CFR 1311.102(a); RFAAX 1, at 2. The regulation further states that “[t]he practitioner must not allow any other person to use . . . or enter the knowledge factor or other identification means to sign prescriptions for controlled substances,” and that “[f]ailure by the practitioner to secure the . . . knowledge factor, or biometric information may provide a basis for revocation or suspension of registration.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that from at least April 2, 2020 through at least June 11, 2023, Registrant issued numerous controlled substance prescriptions outside the usual course of professional practice and for other than a legitimate medical purpose. RFAAX 1, at 3.
Registrant admits that from April 2, 2020, through May 13, 2023, Registrant unlawfully provided his secure log-in credentials to T.C. so that T.C. could self-issue controlled substance prescriptions.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant unlawfully provided his secure log-in credentials to T.C. and that the controlled substance prescriptions that T.C. self-issued were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice.
Registrant admits that on May 5, 2022, he fraudulently issued a prescription for oxycodone 30 mg (a schedule II controlled substance) in the name of individual C.G. RFAAX 1, at 4. Registrant gave this prescription to an individual other than C.G. to settle a personal debt.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the five controlled substance prescriptions that Registrant issued to C.G. were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice.
Registrant admits that on May 5, 2022, he issued a prescription for oxycodone 30 mg in the name of individual C.R.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the oxycodone prescription that Registrant issued to C.R. was not issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice.
Under Section 304 of the CSA, “[a] registration . . . to . . . distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under . . . [21 U.S.C. 823] inconsistent with the public interest as determined by such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a “practitioner,” Congress directed the Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
Here, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence satisfies its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D);
Additionally, as found above, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that Registrant issued numerous prescriptions to T.C., C.R., and C.G. that lacked a legitimate medical purpose and were issued outside the usual course of professional practice. Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10 sections 80.65, 80.71(a).
The Agency further finds that Factors B and D weigh in favor of revocation of Registrant's registration and that Registrant's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest in balancing the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, the Agency finds that the Government established a
Where, as here, the Government has met its
Here, Registrant did not timely or properly request a hearing and was deemed to be in default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1); RFAA, at 1-9. To date, Registrant has not filed a motion with the Office of the Administrator to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1). Registrant has thus failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC and has not otherwise availed himself of the
Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Registrant's registration.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BI8368828 issued to David Israel, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of David Israel, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of David Israel, M.D., for additional registration in New York. This Order is effective May 16, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 10, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for comment; public comment meeting; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is issuing for public comment Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal (SLR) for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Point Beach), Second Draft Report for Comment (second draft report). This second draft report concerns the NRC staff's review of the environmental impacts of the proposed renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-24 and DPR-27 for Point Beach, Units 1 and 2, respectively, for an additional 20 years. Point Beach is located on the western shore of Lake Michigan in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin, approximately 15 miles north-northeast of Manitowoc, Wisconsin. Possible alternatives to the proposed action of SLR include the no-action alternative and reasonable replacement power alternatives. A new notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene—limited to contentions based on new information in the second draft report—is also being issued.
The NRC staff will hold a public meeting through online webinar on the second draft report, including a presentation on the preliminary recommendation in the second draft report and a transcribed public comment session. The meeting will be held on May 15, 2025, at 3 p.m. central time, 4 p.m. eastern time (ET). The public meeting details can be found on the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule at
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Kevin Folk, Senior Environmental Project Manager, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6944; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0277 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal Rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Second Draft Report for Comment (second draft report). The second draft report updates Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 23, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment, issued in November 2021 (first draft report). Specifically, the second draft report includes the NRC staff's evaluation of new information obtained since the issuance of the November 2021 first draft report. This new information includes the NRC's publication of a final rule on August 6, 2024 (89 FR 64166), which revised the NRC's environmental protection regulation, part 51 of title 10 of the
In the second draft report and in the November 2021 first draft report, the NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of SLR for Point Beach are not so great that preserving the option of SLR for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The NRC staff based this preliminary recommendation on the analysis and findings in NUREG-1437, the environmental report submitted by NextEra, as supplemented, the NRC staff's consultations with Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies, the NRC staff's independent environmental review, which is documented in the second draft report and in the November 2021 first draft report, and the NRC staff's consideration of public comments received during scoping.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS, as indicated.
As directed in CLI-22-03, with the completion of the second draft report, a new notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene—limited to contentions based on new information in the second draft report—is being issued.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Public meeting and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment draft Supplement 63, to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, regarding the proposed renewal of Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 for an additional 20 years of operation for Clinton Power Station, Unit 1 (CPS). CPS is located in DeWitt County, Illinois, approximately 20 miles north of Decatur, Illinois. Possible alternatives to the proposed action of license renewal include no action and reasonable replacement power alternatives.
The NRC will hold a virtual public meeting on May 6, 2025, at 3 p.m. eastern time (ET). The public meeting details can be found on the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule at
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Ashley Waldron, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7317; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0046 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment, draft Supplement 63, to the GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, regarding the proposed renewal of Facility Operating License No. NPF-62, for an additional 20 years of operation for CPS. Draft Supplement 63, to the GEIS includes the preliminary analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for CPS are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Retirement Services offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on the reinstatement of an expired information collection request (ICR), Alternative Annuity Election, RI 20-80.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 16, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) and title, by the following method:
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing at
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or via electronic mail at
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) as amended (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection (OMB No. 3206-0168). The Office of Personnel Management is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
RI 20-80 is used for individuals who are eligible to elect whether to receive a reduced annuity and a lump-sum payment equal to their retirement contributions (alternative form of annuity) or an unreduced annuity and no lump sum. OPM is also specifically seeking comments regarding the burden estimates below.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is recognizing a recently filed Postal Service notice of inflation-based rate adjustments affecting market dominant domestic and international products and services, along with proposed classification changes. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On April 9, 2025, the Postal Service filed a notice of price adjustments affecting Market Dominant domestic and international products and services, along with proposed classification changes to the Mail Classification Schedule (MCS).
The Postal Service's filing consists of the Notice, which the Postal Service represents addresses data and information required under 39 CFR 3030.122 and 39 CFR 3030.123; three attachments (Attachments A, B, and C) to the Notice; one set of appended workpapers; and six public library references and three non-public library references.
Attachment A presents the planned price and related product description changes to the MCS. Notice, Attachment A. Attachment B presents the price cap calculation.
The first five public library references provide supporting documentation for the five classes of mail, and the sixth public library reference shows the banked rate adjustment authority for each class of mail over the last 5 years.
The Postal Service's planned percentage changes by class are, on average, as follows:
Notice at 9. Price adjustments for products within classes vary from the average.
The Postal Service identifies the effect of its proposed price and classification changes on the MCS in Attachment A.
• Informed Delivery Add-On/Upgrade Promotion (January 1-December 31, 2026);
• Sustainability Add-On/Upgrade Promotion (January 1-December 31, 2026);
• Tactile, Sensory, and Interactive Mailpiece Engagement Base/Primary Promotion (January 1-June 30, 2026);
• Integrated Technology Base/Primary Promotion (mailers will select a start date for a six-month promotion period within calendar year 2026);
• First-Class Mail Advertising Base/Primary Promotion (September 1-December 31, 2026);
• Continuous Contact Base/Primary Promotion (April 1-December 31, 2026); and
• Catalog Insights and Continuous Contact Base/Primary Promotion (October 1, 2025-June 30, 2026).
Notice at 48-51. Additionally, the Postal Service proposes to continue other previously approved incentives within First-Class Mail and USPS Marketing Mail with certain changes.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3030.124(a), the Commission establishes Docket No. R2025-1 to consider the planned price adjustments for Market Dominant postal products and services, as well as the related classification changes, identified in the Notice. The Commission invites comments from interested persons on whether the Postal Service's planned price adjustments are consistent with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. 39 CFR 3030.125. The applicable statutory and regulatory requirements the Commission considers in its review are the requirements of 39 CFR part 3030, Commission directives and orders, and 39 U.S.C. 3626, 3627, and 3629. 39 CFR 3030.126(b). Comments are due no later than May 9, 2025. 39 CFR 3030.124(f). The Commission will not accept late-filed comments as it is not practicable due to the expedited timeline for this proceeding.
The public portions of the Postal Service's filing are available for review on the Commission's website (
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Mallory L. Smith to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this proceeding. The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. R2025-1 to consider the planned price adjustments for Market Dominant postal products and services, as well as the related classification changes, identified in the Postal Service's April 9, 2025 Notice.
2. Comments on the planned price adjustments and related classification changes are due no later than May 9, 2025.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Mallory L. Smith is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public (Public Representative) in this proceeding.
4. The Commission directs the Secretary of the Commission to arrange for prompt publication of this notice in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a Priority Mail Express International, Priority Mail International & First-Class Package International Service contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Competitive Product List in the Mail Classification Schedule.
Date of notice: April 15, 2025.
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), on April 7, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Friday, April 11, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. EST.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW.
Closed.
On April 11, 2025, the members of the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted
1. Administrative Matters.
2. Executive Session.
3. Personnel Matters.
Lucy C. Trout, Acting Secretary of the Board of Governors, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise the ICC Treasury Operations Policies & Procedures (the “Treasury Policy”). These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (the “Rules”).
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
ICE Clear Credit is proposing to amend its Treasury Policy. The purpose of the Treasury Policy is to articulate the policies and procedures used to support the ICC Treasury Department (the “Treasury Department”), which is responsible for daily cash and collateral management of margin and guaranty fund assets. The proposed changes formalize ICC's intraday margin call procedures in the Treasury Policy to formally document ICC's intraday margin call procedures consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(ii).
ICC proposes to formalize its current intraday margin call procedures by adding a description of such procedures as `Appendix 6: Intraday Margin Call Procedures' (“Appendix 6”) to the Treasury Policy. Appendix 6 contains a description of the three types of intraday margins calls recognized by ICC,
With respect to Non-routine Intraday Margin Calls, proposed Appendix 6 contains a description of this category of intraday margin calls and details procedures followed by the ICC Risk Department in the event of a Non-routine Intraday Margin Call. Non-routine Margin Calls are considered if the market suddenly becomes highly volatile and the observed price/spread level changes increase the risk exposure of ICC to certain Clearing Participants. Non-routine Intraday Margin Calls are triggered if a certain percentage of the value of collateral on deposit has eroded due to the observed intraday unrealized losses. Procedures relevant to Non-routine Margin Calls included in Appendix 6 are summarized below:
• ICC utilizes its intraday system to capture intraday prices and re-value Clearing Participant portfolios to estimate the unrealized profit/loss.
• Compare the unrealized profit/loss to collected Initial Margin (“IM”) requirement, excluding funds attributed to the concentration charges.
• If any Clearing Participant's IM erodes by a specified early warning percentage, the ICC Risk Department will begin the initial warning process to (i) notify the relevant ICC departments, and (ii) notify the affected Clearing Participant(s) that their unrealized losses are approaching the IM erosion threshold that could trigger an intraday margin call (described below). In such initial warning to affected Clearing Participant(s), the ICC Risk Department has the option of communicating the current level of IM erosion to such Clearing Participant(s).
• Following such initial warning process, the ICC Risk Department will identify the risk factors associated with the affected Clearing Participant's greatest unrealized losses and will confirm the viability of all adverse price changes in such Clearing Participant portfolios. Following confirmation of price viability, the ICC Risk Department will begin/continue continuous intraday monitoring.
• If any Clearing Participant's IM erodes by a specified IM erosion threshold and such erosion lasts for more than a specified period of time, ICC will initiate the intraday margin call process (subject to the qualification described below) which is described in further detail below.
• Notwithstanding the erosion of a Clearing Participant's IM beyond the IM erosion threshold, should such triggering event occur later in the day, the ICC chief risk officer (“CRO”) (or his or her designee) has the discretion on
With respect to Selective Intraday Margin Calls, proposed Appendix 6 describes this category as intraday margin calls driven by intraday changes in Clearing Participant position sizes that can lead to an insufficient level of collateralization. If such a case is observed, the ICC Risk Department will determine the increased IM amount by estimating the IM requirements for the new positions using the intraday system to capture intraday prices and re-value Clearing Participant portfolios to estimate unrealized profit/loss and compare such unrealized profit/loss to the collected IM requirements (excluding concentration charges).
With respect to Discretionary Margin Calls, proposed Appendix 6 describes this category as intraday margin calls to Clearing Participants who's [sic] previously posted margin, in the CRO's judgement, does not provide proper risk protection. Such Discretionary Margin Calls are expected to be executed in the event there is a fast deterioration of the credit worthiness of a Clearing Participant and/or by adverse market conditions that could lead to significant losses that may result in the default of a Clearing Participant.
In the event an intraday margin call is made for any of the three categories of intraday margin calls described above, such process will be initiated by the CRO (or his or her designee) who will direct the Treasury Department to execute an intraday margin call.
• Such instruction will include the applicable Clearing Participant names and the amount of the intraday margin call. ICC senior management, as well as the ICC Compliance Department and the ICC Client Services Department will be copied on the instruction.
• With respect to Non-routine Intraday Margin Calls, the amount of the call will be consistent with the level of IM erosion and the remaining time until the end-of-day price discovery process.
• The Treasury Department will enter the amount of the intraday margin call in its system which may result (depending on current funds on deposit for the affected Clearing Participant(s)) in the issuance of a direct debit message instructing the Clearing Participants' designated bank to direct debit any margin payable. Clearing Participants will have up to one hour to pay the intraday margin call after the issuance of the direct debit message.
In connection with the addition of proposed Appendix 6 to the Treasury Policy, ICC also proposes to add language to Section IV.A.4. of the Treasury Policy to generally reference ICC's process for monitoring the adequacy of collected IM on an intraday basis, and to note that ICC may issue intraday margin calls to Clearing Participant(s) whose margin on deposit does not provide prior risk protection. Such additional language also provides a cross-reference to the intraday margin call procedures set forth in new Appendix 6.
Lastly, ICC proposes to update Section X. `Revision History' to include the proposed changes.
ICE Clear Credit believes that the proposed amendments to the Treasury Policy are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
As discussed herein, the proposed amendments are designed to formalize ICC's intraday margin call procedures. The changes will not modify ICC's current intraday margin call practices but instead promote transparency by formally documenting a description of such intraday margin call practices. In ICC's view, formalization of such intraday margin call procedures, which include details on the categories of intraday margin calls utilized by ICC and describe the procedures following by ICC in the event of intraday margin calls, increase transparency and clarity on important ICC processes. ICC therefore believes the proposed amendments is consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivatives agreements, contracts and transactions, contribute to the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible, and generally promote the protection of investors and the public interest in the operation of clearing services, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
The amendments also comply with relevant provisions of Rule 17Ad-22.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(i) provides that “[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as applicable [. . .] identify, measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment, clearing, and settlement processes, including by: (i)
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v)
ICE Clear Credit does not believe the proposed amendments would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendments formalize ICC's current intraday margin call practices in the Treasury Policy. These changes do not amend ICC's methodology and would apply uniformly across all Clearing Participants. Accordingly, ICC does not believe the amendments would affect the rights and obligations of Clearing Participants or the costs of clearing, the ability of market participants to access clearing, or the market for clearing services generally. Therefore, ICE Clear Credit does not believe the proposed rule change imposes any burden on competition that is inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted materials that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-ICC-2025-005 and should be submitted on or before May 7, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (“Fee Schedule”) to adopt fees for orders routed pursuant to the Midpoint Ping routing strategy. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt fees for orders routed pursuant to the Midpoint Ping routing strategy, as defined in Rule 7.37-E(b)(9)(A). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective March 31, 2025.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“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 a firm routes order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees because market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
The Exchange has amended its rules to provide for the optional Midpoint Ping routing strategy, which is available for MPL-IOC Orders.
In connection with the upcoming availability of the Midpoint Ping routing strategy on March 31, 2025,
• $0.0030 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 or 0.30% of Dollar Value for securities priced below $1.00, for orders routed pursuant to the Midpoint Ping routing strategy (as described in Rule 7.37-E(b)(9)(A)).
The Exchange believes that this routing functionality would offer ETP Holders the opportunity to access midpoint liquidity on other trading venues (and, specifically, on the Exchange's affiliated equity exchanges).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. 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.”
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 or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
The Midpoint Ping routing strategy is intended to provide ETP Holders with the option to, after interacting with interest on the NYSE Arca Book, route remaining quantities of MPL-IOC Orders to other NYSE Group equity exchanges. This routing functionality is provided by the Exchange on a voluntary basis, and no rule or regulation requires that the Exchange offer it. Nor does any rule or regulation require market participants to route orders in this manner. As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily select between various providers of routing services with different product offerings and different pricing. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable, as they are within the range of other routing fees the Exchange currently charges.
The Exchange believes its proposal equitably allocates its fees among market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees because it would apply uniformly to all ETP Holders, in that all ETP Holders will have the ability to utilize the Midpoint Ping routing strategy, and each such member organization would be charged the proposed fee when utilizing the functionality. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other exchanges and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would serve as a disincentive to utilize the order type. However, the Exchange believes that a number of ETP Holders would seek to utilize the functionality, which would facilitate access to midpoint liquidity on other trading venues.
The Exchange reiterates that the routing functionality offered by the Exchange is completely optional and that the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily select between various providers of routing services with different product offerings and different pricing. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee structure for orders routed pursuant to the Midpoint Ping routing strategy is a fair and equitable approach to pricing.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory as the proposal to charge a fee would be assessed on an equal basis to all ETP Holders that use the Midpoint Ping routing strategy. Moreover, this proposed rule change neither targets, nor will it have a disparate impact on, any particular category of market participant. The Exchange believes that this proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because the changes described in this proposal would be applied to all similarly situated ETP Holders. Accordingly, no member organization already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by the proposed allocation of fees. The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change would not permit unfair discrimination among ETP Holders because the Midpoint Ping routing strategy would remain available to all ETP Holders on an equal basis, and each such participant would be charged the same fee for using the functionality.
Finally, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard. The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act.
Applicants request an order under sections 6(c) and 23(c)(3) of the Act for an exemption from certain provisions of rule 23c-3 to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to make repurchase offers on a monthly basis.
Optimize Growth Equity Fund, Optimize Premium Yield Fund and Optimize Wealth Management Inc.
The application was filed on March 4, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Rachel Loko, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6883 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, dated March 4, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to remove obsolete language from the Nasdaq Rules regarding company listing fees and failure to meet listing standards.
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.
Nasdaq proposes to modify Rules 5815(a)(1)(B)(ii)(c)(1)-(2) and 5815(c)(1)(H) to remove obsolete language that describes certain deficiencies where a timely request for a hearing will not stay the suspension of the subject company's securities from trading pending the issuance of a written Panel Decision based on Staff Delisting Determination (as defined in Nasdaq Rule 5805(h)) letters issued before October 7, 2024.
Nasdaq also proposes to modify Rule 5910(a)(1)(A)(i) to remove obsolete language that describes entry fees for the listing of a class of securities on the Nasdaq Global Market for company applications submitted prior to January 1, 2024 that result in listing on the Nasdaq Global Market prior to February 15, 2024.
Nasdaq also proposes to modify Rules, 5910(b)(2)(A)-(D) and (F), 5920(b)(2)(A)-(D) and (G), and 5930(b)(1) to remove obsolete language that describes all-inclusive annual listing fees applicable until December 31, 2024 for listings on the Nasdaq Global Market (including the Nasdaq Global Select Market), the Nasdaq Capital Market, and for SEEDS and certain other securities, respectively.
Nasdaq is also proposing conforming adjustments, including renumbering Rule 5815(a)(1)(B)(ii)(c)(2) as Rule 5815(a)(1)(B)(ii)(c)(1) [sic].
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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. Nasdaq does not believe the proposed rule change, which merely eliminates obsolete provisions and does not make any substantive change to Nasdaq's rules, will impose any burden, nor have any impact, on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
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 list and trade shares of Grayscale Avalanche Trust (AVAX) (the “Trust”) under Nasdaq Rule 5711(d) (“Commodity-Based Trust Shares”). The shares of the Trust are referred to herein as the “Shares.”
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 list and trade the Shares under Nasdaq Rule 5711(d), which governs the listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares on the Exchange.
The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust that operates pursuant to a trust agreement between the Sponsor and the Trustee (“Trust Agreement”).
According to the prospectus the Trust intends to file (the “Prospectus”), the Trust's assets consist solely of AVAX, the native token of the Avalanche Network (as defined below) (“AVAX”).
Each Share represents a proportional interest, based on the total number of Shares outstanding, in the Trust's assets as determined by reference to the Index Price,
The activities of the Trust are limited to (i) issuing “Baskets” (as defined below) in exchange for AVAX transferred to the Trust as consideration in connection with creations, (ii) transferring or selling AVAX as necessary to cover the “Sponsor's Fee”
The Trust will not be actively managed. It will not engage in any activities designed to obtain a profit from, or to ameliorate losses caused by, changes in the market prices of AVAX.
The Trust is not a registered investment company under the Investment Company Act and the Sponsors believe that the Trust is not required to register under the Investment Company Act.
According to the Prospectus, and as further described below, the Trust's investment objective is for the value of the Shares (based on AVAX per Share) to reflect the value of the AVAX held by the Trust, determined by reference to the Index Price, less the Trust's expenses and other liabilities. While an investment in the Shares is not a direct investment in AVAX, the Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to gain investment exposure to AVAX. Generally speaking, a substantial direct investment in AVAX may require expensive and sometimes complicated arrangements in connection with the acquisition, security and safekeeping of the AVAX and may involve the payment of substantial fees to acquire such AVAX from third-party facilitators through cash payments of U.S. dollars. Because the value of the Shares is correlated with the value of AVAX held by the Trust, it is important to understand the investment attributes of, and the market for, AVAX.
The Trust uses the Index Price to calculate its “NAV,” which is the aggregate value, expressed in U.S. dollars, of the Trust's assets (other than U.S. dollars or other fiat currency), less the U.S. dollar value of the Trust's expenses and other liabilities calculated in the manner set forth under “Valuation of AVAX and Determination of NAV.” “NAV per Share” is calculated by dividing NAV by the number of Shares then outstanding.
The following is a description of the material terms of the Trust Agreement as they relate to valuation of the Trust's AVAX and the NAV calculations.
On each business day at 4:00 p.m., New York time, or as soon thereafter as practicable (the “Evaluation Time”), the Sponsor will evaluate the AVAX held by the Trust and calculate and publish the NAV of the Trust. To calculate the NAV, the Sponsor will:
1. Determine the Index Price as of such business day.
2. Multiply the Index Price by the Trust's aggregate number of AVAX owned by the Trust as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the immediately preceding day, less the aggregate number of AVAX payable as the accrued and unpaid Sponsor's Fee as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the immediately preceding day.
3. Add the U.S. dollar value of AVAX, calculated using the Index Price, receivable under pending creation orders, if any, determined by multiplying the number of the Baskets represented by such creation orders by the Basket Amount and then multiplying such product by the Index Price.
4. Subtract the U.S. dollar amount of accrued and unpaid Additional Trust Expenses, if any.
5. Subtract the U.S. dollar value of the AVAX, calculated using the Index Price, to be distributed under pending redemption orders, if any, determined by multiplying the number of Baskets to be redeemed represented by such redemption orders by the Basket Amount and then multiplying such product by the Index Price (the amount derived from steps 1 through 5 above, the “NAV Fee Basis Amount”).
6. Subtract the U.S. dollar amount of the Sponsor's Fee that accrues for such business day, as calculated based on the NAV Fee Basis Amount for such business day.
In the event that the Sponsor determines that the primary methodology used to determine the Index Price is not an appropriate basis for valuation of the Trust's AVAX, the Sponsor will utilize the cascading set of rules as described in “Determination of the Index Price When Index Price is Unavailable” below.
AVAX is a digital asset that is created and transmitted through the operations of the peer-to-peer Avalanche Network, a decentralized network of computers that operates on cryptographic protocols. No single entity owns or operates the Avalanche Network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a decentralized user base. The Avalanche Network allows people to exchange tokens of value, called AVAX, which are recorded on a public transaction ledger known as a blockchain. AVAX can be used to pay for goods and services, including computational power on the Avalanche Network, or it can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on Digital Asset Trading Platforms or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system. Furthermore, the Avalanche Network was designed to allow users to write and implement smart contracts—that is, general-purpose code that executes on every computer in the network and can instruct the transmission of information and value based on a sophisticated set of logical conditions. Using smart contracts, users can create markets, store registries of debts or promises, represent the ownership of property, move funds in accordance with conditional instructions and create digital assets other than AVAX on the Avalanche Network. Smart contract operations are executed on the Avalanche blockchain in exchange for payment of AVAX. Like the Ethereum network, the Avalanche Network is one of a number of projects intended to expand blockchain use beyond just a peer-to-peer money system.
The Avalanche Network primarily uses a proof-of-stake consensus mechanism to incentivize AVAX holders to validate transactions. Unlike proof-of-work, in which miners expend computational resources to compete to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of computational resources expended, in proof-of-stake, validators risk or “stake” coins to compete to be randomly selected to validate transactions and are rewarded coins in proportion to the amount of coins staked. Proof-of-stake is viewed as more energy efficient and scalable than proof-of-work and is sometimes referred to as “virtual mining”.
Unlike with the Bitcoin blockchain, whereby every node validates every transaction, each Avalanche validator is only required to validate the “Primary Network,” which is comprised of three blockchains—the Exchange (X) Chain, the Platform (P) Chain, and the Contract (C) Chain—which each have a specific use. On the Exchange (X) Chain, AVAX and other assets exist and are traded. The Platform (P) Chain coordinates validators and creates subnets (as defined below). Finally, the Contract (C) Chain executes smart contracts.
Whereas all validators are required to validate the Primary Network and the three blockchains described above, active validators of the Primary Network may additionally elect to validate certain non-core blockchains (
These efficiencies can be achieved because the Avalanche Network uses a subset of validators to validate subnets, reducing the resources required to validate transactions across the entire ecosystem. Consequently, the Avalanche Network is reportedly one of the fastest networks when measured by transaction time-to-finality at relatively low transaction costs.
Components of the Avalanche protocol were first conceived in a 2018 document by the pseudonymous “Team Rocket.” Development of the Avalanche Network is overseen by Ava Labs Inc. (“Ava Labs”), a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, which was founded by Cornell University Professor Emin Gun Sirer and graduate student Maofan Yin to formalize the Avalanche Protocol. Ava Labs administered the original network launch and token distribution.
Although Ava Labs and the associated Avalanche Foundation Limited (“Avalanche Foundation”) continue to exert significant influence over the direction of the development of Avalanche, the Avalanche Network, like the Ethereum network, is decentralized and does not require governmental authorities or financial institution intermediaries to create, transmit or determine the value of AVAX.
At the time of initial distribution, Ava Labs represented the largest owner, holding approximately 72 million AVAX, or 10% of the total supply of AVAX, most in unreleased supply yet to be distributed and held in treasury, and Avalanche Foundation held approximately 67 million AVAX, or 9.25% of the total supply of AVAX.
Digital assets and digital asset transactions are recorded and validated on blockchains, the public transaction ledgers of a digital asset network. Each digital asset blockchain serves as a record of ownership for all of the units of such digital asset, even in the case of certain privacy-preserving digital assets, where the transactions themselves are not publicly viewable. All digital assets recorded on a blockchain are associated with a public blockchain address, also referred to as a digital wallet. Digital assets held at a particular public
Public addresses and their corresponding private keys are generated by the Custodian in secret key generation ceremonies at secure locations inside faraday cages, which are enclosures used to block electromagnetic fields and thus mitigate against attacks. The Custodian uses quantum random number generators to generate the public and private key pairs.
Once generated, private keys are encrypted, separated into “shards,” and then further encrypted. After the key generation ceremony, all materials used to generate private keys, including computers, are destroyed. All key generation ceremonies are performed offline. No party other than the Custodian (including the Trust itself) has access to the private key shards of the Trust.
Private key shards are distributed geographically in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States. The locations of the secure vaults may change regularly and are kept confidential by the Custodian for security purposes.
The “Digital Asset Account” is a segregated custody account controlled and secured by the Custodian to store private keys, which allows for the transfer of ownership or control of the Trust's AVAX on the Trust's behalf. The Digital Asset Account uses offline storage, or “cold,” mechanisms to secure the Trust's private keys. The term cold storage refers to a safeguarding method by which the private keys corresponding to digital assets are disconnected and/or deleted entirely from the internet. Cold storage of private keys may involve keeping such keys on a non-networked (or “air-gapped”) computer or electronic device or storing the private keys on a storage device (for example, a USB thumb drive) or printed medium (for example, papyrus, paper, or a metallic object). A digital wallet may receive deposits of digital assets but may not send digital assets without use of the digital assets' corresponding private keys. In order to send digital assets from a digital wallet in which the private keys are kept in cold storage, either the private keys must be retrieved from cold storage and entered into an online, or “hot,” digital asset software program to sign the transaction, or the unsigned transaction must be transferred to the cold server in which the private keys are held for signature by the private keys and then transferred back to the online digital asset software program. At that point, the user of the digital wallet can transfer its digital assets.
The Custodian is the custodian of the Trust's private keys (which, as noted above, facilitate the transfer of ownership or control of the Trust's AVAX) in accordance with the terms and provisions of the custodian agreement by and between the Custodian, the Sponsor and the Trust (the “Custodian Agreement”). Transfers from the Digital Asset Account require certain security procedures, including, but not limited to, multiple encrypted private key shards, usernames, passwords and 2-step verification. Multiple private key shards held by the Custodian must be combined to reconstitute the private key to sign any transaction in order to transfer the Trust's assets. Private key shards are distributed geographically in secure vaults around the world, including in the United States.
As a result, if any one secure vault is ever compromised, this event will have no impact on the ability of the Trust to access its assets, other than a possible delay in operations, while one or more of the other secure vaults is used instead. These security procedures are intended to remove single points of failure in the protection of the Trust's assets.
Transfers of AVAX to the Digital Asset Account will be available to the Trust once processed on the Blockchain.
Subject to obtaining regulatory approval to operate a redemption program and authorization of the Sponsor, the process of accessing and withdrawing AVAX from the Trust to redeem a Basket by an Authorized Participant will follow the same general procedure as transferring AVAX to the Trust to create a Basket by an Authorized Participant, only in reverse.
The Sponsor will maintain ownership and control of the Trust's AVAX in a manner consistent with good delivery requirements for spot commodity transactions.
The value of AVAX is determined by the value that various market participants place on AVAX through their transactions. The most common means of determining the value of an AVAX is by surveying one or more Digital Asset Trading Platforms where AVAX is traded publicly and transparently.
On each online Digital Asset Trading Platform, AVAX is traded with publicly disclosed valuations for each executed trade, measured by one or more fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar or euro, or stablecoins such as U.S. Dollar Coin (“USDC”). Over-the-counter dealers or market makers do not typically disclose their trade data.
As of December 31, 2024, the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index were Bitstamp, Bullish, Bybit,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Currently, there are several Digital Asset Trading Platforms operating worldwide and online Digital Asset Trading Platforms represent a substantial percentage of AVAX buying and selling activity and provide the most data with respect to prevailing valuations of AVAX. These trading platforms include established trading platforms such as trading platforms included in the Index which provide a number of options for buying and selling AVAX. The below table reflects the trading volume in AVAX and market share of the AVAX-U.S. dollar and AVAX-USDC trading pairs of each of the Digital Asset Trading Platforms included in the Index as of December 31, 2024 (collectively, “Constituent Trading Platforms”), using data since January 1, 2024:
The Index is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of AVAX. The Index is designed to (1) mitigate the effects of fraud, manipulation and other anomalous trading activity from impacting the AVAX reference rate, (2) provide a real-time, volume-weighted fair value of AVAX and (3) appropriately handle and adjust for non-market related events.
The Index Price is determined by the Index Provider through a process in which trade data is cleansed and compiled in such a manner as to algorithmically reduce the impact of anomalistic or manipulative trading. This is accomplished by the (a) real-time introduction and capture of new trades on a trade-by-trade basis where prior trade data becomes immediately less relevant with new trades, (b) utilization of an Outlier Detection Factor
According to the Memorandum, the Digital Asset Trading Platforms that are included in the Index are selected by the Index Provider utilizing a methodology that is guided by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) principles for financial benchmarks. For a trading platform to become a Constituent Trading Platform, it must satisfy each of the criteria listed below (the “Inclusion Criteria”):
• No evidence in the past 12 months of trading restrictions on individuals or entities that would otherwise meet the trading platform's eligibility requirements to trade;
• No evidence in the past 12 months of undisclosed restrictions on deposits or withdrawals from user accounts;
• Real-time price discovery;
• Limited or no capital controls;
• Transparent ownership including a publicly-known ownership entity;
• Publicly available language and policies addressing legal and regulatory compliance in the U.S., including KYC, AML and other policies designed to comply with relevant regulations that might apply to it; and
• Offer programmatic spot trading of the trading pair
All trading platforms that meet these Inclusion Criteria will be assigned to one Exchange Category as defined by the additional criteria below:
○ Licensed and/or able to serve investors, retail or professional, in the U.S.; and
○ Maintain sufficient USD or USDC liquidity relative to the size of the listed assets.
○ Licensed (including in-principal licensure) and/or able to serve investors, retail or professional, in one or more of the following jurisdictions:
○ Maintain sufficient USD or USDC liquidity relative to the size of the listed assets.
A Digital Asset Trading Platform is removed as a Constituent Trading
The Index Provider and the Sponsor have entered into the index license agreement, dated as of February 1, 2022 (as amended, the “Index License Agreement”), governing the Sponsor's use of the Index Price.
The Index Provider may change the trading venues that are used to calculate the Index or otherwise change the way in which the Index is calculated at any time. For example, the Index Provider has scheduled quarterly reviews in which it may add or remove Constituent Trading Platforms that satisfy or fail the Inclusion Criteria. The Index Provider does not have any obligation to consider the interests of the Sponsor, the Trust, the shareholders, or anyone else in connection with such changes. While the Index Provider is not required to publicize or explain the changes or to alert the Sponsor to such changes, it has historically notified the Trust (and other subscribers to the Index) of any material changes to the Constituent Trading Platforms, including any additions or removals, contemporaneous with its issuance of press releases in connection with the same. The Sponsor will notify investors of any such material event by filing a current report on Form 8-K. Although the Index methodology is designed to operate without any manual intervention, rare events would justify manual intervention. Intervention of this kind would be in response to non-market-related events, such as the halting of deposits or withdrawals of funds on a Digital Asset Trading Platform, the unannounced closure of operations on a Digital Asset Trading Platform, insolvency or the compromise of user funds. In the event that such an intervention is necessary, the Index Provider would issue a public announcement through its website, API or other established communication channels with its clients.
The Index applies an algorithm to the price of AVAX on the Constituent Trading Platforms calculated every 5 seconds over a 24-hour period. The Index's algorithm is expected to
•
•
•
•
•
The Index Provider re-evaluates the weighting algorithm on a periodic basis, but maintains discretion to change the way in which an Index Price is calculated based on its periodic review or in extreme circumstances and does not make the exact methodology to calculate the Index Price publicly available. Nonetheless, the Sponsors believe that the Index is designed to limit exposure to trading or price distortion of any individual Digital Asset Trading Platform that experiences periods of unusual activity or limited liquidity by discounting, in real-time, anomalous price movements at individual Digital Asset Trading Platforms.
The Sponsors believe the Index Provider's selection process for Constituent Trading Platforms as well as the methodology of the Index Price's algorithm provides a more accurate picture of AVAX price movements than a simple average of Digital Asset Trading Platform spot prices, and that the weighting of AVAX prices on the Constituent Trading Platforms limits the inclusion of data that is influenced by temporary price dislocations that may result from technical problems, limited liquidity or fraudulent activity elsewhere in the AVAX spot market. By referencing multiple trading venues and weighting them based on trade activity, the Sponsors believe that the impact of any potential fraud, manipulation or anomalous trading activity occurring on any single venue is reduced.
If the Index Price becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that such Index Price does not reflect an accurate price for AVAX, then the Sponsor will, on a
The Trust values its AVAX for operational purposes by reference to the Index Price. The Index Price is the value of AVAX as represented by the Index, calculated at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on each business day.
For the purposes of illustration, outlined below are examples of how the attributes that impact weighting and adjustments in the aforementioned methodology may be utilized to generate the Index Price for a digital asset. For example, Constituent Trading Platforms used to calculate the Index Price of the digital asset may include trading platforms such as Bitstamp, Kraken, LMAX Digital, and
The Index Price algorithm, as described above, is designed to account for manipulation at the outset by only including data from executed trades on Constituent Trading Platforms that charge trading fees. Then, the below-listed elements may impact the weighting of the Constituent Trading Platforms on the Index Price as follows:
•
•
•
The Sponsor uses the following cascading set of rules to calculate the Index Price when the Index Price is unavailable.
1. Index Price = The price set by the Index as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date.
2. Index Price = The price set by Coin Metrics Real-Time Rate (the “Secondary Index”) as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date (the “Secondary Index Price”). The Secondary Index Price is a real-time reference rate price, calculated using trade data from constituent markets selected by Coin Metrics, Inc. (the “Secondary Index Provider”). The Secondary Index Price is calculated by applying weighted-median techniques to such trade data where half the weight is derived from the trading volume on each constituent market and half is derived from inverse price variance, where a constituent market with high price variance as a result of outliers or market anomalies compared to other constituent markets is assigned a smaller weight. The Secondary Index Provider and the Sponsor have entered into the master services agreement, dated as of August 4, 2020, and order forms thereunder, pursuant to which the Sponsor may obtain and use the Secondary Index and the Secondary Index Price from the Secondary Index Provider. If the Secondary Index becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Secondary Index does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Secondary Index Provider to obtain the Secondary Index Price directly from the Secondary Index Provider. If after such contact the Secondary Index remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Secondary Index does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Index Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment and it will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion.
3. Index Price = The price set by the Trust's principal market (as defined in the Memorandum) (the “Tertiary Pricing Option”) as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the valuation date. The Tertiary Pricing Option is a spot price derived from the principal market's public data feed that is believed to be consistently publishing pricing information as of 4:00 p.m., New York time, and is provided to the Sponsor via an application programming interface. If the Tertiary Pricing Option becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Tertiary Pricing Option does not reflect an accurate price, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Tertiary Pricing Provider to obtain the Tertiary Pricing Option directly from the Tertiary Pricing Provider. If after such contact the Tertiary Pricing Option
4. Index Price = The Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Index Price. There are no predefined criteria to make a good faith assessment and it will be made by the Sponsor in its sole discretion.
In the event of a fork, the Index Provider may calculate the Index Price based on a digital asset that the Sponsor does not believe to be an appropriate asset of the Trust (
The Sponsor may, in its sole discretion, select a different index provider, select a different index price provided by the Index Provider, calculate the Index Price by using the cascading set of rules set forth above, or change the cascading set of rules set forth above at any time.
Authorized Participants may submit orders to create or redeem Shares under procedures for “Cash Orders.”
The Authorized Participants will deliver only cash to create Shares and will receive only cash when redeeming Shares. Further, Authorized Participants will not directly or indirectly purchase, hold, deliver, or receive AVAX as part of the creation or redemption process or otherwise direct the Trust or a third party with respect to purchasing, holding, delivering, or receiving AVAX as part of the creation or redemption process.
The Trust will create Shares by receiving AVAX from a third party that is not the Authorized Participant, and the Trust, or an affiliate of the Trust (and in any event not the Authorized Participant), is responsible for selecting the third party to deliver the AVAX. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the AVAX to the Trust nor acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the delivery of the AVAX to the Trust. The Trust will redeem Shares by delivering AVAX to a third party that is not the Authorized Participant, and the Trust, or an affiliate of the Trust (and in any event not the Authorized Participant), is responsible for selecting the third party to receive the AVAX. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the AVAX from the Trust nor acting at the direction of the Authorized Participant with respect to the receipt of the AVAX from the Trust.
Cash Orders are made through the participation of a Liquidity Provider
According to the Registration Statement, the Trust creates Baskets (as described below) of Shares only upon receipt of AVAX and redeems Shares only by distributing AVAX. “Authorized Participants” are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem Baskets. Each Authorized Participant must (i) be a registered broker-dealer and (ii) enter into an agreement with the Sponsor and Transfer Agent that provides the procedures for the creation and redemption of Baskets and for the delivery of AVAX required for the creation and redemption of Baskets via a Liquidity Provider (each, a “Participant Agreement”). An Authorized Participant may act for its own account or as agent for broker-dealers, custodians and other securities market participants that wish to create or redeem Baskets. Shareholders who are not Authorized Participants will only be able to create or redeem their Shares through an Authorized Participant.
The Trust issues Shares to and redeems Shares from Authorized Participants on an ongoing basis, but only in one or more “Baskets” (with a Basket being a block of 10,000 Shares). The Trust will not issue fractions of a Basket.
The creation and redemption of Baskets will be made only in exchange for the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the number of whole and fractional AVAX represented by each Basket being created or redeemed, which is determined by dividing (x) the number of AVAX owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., New York time, on the trade date of a creation or redemption order, after deducting the number of AVAX representing the U.S. dollar value of accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust (converted using the Index Price at such time, and carried to the eighth decimal place), by (y) the number of Shares outstanding at such time (with the quotient so obtained calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one AVAX (
The creation of Baskets requires the delivery by the Authorized Participant of a cash amount equivalent to the Total Basket Amount and the redemption of Baskets requires the distribution to the Authorized Participant of a cash amount equivalent to the Total Basket Amount.
Although the Trust creates Baskets only upon the receipt of AVAX, and redeems Baskets only by distributing AVAX, an Authorized Participant will submit Cash Orders, pursuant to which the Authorized Participant will deposit cash with, or accept cash from, the Transfer Agent in connection with the creation and redemption of Baskets.
Cash Orders will be facilitated by the Transfer Agent and Liquidity Engager, acting other than in its capacity as Sponsor. On an order-by-order basis, the Liquidity Engager will engage one or more Liquidity Providers to obtain or receive AVAX in exchange for cash in connection with such order, as described in more detail below.
Unless the Sponsor requires that a Cash Order be effected at actual execution prices (an “Actual Execution Cash Order”),
Alternatively, the Sponsor may require that a Cash Order be effected as an Actual Execution Cash Order, in its sole discretion based on market conditions and other factors existing at the time of such Cash Order, and under such circumstances, any price differential of AVAX between the trade date and the settlement date will be borne solely by the Authorized Participant until such AVAX have been received or liquidated by the Trust.
In the case of creations, to transfer the Total Basket Amount to the Trust's Digital Asset Account, the Liquidity Provider will transfer AVAX to one of the public key addresses associated with the Digital Asset Account and as provided by the Sponsor. In the case of redemptions, the same procedure is conducted, but in reverse, using the public key addresses associated with the wallet of the Liquidity Provider and as provided by such party. All such transactions will be conducted on the Avalanche Blockchain and parties acknowledge and agree that such transfers may be irreversible if done incorrectly.
Authorized Participants do not pay a transaction fee to the Trust in connection with the creation or redemption of Baskets, but there may be transaction fees associated with the validation of the transfer of AVAX by the Avalanche Network, which will be paid by the Custodian in the case of redemptions and the Authorized Participant or the Liquidity Provider in the case of creations. Service providers may charge Authorized Participants administrative fees for order placement and other services related to creation of Baskets. As discussed above, Authorized Participants will also pay the Variable Fee in connection with Variable Fee Cash Orders. Under certain circumstances, Authorized Participants may also be required to deposit additional cash in the Cash Account, or be entitled to receive excess cash from the Cash Account, in connection with creations and redemptions pursuant to Actual Execution Cash Orders. Authorized Participants will receive no fees, commissions or other form of compensation or inducement of any kind from either the Sponsor or the Trust and no such person has any obligation or responsibility to the Sponsor or the Trust to effect any sale or resale of Shares.
The following is a summary of the procedures for the creation and redemption of Baskets.
On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place an order with the Transfer Agent to create one or more Baskets.
Cash Orders for creation must be placed with the Transfer Agent no later than 1:59:59 p.m., New York time.
The Sponsor may in its sole discretion limit the number of Shares created pursuant to Cash Orders on any specified day without notice to the Authorized Participants and may direct the Marketing Agent to reject any Cash Orders in excess of such capped amount. In exercising its discretion to limit the number of Shares created pursuant to Cash Orders, the Sponsor expects to take into consideration a number of factors, including the availability of Liquidity Providers to facilitate Cash Orders and the cost of processing Cash Orders.
Creations under Cash Orders will take place as follows, where “T” is the trade date and each day in the sequence must be a business day. Before a creation order is placed, the Sponsor determines if such creation order will be a Variable Fee Cash Order or an Actual Execution Cash Order, which determination is communicated to the Authorized Participant.
The procedures by which an Authorized Participant can redeem one or more Baskets mirror the procedures for the creation of Baskets. On any business day, an Authorized Participant may place a redemption order specifying the number of Baskets to be redeemed.
The redemption of Shares pursuant to Cash Orders will only take place if approved by the Sponsor in writing, in its sole discretion and on a case-by-case basis. In exercising its discretion to approve the redemption of Shares pursuant to Cash Orders, the Sponsor expects to take into consideration a number of factors, including the availability of Liquidity Providers to facilitate Cash Orders and the cost of processing Cash Orders.
Cash Orders for redemption must be placed no later than 1:59:59 p.m., New York time on each business day. The Authorized Participants may only redeem Baskets and cannot redeem any Shares in an amount less than a Basket.
Redemptions under Cash Orders will take place as follows, where “T” is the trade date and each day in the sequence must be a business day. Before a redemption order is placed, the Sponsor determines if such redemption order will be a Variable Fee Cash Order or an Actual Execution Cash Order, which determination is communicated to the Authorized Participant.
The creation or redemption of Shares may be suspended generally, or refused with respect to particular requested creations or redemptions, during any period when the transfer books of the Transfer Agent are closed or if circumstances outside the control of the Sponsor or its delegates make it for all practicable purposes not feasible to process creation orders or redemption orders or for any other reason at any
In addition to the price transparency of the Index, the Trust will provide information regarding the Trust's AVAX holdings as well as additional data regarding the Trust. The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information: (a) the prior business day's NAV per Share; (b) the prior business day's Nasdaq official closing price; (c) calculation of the premium or discount of such Exchange official closing price against such NAV per Share; (d) data in chart form displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Exchange's official closing price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges for each of the four previous calendar quarters (or for the life of the Trust, if shorter); (e) the prospectus; and (f) other applicable quantitative information. The Trust will also disseminate the Trust's holdings on a daily basis on the Trust's website. Quotation and last sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the relevant securities information processor.
The intraday indicative value (“IIV”) will be calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per Share as a base and updating that value during the Exchange's regular market session of 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET (the “Regular Market Session”) to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's AVAX holdings during the trading day. The IIV disseminated during the Regular Market Session should not be viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, because NAV per Share is calculated only once at the end of each trading day based upon the relevant end-of-day values of the Trust's investments. The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per-Share basis every 15 seconds during the Regular Market Session through the facilities of the relevant securities information processor by market data vendors. In addition, the IIV will be available through online information services, such as Bloomberg and Reuters.
Quotation and last sale information for AVAX is disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors. Information related to trading, including price and volume information, in AVAX is available from major market data vendors and from the trading platforms on which AVAX are traded. The normal trading hours for AVAX trading platforms are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's Nasdaq official closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers.
The Commission has historically approved or disapproved exchange filings to list and trade series of Trust Issued Receipts, including spot-based Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on the basis of whether the listing exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to the underlying commodity to be held.
The Commission has issued orders granting approval for proposals to list bitcoin- and ether-based commodity trust shares and bitcoin- and ether-based trust issued receipts (these proposed funds are nearly identical to the Trust, but proposed to hold bitcoin and ether, respectively, instead of AVAX) (“Spot Bitcoin ETPs” and “Spot ETH ETPs”). In both the Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order and Spot ETH ETP Approval Order, the Commission found that sufficient “other means” of preventing fraud and manipulation had been demonstrated that justified dispensing with a surveillance-sharing agreement with a market of significant size. Specifically, the Commission found that while the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) futures market for both bitcoin and ether were not of “significant size” with respect to the spot market, the
As further discussed below, both the Exchange and the Sponsor believe that this proposal and the analysis to be included are sufficient to establish that there are sufficient “other means” of preventing fraud and manipulation that warrant dispensing of the surveillance-sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size, as was done with both Spot Bitcoin ETPs and Spot ETH ETPs, and that this proposal should be approved.
The Commission has approved numerous series of Trust Issued Receipts,
As noted above, the Commission has recognized that the “regulated market of significant size” standard is not the only means for satisfying Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, specifically providing that a listing exchange could demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement.
[B]ased on the record before the Commission and the improved quality of the correlation analysis in the record, including the Commission's own analysis, the Commission is able to conclude that fraud or manipulation that impacts prices in spot bitcoin markets would likely similarly impact CME bitcoin futures prices. And because the CME's surveillance can assist in detecting those impacts on CME bitcoin futures prices, the Exchanges' comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME—a U.S. regulated market whose bitcoin futures market is consistently highly correlated to spot bitcoin, albeit not of “significant size” related to spot bitcoin—can be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [Spot Bitcoin ETPs].
Today, Coinbase Derivatives, LLC (“Coinbase Derivatives”) offers trading in AVAX futures. Nasdaq has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with Coinbase Derivatives via its common membership in the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”).
The Shares will be subject to Nasdaq Rule 5711(d)(vi), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The Exchange will obtain a representation that the Trust's NAV per Share will be calculated daily and will be made available to all market participants at the same time. A minimum of 40,000 Shares will be required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Exchange. Upon termination of the Trust, the Shares will be removed from listing. The Trustee will be a trust company having substantial capital and surplus and the experience and facilities for handling corporate trust business, as required under Nasdaq Rule 5711(d)(vi)(D) and no change will be made to the Trustee without prior notice to and approval of the Exchange.
As required in Nasdaq Rule 5711(d)(viii), the Exchange notes that any registered market maker (“Market Maker”) in the Shares must file with the Exchange, in a manner prescribed by the Exchange, and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading the underlying commodity, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives, which the registered Market Maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion. No registered Market Maker in the Shares shall trade in the underlying commodity, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives, in an account in which a registered Market Maker, directly or indirectly, controls trading activities, or has a direct interest in the profits or losses thereof, which has not been reported to the Exchange as required by Nasdaq Rule 5711(d). In addition to the existing obligations under Exchange rules regarding the production of books and records, the registered Market Maker in the Shares shall make available to the Exchange such books, records or other information pertaining to transactions by such entity or any limited partner, officer or approved person thereof, registered or non-registered employee affiliated with such entity for its or their own accounts in the underlying commodity, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives, as may be requested by the Exchange.
The Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying AVAX, AVAX futures contracts, or any other AVAX derivative through members
As a general matter, the Exchange has regulatory jurisdiction over its members, and their associated persons. The Exchange also has regulatory jurisdiction over any person or entity controlling a member, as well as a subsidiary or affiliate of a member that is in the securities business. A subsidiary or affiliate of a member organization that does business only in commodities would not be subject to Exchange jurisdiction, but the Exchange could obtain information regarding the activities of such subsidiary or affiliate through surveillance sharing agreements with regulatory organizations of which such subsidiary or affiliate is a member.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. The Exchange will allow trading in the Shares from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. ET. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. The Shares of the Trust will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria set forth in Nasdaq Rule 5711(d) and will comply with the requirements of Rule 10A-3 of the Act.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rules 4120 and 4121, including without limitation the conditions specified in Nasdaq Rule 4120(a)(9) and (10) and the trading pauses under Nasdaq Rules 4120(a)(11) and (12).
Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) the extent to which trading is not occurring in the AVAX underlying the Shares; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present.
If the IIV or the value of the Index is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the value of the Index occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the value of the Index persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption.
In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV per Share with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV per Share is available to all market participants.
The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. The surveillance program includes real-time patterns for price and volume movements and post-trade surveillance patterns (
The Exchange will require the Trust to represent to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and listed AVAX futures from such markets and other entities. The Exchange also may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, listed AVAX futures via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an information circular (“Information Circular”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (1) the procedures for creations and redemptions of Shares in Baskets (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) Section 10 of Nasdaq General Rule 9, which imposes suitability obligations on Nasdaq members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (3) how information regarding the IIV and NAV is disseminated; (4) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the pre-market and post-market sessions when an updated IIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (5) the requirement that members deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
The Information Circular will also reference the fact that there is no regulated source of last sale information regarding AVAX, that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the trading of AVAX as a commodity.
Additionally, the Information Circular will reference that the Trust is subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Information Circular will also disclose the trading hours of the Shares. The Information Circular will disclose that information about the Shares will be publicly available on the Trust's website.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission has approved numerous series of Trust Issued Receipts, including Commodity-Based Trust Shares, to be listed on U.S. national securities exchanges. In order for any proposed rule change from an exchange to be approved, the Commission must determine that, among other things, the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, specifically including: (i) the requirement that a national securities exchange's rules are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; and (ii) the requirement that an exchange proposal be designed, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
As noted above, the Commission has recognized that the “regulated market of significant size” standard is not the only means for satisfying Section 6(b)(5) of the act, specifically providing that a listing exchange could demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement with the underlying spot market. The Exchange and Sponsor believe that such conditions are present. As discussed above, in approving the Spot Bitcoin ETPs, the Commission found that there were “sufficient `other means' of preventing fraud and manipulation,” including that:
[B]ased on the record before the Commission and the improved quality of the correlation analysis in the record, including the Commission's own analysis, the Commission is able to conclude that fraud or manipulation that impacts prices in spot bitcoin markets would likely similarly impact CME bitcoin futures prices. And because the CME's surveillance can assist in detecting those impacts on CME bitcoin futures prices, the Exchanges' comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME—a U.S. regulated market whose bitcoin futures market is consistently highly correlated to spot bitcoin, albeit not of “significant size” related to spot bitcoin—can be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [Spot Bitcoin ETPs].
As discussed above, Coinbase Derivatives offers trading in AVAX futures. Nasdaq has a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with Coinbase Derivatives via its common membership in ISG, which facilitates the sharing of information that is available to Coinbase Derivatives through its surveillance of its markets, including its surveillance of Coinbase Derivatives' AVAX futures market. Similar to the Spot Bitcoin and Spot ETH ETPs previously approved by the SEC, Nasdaq's ability to obtain information regarding trading in the AVAX futures from other markets that are members of the ISG (specifically Coinbase Derivatives) would assist Nasdaq in detecting and deterring misconduct.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria set forth in Nasdaq Rule 5711(d). The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. As discussed above, the surveillance program includes real-time patterns for price and volume movements and post-trade surveillance patterns (
The Exchange will require the Trust to represent to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under the Nasdaq 5800 Series. In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
The Exchange will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and listed AVAX futures from such markets and other entities.
Trading in Shares of the Trust will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market.
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of Shares that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
For all the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change rather will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The principal purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify ICC's fee schedule to introduce a Client Volume Incentive Program. These revisions do not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
The proposed changes are intended to modify ICC's fee schedule to introduce a Client Volume Incentive Program. ICC maintains a client fee schedule
Under the amended client fee schedule, the Client Volume Incentive Program will apply automatically to all clients of Clearing Participants, without further action by clients or Clearing Participants, and provide a tiered discount schedule based on client fees billed during the calendar year. Specifically, for any client with annual billed fees across all ICC credit default swap (“CDS”) instrument categories (
ICC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, including Section 17A of the Act
ICC believes that the proposed volume discount in client fees have been set at an appropriate level. In determining the appropriate discount level and program structure, ICC took into account factors such as client clearing volume, related revenue, costs and expenses, and the goal of increasing market participation in the clearing service, including the expected impacts of different fee levels. In ICC's view, its client fees, after taking into account the discount under the proposed incentive program, will be reasonable and appropriate for its business as the discounts take into account anticipated volumes, costs and expenses, and revenues under each contract type, and they consider current and past market activity as well as anticipated market activity with respect to clearing CDS contracts at ICC. The Client Volume Incentive Program is designed to encourage the clearing of contracts at ICC by clients while properly compensating ICC for the risks, costs and expenses of clearing CDS contracts.
Moreover, the proposed discount will be available to all clients clearing contracts at ICC, based on their clearing activity. The Client Volume Incentive Program under the amended client fee schedule automatically, and without further action by clients or Clearing Participants, applies to all clients. ICC's fee schedules, including the proposed incentive program, will continue to be transparent and to apply equally to market participants clearing indexes, single names, and index option CDS contracts at ICC. Therefore, the proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among participants, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.
ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. As discussed above, the proposed changes modify ICC's client fee schedule to introduce a Client Volume Incentive Program for clearing all categories of CDS contracts at ICC and will be available to all clients based on their clearing activity. The implementation of such changes does not preclude other market participants from offering similar incentive programs. Moreover, ICC does not believe that the amendments would adversely affect the cost of clearing for clients, the ability of market participants to access clearing services, or the market for cleared services generally. Accordingly, ICC does not believe the amendments impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICE Clear Credit will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICE Clear Credit.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
Send paper comments in triplicate to Vanessa Countryman, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions should refer to file number SR-ICC-2025-004 and should be submitted on or before May 7, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2, Customer Rebate Program, to provide that if a member or member organization qualifies for two rebate incentives offered by the Exchange in notes “*” and “#” in a given month, the Exchange will only pay the higher of the two rebates in that month.
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 the Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2, Customer Rebate Program, to provide that if a member or member organization qualifies for two rebate incentives offered by the Exchange in notes “*” and “#” in a given month, the Exchange will only pay the higher of the two rebates in that month.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2, “Customer Rebate Program.” Today, the Exchange pays rebates on five Customer Rebate Tiers according to four categories. The Customer Rebate Tiers below are calculated by totaling Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options (including SPY) that are electronically-delivered and executed, except volume associated with electronic Qualified Contingent Cross Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 12.
The Exchange pays a Category A Rebate to members who execute electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Symbols and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Symbols in Options 7, Section 4 symbols.
The Exchange pays a Category B Rebate on Customer PIXL Orders
The Exchange pays a Category C Rebate to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders
The Exchange pays a Category D Rebate to members executing electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Non-Penny Symbols in Options 7, Section 4 symbols. Rebates are paid on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Options 7, Section 4 symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order interest. Customer Complex PIXL Orders that execute against a Complex PIXL Initiating Order are not paid a rebate under any circumstances. The Category D Rebate is not paid when an electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order, including Customer Complex PIXL Order, executes against another electronically-delivered Customer Complex Order.
Today, in note “*” the Exchange pays a $0.02 per contract Category A and B rebate and a $0.03 per contract Category C and D rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 and 3 rebate, provided the Lead Market Maker,
In addition, today, in note “#” the Exchange pays a $0.04 per contract Category C rebate and a $0.02 per contract Category D rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2, 3, 4 and 5 rebates to members or member organizations or member or member organization affiliated under Common Ownership provided the member or member organization qualified for any Market Access and Routing Subsidy or “MARS” Payments in Options 7, Section 6, Part E.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to provide that in the event that a member or member organization has qualified for the rebates in both notes * and # in a given month, the Exchange will only pay the higher of the two rebates in that month. While the Exchange is proposing to pay only the higher of the two potential rebates, note * or note #, for which the member or member organization qualified for in a given month, the Exchange believes that the Customer Rebates and the additional incentives in these two notes will continue to incentivize members and member organizations to execute against Customer orders on Phlx for the opportunity to earn these rebates.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Likewise, in
Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers'. . . .”
The Exchange's proposal to pay only the higher of the note * or note # rebates in the event that a member or member organization has qualified for both rebates in a given month is reasonable because the Exchange will continue to pay the Customer Rebates in Options 7, Section 2 in addition to the higher of the note * and note # rebates in that month to any qualifying member or member organization. The Exchange will no longer aggregate both rebates (note * and note #) in addition to the Customer Rebate Tier in a given month, even if the member or member organization qualified for both rebates in note * and note #. Despite this proposal, the Exchange believes that the Customer Rebates and the additional incentives will continue to incentivize members and member organizations to execute against Customer orders on Phlx for the opportunity to earn these rebates.
The Exchange's proposal to pay only the higher of note * or note # rebates in a given month in the event that a member or member organization has qualified for both rebates (note * and note #) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would uniformly pay only the higher of the note * and note # rebates in addition to the Customer Rebate Tier in a given month to any member or member organization who qualified for the rebates.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets and will offer market participants with another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees 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's proposal to pay only the higher of note * or note # rebates in a given month in the event that a member or member organization has qualified for both rebates (note * and note #) does not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange would uniformly pay only the higher of the note * and note # rebates in addition to the Customer Rebate Tier in a given month to any member or member organization who qualified for the rebates.
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 amend Rule 7.18E (“Halts”) to effectuate amendments to Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Restated CQ Plan (together, the “Amended CTA Plan”). In addition, the Exchange proposes to make conforming changes to Rules 1.1E, 7.11E, and 7.35E. 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 Rule 7.18E (“Halts”) to effectuate amendments to Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and the Restated CQ Plan (together, the “Amended CTA Plan”).
The Exchange has been working with other SROs to establish common criteria and procedures for halting and resuming trading in equity securities in the event of regulatory or operational issues. These common standards are designed to ensure that events that might impact multiple exchanges are handled in a consistent manner that is transparent. The Exchange believes that implementation of these common standards will assist the SROs in maintaining fair and orderly markets. Notwithstanding the development of these common standards, the Exchange will retain discretion in certain instances as to whether and how to handle halts, as is discussed below.
Every U.S.-listed equity security has its primary listing on a specific stock exchange (its “Primary Listing Market”)
All SROs have rules that require them to honor a Regulatory Halt. The Exchange, as a Primary Listing Market, also has rules outlining the circumstances in which it will halt trading in its listed securities, including situations in which such halts are for regulatory purposes—and therefore are applicable to all markets trading the security—or for operational purposes, which would not halt trading in other markets.
While the Exchange's existing rules generally have worked as intended to afford the Exchange authority to initiate a Regulatory Halt in appropriate cases, the Exchange proposes to amend its rules to conform to the Amended CTA Plan.
The complex and interconnected market structure of the United States relies on consolidated market data processed and disseminated by the SIPs. In certain circumstances, the loss of this information or issues with the accuracy or timeliness of the information might cause a Primary Listing Market to determine that a trading halt is appropriate. The Exchange believes that providing further details in its rules will assist market participants in better understanding how various scenarios could be handled.
As noted above, the proposed changes that would be uniformly applied across SROs are those that relate to cross-market events as set forth in the Amended CTA Plan. However, there will still be situations where personnel at the Primary Listing Market will need to determine the impact of the cross-market event on the securities listed on its market and use discretion in deciding whether to halt trading in some or all securities during a cross-market event that affects securities listed on different markets. In making a determination as to whether to declare a Regulatory Halt, the Primary Listing Market will consider the totality of information available concerning the severity of the issue, its likely duration, and its potential impact on Member Firms
While the Exchange and the other SROs intend to harmonize certain aspects of their trading halt rules, other elements of the rules will continue to be unique to each market. The Exchange believes that this is appropriate to reflect different products listed or traded on each market and the unique relationship of the Primary Listing Market to its listed companies. It is anticipated that these unique rules would most likely be invoked in cases where the Primary Listing Market's decision on whether to institute a Regulatory Halt turns on specific information related to an individual security or issuer, such as the dissemination of news and the issuer's ability to meet listing standards, rather than broader market issue stemming from Extraordinary Market Activity or the loss of consolidated market data from a SIP.
The Exchange will implement all of the changes proposed herein in conjunction with other SROs implementing the necessary rule changes. The Exchange will publish a trader notice at least 30 business days before implementing the proposed changes.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.18E to add new definitions and proposed categories of regulatory and operational halts that are designed to address the type of market-wide events described in the Amended CTA Plan. Amended Rule 7.18E would also cross-reference the Exchange's current halt authority. Because current subsections of Rule 7.18E would be renumbered, the Exchange proposes to update a cross reference to Rule 7.18E in Rule 7.35E. The Exchange also proposes to rename Rule 7.18E from “Halts” to “Trading Halts.”
Amended Rule 7.18E(a) would set forth definitions, many of which cross-reference definitions in the Amended CTA Plan.
“Extraordinary Market Activity” means a disruption or malfunction of any electronic quotation, communication, reporting, or execution system operated by, or linked to, the Processor or a Trading Center or a member of such Trading Center that has a severe and continuing negative impact, on a market-wide basis, on quoting, order, or trading activity or on the availability of market information necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market. For purposes of this definition, a severe and continuing negative impact on quoting, order, or trading activity includes (i) a series of quotes, orders, or transactions at prices substantially unrelated to the current market for the security or securities; (ii) duplicative or erroneous quoting, order, trade
The Exchange notes that the three scenarios included in the proposed new definition would not be exhaustive. This enables the Primary Listing Market to act in the best interests of the market when confronted with unexpected events. However, the Exchange believes that the three scenarios included in the rule cover many of the events that are most likely to occur.
• “
• “
• “
• “
The Exchange proposes to adopt a category of Regulatory Halt, called a “
a halt declared by the Primary Listing Market in trading in one or more securities on all Trading Centers for regulatory purposes, including for the dissemination of material news, news pending, suspensions, or where otherwise necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market. A Regulatory Halt includes a trading pause triggered by Limit Up Limit Down,
The term “Regulatory Halt” would include the various existing reasons for a Regulatory Halt that are currently enumerated in the Exchange's rules and Company Guide, as well as the proposed new categories of Regulatory Halt from the Amended CTA Plan: (1) a SIP Halt (due to a SIP Outage or Material SIP Latency), (2) a halt based on Extraordinary Market Activity, and (3) a halt in the event of a national, regional, or localized disruption that necessitates a Regulatory Halt to maintain a fair and orderly market.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b) would set forth requirements relating to Regulatory Halts.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(1) would describe the Exchange's authority to initiate a Regulatory Halt. In this subsection, the Exchange would identify all of the bases for its Regulatory Halt authority, including cross-referencing to current rules describing existing halt authority and by adding the new Regulatory Halt authority consistent with the Amended CTA Plan.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(1)(A) would describe “Mandatory Halts,” where the Exchange must issue a Regulatory Halt. The proposed rule would identify four categories of mandatory Regulatory Halts:
• Pursuant to Rule 7.11E concerning Limit Up Limit Down.
• Pursuant to Rule 7.12E concerning Market-Wide Circuit Breaker.
• As provided for in Section 107 of the NYSE American LLC Company Guide (“Company Guide”). (Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(1)(A)(iii)). This proposed rule would reference the Exchange's existing authority to halt the market as specified in the Company Guide.
• For a security for which the Exchange is the Primary Listing Market before the end of the Late Trading Session on the day immediately before the market effective date of a reverse stock split (“Reverse Stock Split Halt”). (Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(1)(A)(iv)). This proposed rule is based on current Rule 7.18E(f) and would effectuate Section XI(a)(iii)(1) of the Amended CTA Plan, which provides that a Primary Listing Exchange may declare a Regulatory Halt “as provided for in the rules of the Primary Listing Market.” The Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 7.18E(f) as duplicative of the proposed rule text.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(1)(B) would describe “Discretionary Halts,” where “the Exchange may declare a Regulatory Halt in trading for any security for which it is the Primary Listing Market.” The proposed rule would list four bases for the Exchange to declare a discretionary Regulatory Halt:
• Consistent with current authority as provided for in Section 107 and 402 of the Company Guide.
• For a security that is the subject of an initial pricing on the Exchange and that has not been listed on a national securities exchange immediately prior to initial pricing (an “Initial Listing Regulatory Halt”). (Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(1)(B)(ii)). This proposed rule is based on current Rule 7.18E(e) and would effectuate Section XI(a)(iii)(1) of the Amended CTA Plan, which provides that a Primary Listing Exchange may declare a Regulatory Halt “as provided for in the rules of the Primary Listing Market.” The Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 7.18E(e) as duplicative of the proposed rule text.
• If the Exchange determines that there is a SIP Outage, Material SIP Latency, or Extraordinary Market Activity. (Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(1)(B)(iii)). This proposed rule would effectuate Section XI(a)(iii)(2) of the Amended CTA Plan, which provides this authority.
• In the event of national, regional, or localized disruption that necessitates a Regulatory Halt to maintain a fair and orderly market. (Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(1)(B)(iv)). This proposed rule would effectuate Section XI(a)(iii)(3) of the Amended CTA Plan, which provides this authority.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(2) would describe communications, consistent with Section XI(a)(viii) of the Amended CTA Plan. The proposed rule would provide that whenever, in the exercise of its regulatory functions, the Exchange as Primary Listing Market for an Eligible Security determines it is appropriate to initiate a Regulatory Halt, it will notify all other Participants and the Processor of such Regulatory Halt as well as provide notice that a Regulatory Halt has been lifted using such protocols and other emergency procedures as may be mutually agreed to between the Operating Committee and the Exchange. The Processor shall disseminate to Participants notice of the Regulatory Halt (as well as notice of the lifting of a Regulatory Halt) through the high speed line or through the “high speed line” under the CQ Plan, and any other means the Processor, in its sole discretion, considers appropriate. Each Participant shall be required to continuously monitor these communication protocols established by the Operating Committee and the Processor during market hours, and the failure of a Participant to do so shall not prevent the Exchange from initiating a Regulatory Halt in accordance with the SIP Plan and the procedures specified in these rules.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(3) would specify how the Exchange, as a Primary Listing Market, would initiate a Regulatory Halt. The proposed rule is consistent with the procedures for initiating a Regulatory Halt as set forth in the Section XI(a)(iv) of the Amended CTA Plan.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(3)(A) would provide, consistent with Section XI(a)(iv)(A) of the Amended CTA Plan, that the start time of a Regulatory Halt would be when the Primary Listing Market declares the halt, regardless of whether an issue with communications impacts the dissemination of the notice. This proposal would provide market participants with certainty on the official start time of the Regulatory Halt. Under the proposed rule, the start time is fixed by the Primary Listing Market; it is not dependent on whether notice is disseminated immediately. This will avoid possible disagreement if the Regulatory Halt time were tied to dissemination or receipt of notification, which may occur at different times. The Exchange recognizes that in situations where communication is interrupted, trades may continue to occur until news of the Regulatory Halt reaches all trading centers. However, a fixed “official” Regulatory Halt start time will allow SROs to revisit trades after the fact and determine in a consistent manner whether specific trades should stand.
Second, proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(3)(B) would provide, consistent with Section XI(a)(iv)(B) of the Amended CTA Plan, that if the SIP is unable to disseminate notice of a Regulatory Halt or the Exchange is not open for trading, the Exchange would take reasonable steps to provide notice of a Regulatory Halt in the manner set forth in the Amended CTA Plan. Currently, after receiving notice from the Primary Listing Market, the SIP disseminates an automated, machine-readable trade halt messages to notify Trading Centers to automatically halt their order matching and order dissemination systems. Many Trading Centers rely solely on such SIP dissemination of a Regulatory Halt. Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(3)(B) would provide that the Exchange would take additional, reasonable steps to notify Trading Centers of a Regulatory Halt. The Amended CTA Plan provides that if the SIP is unable to disseminate notice of a Regulatory Halt, the other available means of dissemination that a Primary Listing Market could use would include:
• Proprietary data feeds that contain the same quote and trade information
• Posting on a publicly available Exchange website; or
• System status messages that are disseminated to market participants who sign up to receive such messages.
These additional sources for notice of a Regulatory Halt would provide redundancy if either the SIP or the Exchange is unable to communicate via the existing automated procedures. Although it may take longer for market participants to react to messages received in less automated formats, the use of multiple forms of dissemination will increase the likelihood that participants receive this important information. It will also assist participants that do not subscribe to the Exchange's proprietary feeds in getting regulatory notices. As noted above, in situations where communication is interrupted, the Exchange and other SROs would retain the ability to break trades that occurred after the start of the Regulatory Halt in appropriate circumstances, thereby lessening the potential impact on participants that were delayed in halting trading.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(3)(C) would provide, consistent with Section XI(a)(iv)(C) of the Amended CTA Plan, that except in exigent circumstances, the Exchange would not declare a Regulatory Halt retroactive to a time earlier than the notice of such halt. Feedback from market participants has been that it is very disruptive to trading when the Primary Listing Market sets the start of a trading halt for a time earlier than the notice of the halt.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(3)(D) would provide, consistent with Section XI(a)(iii)(B) of the Amended CTA Plan, that in making a determination to declare a Regulatory Halt in trading any security for which the Exchange is the Primary Listing Market, the Exchange will consider the totality of information available concerning the severity of the issue, its likely duration, and potential impact on Member Firms and other market participants and will make a good-faith determination that the criteria for declaring the Regulatory Halt have been satisfied and that a Regulatory Halt is appropriate. The Exchange will consult, if feasible, with the affected Trading Center(s), other SIP Plan Participants, or the Processor, as applicable, regarding the scope of the issue and what steps are being taken to address the issue. Once a Regulatory Halt has been declared, the Exchange will continue to evaluate the circumstances to determine when trading may resume in accordance with its Rules.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(4) would specify how the Exchange would respond to Regulatory Halts declared by other Primary Listing Markets, referred to by the Exchange as a “UTP Regulatory Halt.”
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(4)(A) would provide that the Exchange would halt trading in a UTP Security when the Primary Listing Market declares a Regulatory Halt for any such securities. This proposed rule text is based on Section XI(a)(iii) of the Amended CTA Plan, as well as the first sentence of current Rule 7.18E(a),
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(4)(B)(i), (ii), and (iii) would set forth rules for trading halts in UTP Exchange Traded Products.
The SROs have jointly developed processes to govern the resumption of trading in the event of a Regulatory Halt. While the actual process of re-launching trading will remain unique to each exchange (for example, trading in Exchange-listed securities resumes on the Exchange in most cases pursuant to Rule 7.35E), the proposed rule would harmonize certain common elements of the reopening process that would benefit from consistency across markets. These common elements include the primacy of the Primary Listing Market in resumption decisions, the requirement that the Primary Listing Market make its determination to resume trading in good faith, and certain parts of the complex process for reopening trading after a SIP Halt. With respect to a SIP Halt, common elements of the reopening process include the interaction among SROs (including the Primary Listing Market with the SIP), the requirement that the Primary Listing Market terminate a SIP Halt with a notification that specifies a SIP Halt Resume Time, the minimum quoting times before resumption of trading, the cutoff time after which trading would not resume during Core Trading Hours, and the time when trading may resume if the Primary Listing Market does not open a security within the amount of time specified in its rules after the SIP Halt Resume Time.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(5) provides the process for resuming trading upon the conclusion of Regulatory Halts other than SIP Halts. This new rule would effectuate Section XI(a)(v) of the Amended CTA Plan.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(5)(A) would make clear that the Exchange, as the Primary Listing Market, is responsible for declaring a resumption of trading when it makes a good-faith determination that trading may resume in a fair and orderly manner in accordance with its rules.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(5)(B) would provide that the Exchange would resume trading after a Regulatory Halt other than a SIP Halt with a Trading Halt Auction pursuant to Rule 7.35E, except in the situations enumerated in sub-paragraphs (i) through (v).
Sub-paragraph (i) would specify that the Exchange would resume trading after a Limit Up Limit Down trading pause as specified in Rule 7.11E.
Sub-paragraph (ii) would specify that the Exchange would resume trading after a Market-Wide Circuit Breaker halt as specified in Rule 7.12E.
Sub-paragraph (iii) would specify that the Exchange would resume trading after a Reverse Stock Split Halt with a Trading Halt Auction at 9:00 a.m. ET on the effective date of the reverse stock split.
Sub-paragraph (iv) would specify that the Exchange would terminate an Initial Listing Regulatory Halt when the security is open for trading.
Sub-paragraph (v) would provide that the Exchange would resume trading after a UTP Regulatory Halt other than a SIP Halt by starting to accept orders after the Exchange receives notification
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6) would address resumption of trading after a SIP Halt. This new rule would effectuate Section XI(a)(vi) of the Amended CTA Plan.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6)(A) would establish rules for the resumption of trading following a SIP Halt initiated by the Exchange. Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6)(A)(i), which is based on Section XI(a)(vi)(A) of the Amended CTA Plan, would provide that the Exchange would determine when a SIP Halt would end, which would be defined as the “SIP Halt Resume Time,” which is also defined in the Proposed Amended CTA Plan.
The SROs' experience with such events is that communication among SROs, SIPs, and market participants is the best way to ensure that the Primary Listing Market has access to available information and to coordinate the reopening of trading in an orderly manner. In addition, the SROs anticipate that market participants and other affected entities will have access to information about the issue causing the SIP Halt, the duration of the halt, and the resumption process through updated communications from the SIP processor, Operating Committee, and Primary Listing Market. Accordingly, the proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6)(A)(i) would further provide that when determining whether to resume trading, the Exchange would include input from the SIP processor, the Operating Committee, or the operator of the system in question (as well as any Trading Center(s) to which such system is linked), regarding operational readiness to resume trading. The rule would further provide that the Exchange would retain discretion to delay the SIP Halt Resume Time if it believes trading would not resume in a fair and orderly manner.
Under proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6)(A)(ii), the Exchange would terminate a SIP Halt with a notification that specifies the SIP Halt Resume Time. Section XI(a)(vi)(B) of the Amended CTA Plan directs the Primary Listing Market to specify in its rules (a) the minimum notice it will provide of a SIP Halt Resume Time, during which period market participants may enter orders in the affected securities, and (b) the last SIP Halt Resume Time before the end of regular trading hours. In accordance with that direction, Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6)(A)(ii) would state that the Exchange would provide for a minimum five-minute notice of a SIP Halt Resume Time, which is sufficiently in advance of resumption to permit market participants to prepare their systems for trading.
In addition, proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6)(A)(ii) would establish that during Core Trading Hours, the last SIP Halt Resume Time would be 15 minutes before the end of Core Trading Hours,
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6)(A)(ii) would further provide the Exchange, as the Primary Listing Market, with discretion to stagger the SIP Halt Resume Times for multiple securities in order to reopen in a fair and orderly manner. For example, this discretion could be used to open trading in a small number of symbols to ensure that systems are operating normally before resuming trading in the remaining symbols.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6)(A)(iii) would provide that for a SIP Halt initiated by the Exchange, the Exchange would reopen trading with a Trading Halt Auction. Because a SIP Halt is a Regulatory Halt, such Trading Halt Auction would be subject to the extension logic and widened auction collars as described in Rule 7.35E(e)(5)-(7).
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(6)(B) would address resumption of trading after a SIP Halt initiated by a UTP Listing Market. The proposed rule would provide that for UTP Securities affected by a SIP Halt, during Core Trading Hours, the Exchange may resume trading in the affected security after trading in the affected security has resumed on the UTP Listing Market or notice has been received from the UTP Listing Market that such trading may resume. The proposed rule would further provide that during Core Trading Hours, if the UTP Listing Market does
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(7) would describe how the Exchange would process new and existing orders during a Regulatory Halt. This proposed rule text is based on current Rule 7.18E(b) and (c), with differences described below. The Exchange proposes to delete current Rule 7.18E(b) and (c) and their sub-paragraphs as duplicative of the proposed rule text.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(7)(A) would address how the Exchange would process new and existing orders during a Regulatory Halt that will reopen with a Trading Halt Auction. This proposed rule is based on current Rule 7.18E(c) with differences to use new terminology relating to Regulatory Halts instead of referring to “securities listed on the Exchange during a halt, suspension or pause.” The Exchange also proposes to specify that the order processing described in this rule would only be applicable for Regulatory Halts if the Exchange reopens with a Trading Halt Auction. Proposed Rules 7.18E(b)(7)(A)(i)-(vi) are based on current Rule 7.18E(c)(1)-(6) without any differences.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(7)(B) would address how the Exchange would process new and existing orders in a UTP Security during a UTP Regulatory Halt (including a SIP Halt initiated by a UTP Listing Market). This proposed rule text is based on current Rule 7.18E(b) with non-substantive differences to use new terminology. Proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(7)(B)(i)-(vi) are based on current Rule 7.18E(b)(1)-(6) without any substantive differences.
The Exchange proposes to address Operational Halts in proposed Rule 7.18E(c). As noted above, an Operational Halt is non-regulatory in nature and applies only to the exchange that calls the halt. As described above, the Exchange has always had the capacity to implement operational halts and local trading suspensions in specified circumstances, but such halts are not currently referred to as “operational halts” in the Exchange's rules.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(1) would specify the Exchange's authority to initiate an Operational Halt, which is discretionary, and provide that the Exchange may declare an Operational Halt for any security trading on the Exchange: if it is experiencing Extraordinary Market Activity on the Exchange (Proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(1)(A)); if a Primary Listing Market imposes an Operational Halt in a security that is a derivative or component of a security listed on the Exchange (Proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(1)(B));
Under proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(2), the Exchange would notify the Processor if it has concerns about its ability to collect and transmit quotes, orders, or last sale prices, or where it has declared an Operational Halt or suspension of trading in one or more Eligible Securities (as that term is defined in the CTA Plan), pursuant to the procedures adopted by the Operating Committee.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(3) would set out rules for order processing during an Operational Halt. In such case, proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(3)(A) would provide that the Exchange would cancel all unexecuted orders resting on the Exchange Book, including Auction-Only Orders, and proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(3)(B) would provide that the Exchange would reject all other incoming order instructions until the Exchange resumes trading. The Exchange currently processes new and existing orders in this manner when it suspends trading.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(4) would specify how the Exchange resumes trading after an Operational Halt. Proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(4)(A) would provide that the Exchange would resume trading following an Operational Halt when it determines that trading may resume in a fair and orderly manner consistent with the Exchange's rules. Proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(4)(B) would address “Communications,” and provide that trading in a halted security shall resume at the time specified by the Exchange in a notice. It would further specify that Exchange will notify all other Plan participants and the SIP of such Operational Halt as well as provide notice that an Operational Halt has been lifted using such protocols and other emergency procedures as may be mutually agreed to between the Operating Committee and the Exchange. If the SIP is unable to disseminate notice of an Operational Halt or the Exchange is not open for trading, the Exchange would take reasonable steps to provide notice of an Operational Halt, which shall include both the type and start time of the Operational Halt. Each Plan participant shall continuously monitor communication protocols
The Exchange also proposes non-substantive amendments of three other rules.
First, as noted above, the Exchange proposes a non-substantive amendment to the definition of “UTP Regulatory Halt” in Rule 1.1E(kk) to cross-reference the definition of “Regulatory Halt” in proposed Rule 7.18E and delete the clauses “trade, suspension, halt, or pause” and “that requires all market centers to halt trading in that security” as duplicative of the proposed new definition of Regulatory Halt.
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.11E (Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Pauses in Individual Securities Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility). Current Rule 7.11E(b)(2) provides that if a primary listing market other than the Exchange issues a Trading Pause, the Exchange will resume trading as provided for in Rule 7.18E(a) regarding UTP Regulatory Halts. The Exchange proposes to replace the term “primary listing market” with “UTP Listing Market” for clarity, and proposes to change the current cross-reference to Rule 7.18E(a) to refer instead to amended Rule 7.18E(b)(5)(B)(v), which would encompass the provisions of current Rule 7.18E(a).
Third, the Exchange proposes to amend Rules 7.35E(e)(3) and (e)(8) to update cross-references from current Rule 7.18E(c) to proposed Rule 7.18E(b)(7)(A).
The Exchange will implement all of the changes proposed herein in conjunction with the Processors and the other SROs implementing the necessary rule changes and related technology and procedural changes. The Exchange will publish a trader notice at least 30 business days before implementing the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
As described above, the Exchange and other SROs are seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to halting and resuming trading in U.S.-listed equity securities. The Exchange believes that the proposed rules will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the situations in which trading will be halted and the process through which that halt will be implemented and terminated. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. equities exchanges and in the over-the-counter market while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors, and protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
As discussed previously, the Exchange believes that the various provisions of the proposed rules that will apply to all SROs are focused on the type of cross-market event where a consistent approach will assist market participants and reduce confusion during a crisis. Because market participants often trade the same security across multiple venues and trade securities listed on different exchanges as part of a common strategy, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules will lessen the risk that market participants holding a basket of securities will have to deal with divergent outcomes depending on where the securities are listed or traded. Conversely, the proposed rules would still allow individual SROs to react differently to events that impact various securities or markets in different ways. This avoids the “brittle market” risk where an isolated event at a single market forces all markets trading equities securities to halt or halts trading in all securities where the issue affected only a subset of securities. By addressing both concerns, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules further the Act's goal of maintaining fair and orderly markets.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule's focus of responsibility on the Primary Listing Market for decisions related to a Regulatory Halt and the resumption of trading is consistent with the Act, which itself imposes obligations on exchanges with respect to issuers that are listed. As is currently the case, the Primary Listing Market would be responsible for the many regulatory functions related to its listings, including the determination of when to declare a Regulatory Halt. While these core responsibilities remain with the Primary Listing Market, trading in the security can occur on multiple exchanges that have unlisted trading privileges for the security or in the over-the-counter market, regulated by FINRA. These other venues are responsible for monitoring activity on their own markets, but also have agreed to honor a Regulatory Halt.
The proposed changes relating to Regulatory Halts would ensure that all SROs handle the situations covered therein in a consistent manner that would prevent conflicting outcomes in cross-market events, and ensure that all Trading Centers recognize a Regulatory Halt declared by the Primary Listing Market. The changes are consistent with and implement the Amended CTA Plan. While the proposed rules recognize one Primary Listing Market for each security, the rules do not prevent an issuer from switching its listing to another national securities exchange that would thereafter assume the responsibilities of Primary Listing Market for that security. Similarly, the proposed rules set forth a fair and objective standard to determine which exchange will be the Primary Listing Market in the case of dually-listed securities: the exchange on which the security has been listed the longest.
The Exchange believes that the other definitions in the proposed rules are also consistent with the Act. For example, the proposed rules would define what constitutes Extraordinary Market Activity, consistent with the definition of that term in the Amended CTA Plan, thereby furthering the Act's goal of promoting fair and orderly markets. The Exchange is also proposing to adopt definitions for “SIP Outage,” “Material SIP Latency” and “SIP Halt,” to explicitly address situations that may disrupt the markets, and these definitions are identical to the definitions in the Amended CTA Plan. The proposed rules specify when the Exchange should seek information from the Operating Committee, other SROs, and market participants as well as means for dissemination of important information to the market, consistent with the Amended CTA Plan. The Exchange believes these provisions
The Exchange believes that the proposed rules, which make halts consistent across exchange rules, is consistent with the Act in that it will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating the equities markets. In particular, the Exchange believes it is important for SROs to coordinate when there is a widespread and significant event, as multiple Trading Centers are affected in such an event. Further, while the Exchange recognizes that the proposed rule will not guarantee a consistent result on every market in all situations, the Exchange does believe that it will assist in that outcome. While the proposed rule relating to Regulatory Halts focuses primarily on the kinds of cross-market events that would likely impact multiple markets, individual SROs will still retain flexibility to deal with unique products or smaller situations confined to a particular market. To that end, the Exchange has retained some existing elements of Rule 7.18E that focus on its unique products and the processes it has developed over time to interact with its issuers.
Also consistent with the Act, and with the Amended CTA Plan, is the Exchange's proposal in Rule 7.18E(c) to address Operational Halts, which are non-regulatory in nature and apply only to the exchange that declares the halt. As noted earlier, the Exchange has always had the capacity to implement operational halts and local trading suspensions, but such halts are not currently referred to as “operational halts” in the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange believes that the markets would benefit from greater clarity regarding when an Operational Halt may be appropriate. In part, the proposed change is designed to cover situations similar to those that might constitute a Regulatory Halt, but where the impact is limited to a single market. For example, just as a market disruption might trigger a Regulatory Halt for Extraordinary Market Activity if it affects multiple markets, so could a disruption at the Exchange, such as a technical issue affecting trading in one or more securities, impact trading on the Exchange so significantly that an Operational Halt is appropriate in one or more securities. In such an instance, it would be in the public interest to institute an Operational Halt to minimize the impact of a disruption that, if trading were allowed to continue, might negatively affect a greater number of market participants. An Operational Halt does not implicate other trading centers.
Proposed Rule 7.18E(c)(1)(B) would give discretion to the Exchange to impose an Operational Halt in a security listed on the Exchange when a Primary Listing Market imposes an Operational Halt in a security that is a derivative or component of the Exchange-listed security. This rule would give the Exchange authority to halt a security listed on the Exchange if the impact of the component or derivative security on price discovery or the fair and orderly market in the Exchange-listed security is significant enough to warrant a trading halt. Factors would include whether trading in the Exchange-listed security is fair and orderly, the nature of the issue that triggered the Operational Halt(s) on the Primary Listing Market(s) in the component or derivative securities, and whether the security that is subject to the Operational Halt continues to trade on other Trading Centers. This rule is substantially similar to the other SRO rules cited above, and therefore is not novel.
The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
Importantly, the Exchange believes the proposal would not impose a burden on intermarket competition but rather would alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all SROs to harmonize and improve the process related to the halting and resumption of trading in U.S.-listed equity securities. In this area, the Exchange believes that all SROs should have consistent rules to the extent possible in order to provide additional transparency and certainty to market participants and to avoid inconsistent outcomes that could cause confusion and erode market confidence. The proposed changes would ensure that all SROs handle the situations covered therein in a consistent manner and ensure that all Trading Centers handle a Regulatory Halt consistently. The Exchange understands that all other Primary Listing Markets intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposed rule change.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposals concerning Operational Halts impose and undue burden on competition. Under its existing rules, the Exchange already possesses discretionary authority to impose halts and trading suspensions for various reasons. The proposed rule change clarifies and broadens the circumstances in which the Exchange may impose such Operational Halts, and specifies procedures for both imposing and lifting then. The Exchange does not intend for these proposals to have any competitive impact whatsoever. Indeed, the Exchange expects that other exchanges will adopt similar rules and procedures to govern operational halts, to the extent that they have not done so already.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the proposed rule would apply to all market participants equally. In addition, information regarding the halting and resumption of trading will be disseminated using several freely-accessible sources to ensure broad availability of information in addition to the SIP data and proprietary data feeds offered by the Exchange and other SROs that are available to subscribers.
In addition, the proposed rule change includes several provisions related to the declaration and timing of trading halts and the resumption of trading designed to avoid any advantage to those who can react more quickly than other participants. The proposed rules gives the Exchanges the ability to declare the timing of a Regulatory Halt immediately. The SROs retain the discretion to cancel trades that occur after the time of the Regulatory Halt. The proposed rule change also allows for the staggered resumption of trading to assist firms in reentering the market after a SIP Halt affecting multiple securities, in order to reopen in a fair and orderly manner. In addition, the proposed rule change encourages early and frequent communication among the SROs, SIPs, and market participants to enable the dissemination of timely and accurate information concerning the market to market participants.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 5.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4860-DR), dated March 4, 2025.
Issued on April 9, 2025.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dated March 4, 2025, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
(OMB) Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA. (SSA) Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, Mail Stop 3253 Altmeyer, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 833-410-1631, Email address:
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collection below is pending at SSA. SSA will submit it to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than June 16, 2025. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instrument by writing to the above email address.
In the digital age, individuals expect to complete transactions online, including submitting documents and forms to government agencies. The agency offers several service-specific options for individuals to submit forms and other documents online (
SSA relies heavily on receiving physical forms, proofs, and evidence from customers and third parties (
As per the requirements of E.O. 14058, respondents may use the secure upload portal, eSignature/Upload Documents, to submit documents and webforms to SSA. As of the March 2024 national rollout, eSignature/Upload Documents contains 71 forms and allows for the electronic submission of 79 evidence types. The current process requires an SSA technician to request forms and evidence from a customer, then send an email or text to the customer with a link to upload these documents. As a direct result of SSA Customer Experience (CX) testing and feedback recommendations, the eSignature/Upload Documents team is enhancing the tool to include an expansion of forms and evidence types available for upload including additional PDFs, as well as static and dynamic webforms. While adding additional PDFs and static webforms increases the forms and evidence available for customers to upload electronically, the dynamic webforms modernize the forms for easier customer completion and submission. Dynamic webforms adapt questions based on the customer's response, ask questions in plain language, and are formatted in an easily understood way. Additionally, as a further result of customer feedback, eSignature/Upload Documents will implement an enhancement that allows customers to access the Upload Documents link directly from
eSignature/Upload Documents serves individuals including Title II, Title XVI, and Title XVIII beneficiaries, as well as individuals who do not currently receive any benefits from SSA. eSignature/Upload Documents is limited to first-party individuals, and does not currently allow third parties, including representative payees, to submit documents on behalf of others. Technicians contact the respondent, via email, telephone, or face-to-face interview with SSA, for a business matter (
Once the respondents click on the link to eSignature/Upload Documents, the system requires them to authenticate using one of SSA's electronic access options (OMB Control No. 0960-0789),
To fulfill an eSignature/Upload Documents request, the system guides the respondent through one of three options:
1. Download, complete, save and then upload a PDF, or upload an evidence document, by dragging or browsing from their device and uploading the document to the eSignature/Upload Documents system.
2. Complete and submit a static webform with or without additional uploaded document(s).
3. Complete and submit a dynamic webform with or without additional uploaded document(s).
Once the respondents finish uploading their forms or documents, the system will alert them if the attempted file upload does not meet the file criteria requirements. The respondent then corrects any upload failures before submitting the documents to SSA.
After either uploading the documents, or completing the static or dynamic webform questions, the respondent must select the Submit button to complete the action, and the system will present them with the confirmation page. This page also presents an option to save or print the completed PDF. The respondent receives a successful submission email or text once they have successfully uploaded their document(s) to SSA. The system notifies the technician through the Technician Experience Dashboard (TED) when the document is available for review and consideration.
SSA also allows for the submission of certain forms signed using a commercial signature product. Some of these forms also have electronic means for submission.
Under the CPAS process, individuals who use a commercial signature product to submit signed forms will ensure that the product is capable of generating an audit trail maintaining the following information in a digital certificate:
(1) confirmation that the document was signed using a commercial product; (2) signature details (
Currently, SSA only accepts CPAS for the Commercial Product Alternative Signature (CPAS) process as an additional means for individuals to sign the following eight currently approved agency forms prior to sending them to SSA:
The specific forms that respondents submit through eSignature/Upload Documents (or the CPAS process) retain their existing OMB Control Numbers, reflecting the fact that the eSignature/Upload Document Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) approval is for the system we use to collect form submissions, but not the actual questions on the forms themselves. While we note the use of eSignature/Upload Documents reduces the overall burden associated with submitting forms, SSA continues to document any burden reduction associated with improved submission within the specific forms' supporting statements.
Respondents are first-party individuals who choose to use the internet to conduct business with SSA.
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 16, 2025. Individuals can obtain copies of these OMB clearance packages by writing to the
6. Protecting the Public and Our Personnel To Ensure Operational Effectiveness (RIN 0960-AH35), Regulation 3729I—20 CFR 422.905 and 422.906—0960-0796. SSA published regulations for the process we follow when we restrict individuals from receiving in-person services in our field offices and provide them, instead, with alternative services. We published these rules to create a safer environment for our personnel and members of the public who use our facilities, while ensuring we continue to serve the American people with as little disruption to our operations as possible. Under our regulations at 20 CFR 422.905 of the Code, an individual for whom we restrict access to our facilities has the opportunity to appeal our decision within 60 days of the date of the restrictive access and alternative service notice. To appeal, restricted individuals must submit a written request via mail stating why they believe SSA should rescind the restriction and allow them to conduct business with us on a face-to-face basis in one of our offices. There is no printed form for this request; rather, restricted individuals create their own written statement of appeal and submit it to a sole decision-maker in the regional office of the region where the restriction originated. The individuals may also provide additional documentation to support their appeal. Under 20 CFR 422.906 of the Code, if the individual does not appeal the decision within the 60 days, if we restricted the individual prior to the effective date of this regulation, or if the appeal results in a denial, the individual has another opportunity to request review of the restriction after a three-year period. To submit this request for review, restricted individuals may re-submit a written appeal of the decision. The same criteria apply as for the original appeal: (1) it must be in writing; (2) it must be sent to a sole decision-maker in the regional office of the region where the restriction originated for review; and (3) it may accompany supporting documentation. We make this periodic review available to all restricted individuals once every three years. Respondents for this collection are individuals appealing their restrictions from in-person services at SSA field offices.
7. Social Security Administration Health IT Partner Program Assessment—Participating Facilities and Available Content Form—20 CFR 404.1614 and 416.1014—0960-0798. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act promotes the adoption and meaningful use of health information technology (IT), particularly in the context of working with government agencies. Similarly, Section 3004 of the Public Health Service Act requires health care providers or health insurance issuers with government contracts to implement, acquire, or upgrade their health IT systems and products to meet adopted standards and implementation specifications. To support expansion of SSA's health IT initiative as defined under HITECH, SSA developed Form SSA-680, the Health IT Partner Program Assessment—participating Facilities and Available Content Form. The SSA-680 allows healthcare providers to provide the information that SSA needs to determine their ability to exchange health information with us electronically. We evaluate potential partners (
Surface Transportation Board.
Decision No. 3 in Docket No. FD 36836; Notice of Proposed Procedural Schedule and Request for Comments.
Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company (collectively, Applicants) are seeking Board approval to acquire control of Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line Railroad Company (NPBL). In this decision, the Board is publishing notice of the proposed procedural schedule, inviting public comments on that schedule, and designating 2023 as the year to be used for the impact analysis.
Written comments on the proposed procedural schedule must be filed by April 28, 2025.
Any filing submitted in this proceeding must be filed with the Board either via e-filing on the Board's website or in writing addressed to 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each filing must be sent (and may be sent by email only if service by email is acceptable to the recipient) to each of the following: (1) Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) Attorney General of the United States, c/o Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Room 3109, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (3) Applicants' representative, William Mullins, Mullins Law Group, PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Suite 720, Washington, DC 20036; and (4) any other person designated as a Party of Record on the service list.
Amy Ziehm at (202) 245-0391. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
On February 14, 2025, Applicants submitted a filing in which they sought Board approval for Applicants to acquire control of NPBL, a Class III rail carrier operating in Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, Va. (the Proposed Transaction). By decision served March 14, 2025, the Surface Transportation Board (Board) found that the Proposed Transaction was a “significant transaction” under 49 CFR 1180.2 and, among other things, directed Applicants to file a revised proposed procedural schedule reflecting that determination.
On March 21, 2025, Applicants filed a revised motion, proposing a procedural schedule largely based off the schedule originally proposed by the Board in
F
F + 30 Board notice of acceptance of application to be published in the
F + 40 Notices of intent to participate in this proceeding due.
F + 60 Descriptions of anticipated responsive, including inconsistent, applications due. Petitions for waiver or clarification with respect to such applications due.
Comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the application or related transactions due. This includes any comments from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).
F + 90 Responsive, including inconsistent, applications due.
F + 135 Responses to comments, protests, requests for conditions, and other opposition due, including to DOJ and USDOT filings. Responses to responsive, including inconsistent, applications due. Rebuttal in support of the application and related transactions due. Discovery closes.
F + 165 Rebuttal in support of responsive, including inconsistent, applications due.
TBD Public hearing (if necessary).
F + 180 Final briefs due. (Close of evidentiary record.)
F + 270 Service date of final decision.
F + 300 Effective date of final decision.
The Board invites all interested persons to submit written comments on the proposed procedural schedule. Comments must be filed by April 28, 2025. The proposed schedule is subject to change depending on the comments received or other circumstances.
Additionally, the Board's regulations require notice of the year to be used for the impact analysis required in significant transactions be published in the
On March 28, 2025, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), filed a response to Applicants' revised motion for a proposed procedural schedule. CSXT proposes certain modifications to the proposed procedural schedule, proposes that discovery should commence as of publication of the notice of Applicants' intent to file, and opposes the establishment, at this time, of a closing date for discovery. (CSXT Response 2-9, Mar. 28, 2025.) Additionally, although CSXT states that it does not object to the base year selected by Applicants, it argues that the Board should reject Applicants' supplement if it includes only base year data, without providing information to compare that data to a situation in which Applicants did not control NPBL. (
As noted above,
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz.
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 May 6, 2025.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2024-2466 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Kara White, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. Telephone number: 202-267-3793.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for revision of a currently approved collection. The collection requires responses to questions regarding an individual's identity in order to gain access to U.S. Federal Government web applications. The information to be collected is used to verify the requestor's identity and create a user account.
Written comments should be submitted by June 16, 2025.
Please send written comments:
Christopher K. Brimage by email at:
The identification of the requesting user is based on answers provided via a web interface that are matched against sources such as public records, mobile accounts, credit reporting bureaus and other available data. If a positive identification is made some of the collected information is used to create a user account to allow the user access to the requested web application.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
The FHWA, on behalf of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by ODOT and other Federal agencies that are final agency actions. These actions relate to the proposed construction of Sunbury Parkway and the modified Interstate 71 at US 36/SR 37 interchange.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of ODOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency actions on the listed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before September 15, 2025. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
The Environmental Assessment Reevaluation and additional project documents can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at: Improved Interchange at I-71/U.S. 36/SR 37 and Proposed Sunbury Pkwy | Ohio Department of Transportation or by contacting ODOT Office of Environmental Services, 1980 West Broad Street, Mail Stop 4170, Columbus, Ohio 43223, during normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. (eastern standard time), Monday through Friday, except State holidays.
Timothy M. Hill, Administrator, Office of Environmental Services, Ohio Department of Transportation, 614-644-0377,
Effective December 11, 2015, amended June 6, 2018, and renewed December 14, 2020, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) assigned, and the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that ODOT has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, and approvals for the following highway project. The actions by ODOT and other Federal agencies on the project, and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Environmental Assessment Reevaluation approved on February 7, 2025 and in other project records for the listed project. The Environmental Assessment Reevaluation and other documents for the listed project are available by contacting ODOT at the address provided above or on the listed project website.
The project subject to this notice is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
This notice announces actions taken by FHWA that are final. The actions relate to a proposed highway project, M-37 Improvement Project, just south of 92nd Street in the Village of Caledonia to just north of 76th Street in Caledonia Township, in Kent County, State of Michigan. The actions issue National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Section 4(f)) decisions relating to the M-37 Improvement Project.
By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal agency action on the highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before September 15, 2025. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then the shorter time period applies.
For FHWA: Eric Purkiss, Program Development Director, FHWA Michigan Division, 315 Allegan, Room 201, Lansing, MI 48933, Telephone: (517) 702-1848, email:
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and a Section 4(f) de minimis finding for the following highway project in the State of Michigan: M-37 Improvement Project in Kent County which includes widening M-37 from Emmons Street to 92nd Street and reconstructing M-37 as a four-lane boulevard from just south of 92nd Street to the existing boulevard north of 76th Street, with directional median crossovers north and south of 84th Street, and 76th Street to service left-turn movements. Additional crossover locations are provided at various midblock points along M-37 to access side streets and properties. New traffic signals will be added at the new 84th Street directional median crossovers, improving access along M-37. In addition, the nonmotorized path adjacent to M-37 will be repaved from 92nd Street to Cherry Valley Avenue to accommodate the wider roadway cross-section. Lastly, all culverts, including the Emmons Lake Outlet culvert, will be replaced, and several detention basins of approximately 5.11 acres will be located at low points along the corridor.
The actions by FHWA (including the 4(f) de minimis impact determination, approved on July 26, 2024), and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, approved on July 26, 2024, and in the FHWA FONSI issued on
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions that are final as of the issuance date of the notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. FMCSA requests approval to renew the ICR titled “Waiver and Exemption Requirements.” The ICR estimates the burden applicants incur to comply with the reporting tasks required for requesting waivers and exemptions. A
Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 16, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bernadette Walker, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 202-385-2415;
In 1998, the Federal Highway Administration, the predecessor agency of FMCSA, adopted 49 CFR part 381 as an interim final rule (IFR), establishing procedures for applying for waivers, exemptions, and pilot programs (63 FR 67600, Dec. 8, 1998). Section 4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) amended 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to provide authority to the Secretary of Transportation to grant waivers and exemptions from motor carrier safety regulations. Section 4007 of TEA-21 requires that the terms and conditions for all waivers and exemptions likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than what would be achieved by complying with the safety regulations. In 2004, FMCSA adopted its IFR as final at 49 CFR part 381, consistent with section 4007 of TEA-21 (69 FR 51589, Aug. 20, 2004). The final rule also established procedures that govern how FMCSA
The ICR estimates the burden an individual, motor carriers, States, or State driver's licensing agency (SDLA) incurs to comply with the reporting tasks required for requesting waivers, exemptions and renewals of existing exemptions in 49 CFR part 381. The current burden estimate associated with this information collection, approved by OMB on May 23, 2022, is 97 hours. Through this ICR renewal, the Agency requests an increase in the burden hours from 97 hours to 119 hours. The increase is the result of the increase in estimated waiver and exemption applications the Agency expects to receive in the next 3 years.
On December 6, 2024, FMCSA published a 60-day notice (89 FR 97165) requesting comment on the renewal of this ICR. No comments were received in response to that notice.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. FMCSA requests approval to renew an ICR titled, “Commercial Driver Licensing and Test Standards.” This ICR is needed to ensure that drivers, motor carriers, and the States are complying with notification and recordkeeping requirements for information related to testing, licensing, violations, convictions, and disqualifications and that the information is accurate, complete, transmitted, and recorded within certain time periods as required by the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA or the Act), as amended.
Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Isabella Marra, Transportation Specialist, Office of Safety Programs, Commercial Driver's License Division, DOT, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; 202-843-2454;
The CMVSA addressed these problems by requiring the Federal government to act and place minimum standards on all jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia. Section 12002 of the Act made it illegal for a CMV operator to have more than one driver's license. Section 12003 required the CMV driver conducting operations in commerce to notify both the designated State of licensure official and the driver's employer of any convictions of State or local laws relating to traffic control (except parking tickets). This section also required the promulgation of regulations to ensure each person who applies for employment as a CMV operator notifies prospective employers of all previous employment as a CMV operator for at least the previous 10 years. In section 12005 of the Act, the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is required to develop minimum Federal standards for testing and licensing of operators of CMVs. Section 12007 of the Act also directed the Secretary, in cooperation with the States, to develop a clearinghouse to aid the States in implementing the one driver, one license, and one driving record requirement. This clearinghouse is known as the Commercial Driver's License Information System. The CMVSA further required each person who has their CDL suspended, revoked, or canceled by a State, or who is disqualified from operating a CMV for any period, to notify his or her employer
On February 2, 2024, FMCSA published an NPRM titled “Amendments to the Commercial Driver's License Requirements; Increased Flexibility for Testing and for Drivers After Passing the Skills Test” (89 FR 7327) with a 60-day comment period announcing its intention to seek OMB review and approval to update this ICR. The comment period closed on April 2, 2024, and 646 comments were received. In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.11, the NPRM served as the 60-day ICR notice. Because FMCSA has not yet finalized the NPRM, today's notice serves as the 30-day notice required under 5 CFR 1320.10, and it covers only the renewal of the existing information collection, not the revisions proposed in the NPRM.
FMCSA received one comment in reference to the original ICR itself, as opposed to the comments on the impacts of the NPRM on the ICR. That commenter, the National Propane Gas Association, stated they had no objections to the information collection requirements. Comments received in reference to the proposed changes in the NPRM are not included in this ICR, but will be addressed in the final rule, assuming a final rule is to be published.
Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition; grant of exemption.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to grant an application from Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, USDOT #1236378, (Coffeyville) for an exemption to allow it to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with a module manufactured by Intellistop, Inc. (Intellistop). The Intellistop module is designed to pulse the required rear clearance, identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds when the brakes are applied and then return the lights to a steady-burning state while the brakes remain engaged. FMCSA has determined that granting the exemption to Coffeyville would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved by the regulation.
This exemption is effective April 16, 2025 and ending April 16, 2030.
Mr. David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, (202) 366-9209, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
To view comments, go to
To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to regulated entities. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
FMCSA reviews the safety analyses and the public comments and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish the decision in the
Section 393.25(e) of the FMCSRs requires all exterior lamps (both required lamps and any additional lamps) to be steady burning, with certain exceptions not relevant here. Two other provisions of the FMCSRs—section 393.11(a) and section 393.25(c)—mandate that required lamps on CMVs meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 in effect at the time of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108, issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), includes a requirement that installed brake lamps, whether original or replacement equipment, be steady burning.
Coffeyville applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow it to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's module. When the brakes are applied, the Intellistop module is designed to pulse the rear clearance, identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and then maintain the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) level of illumination for those lamps until the brakes are released and reapplied. Intellistop asserts that its module is designed to ensure that if the module ever fails, the clearance, identification, and brake lamps will default to normal OEM function and illumination.
Coffeyville's application followed the Agency's October 7, 2022, denial of Intellistop's application for an industry-wide exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with the Intellistop module. 87 FR 61133. While the Agency determined that the scope of the exemption Intellistop sought was too broad to ensure that an equivalent level of safety would be achieved, the Agency explained that individual motor carrier applications for exemption may be more closely aligned with FMCSA authorities. Exemptions more limited in scope would allow the Agency to ensure compliance with all relevant FMCSA regulations because the individual exemptee would be easily identifiable and its compliance with applicable regulations could be monitored, thus providing a level of safety equivalent to compliance with 49 CFR 393.25(e).
Coffeyville stated that previous research demonstrated that the use of pulsating brake-activated lamps increases the visibility of vehicles and should lead to a significant decrease in rear-end crashes. In support of its application, Coffeyville cited the similar exemption granted to Gemini Motor Transport (89 FR 40529) which relied on several reports of research conducted by NHTSA on the issues of rear-end crashes, distracted driving, and braking signals.
A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
FMCSA published a notice of the Coffeyville application in the
Intellistop supported the applicant's request for exemption. It commented that for over 20 years, multiple States have allowed pulsing or flashing of brake lamps. Many State driver training schools recommend tapping brakes when a CMV is slowing or stopping to warn other drivers. Intellistop stated that it is unlikely that other motorists would confuse the use of their module with the recommendation to tap brakes when a CMV is slowing or stopping.
The MVLMSI supported the potential of motor vehicle safety advances with the technology offered by Intellistop modules. The benefit of the flashing brake lights is to draw attention to the vehicle slowing down, and the MVLMSI sites current NHTSA allowable use cases for flashing red lamps include flashing warning lamps under FMVSS 49 CFR 571.108, Table I-a—Required Lamps and Reflective Devices, and school bus flashing lamps under S7.11 School bus signal lamps.
The ATA believes that granting this exemption can provide valuable real-world experience and data for a safety technology with the potential to reduce crashes. It also can inform future design considerations, best practices, and regulatory actions related to lighting
The NTTC stated that the Intellistop module does not have an adverse impact on safety, and adherence to the terms and conditions of the exemption as requested would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety achieved without the exemption. The NTTC was granted an exemption on October 8, 2020, (FMCSA-2019-0260) to install amber brake-activated pulsating lamp similar to the Intellistop module. Based on the NTTC's own experience, it supports all reasonable rear pulsating light exemption requests designed to reduce rearend crashes to tank trailers.
Fifteen additional individual comments supported granting the exemption. These commenters believe that any technology that has been shown to reduce rear-end crashes should be allowed and cited various benefits of brake activated pulsating lamps, including (1) enhanced awareness that the vehicle is making a stop, especially at railroad crossings, (2) increased visibility in severe weather conditions, and (3) grabbing the attention of distracted drivers. Several commenters noted that 37 States currently allow brake lamps to flash. In addition, three commenters noted that the guidelines developed by the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association advise driving instructors to teach new drivers to pulse brake lamps when stopping to improve visibility.
Coffeyville requested that FMCSA grant an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e)—requiring certain exterior lamps to be steady burning—to allow it to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's module. FMCSA has determined that in order for Coffeyville to operate vehicles in compliance with the FMCSRs, an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) must be accompanied by limited exemptions from 49 CFR 393.11(a) and 393.25(c), both of which mandate that required lamps on CMVs operated in interstate commerce must, “at a minimum, meet the applicable requirements of 49 CFR 571.108 (FMVSS No. 108) in effect at the time of manufacture of the vehicle.” FMCSA grants exemptions only when it determines “such exemption[s] would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the exemption[s].”
Rear-end crashes generally account for approximately 30 percent of all crashes. They often result from a failure to respond (or delays in responding) to a stopped or decelerating lead vehicle. Data on crashes that occurred between 2010 and 2016 show that large trucks are consistently three times more likely than other vehicles to be struck in the rear in two-vehicle fatal crashes.
Both FMCSA and NHTSA have examined alternative rear-signaling systems to reduce the incidence of rear-end crashes. While research efforts concluded that improvements in the incidence of rear-end crashes could be realized through certain rear-lighting systems that flash,
The Agency acknowledges the limitations of the research studies completed to date and the overall data deficiencies in this area. Nonetheless, as noted in its Intellistop decision, the Agency recognizes that existing data do suggest a potential safety value in the use of alternative rear-signaling systems, generally. Specifically, FMCSA considered NHTSA's research concerning the development and evaluation of rear-signaling applications designed to reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes via enhancements to rear-brake lighting. The study examined enhancements for (1) redirecting drivers' visual attention to the forward roadway (for cases involving a distracted driver) and (2) increasing the saliency or meaningfulness of the brake signal (for inattentive drivers).
While some of the data collected in the study may not be statistically significant, the study results nonetheless indicate that additional efforts to get drivers' attention when they are approaching the rear of a CMV that is stopping may be helpful to reduce driver distraction and, ultimately, rear-end crashes. This was among several reasons why researchers concluded that the promising nature of enhanced brake lighting systems warranted additional work and research. FMCSA believes the acquisition of relevant data through real-world monitoring is of critical importance as the Agency continues to seek new and innovative options for reducing crashes. This is particularly true given the data limitations noted in previous studies.
Despite finding a potential safety value in the use of alternative rear-signaling technology, in the Intellistop decision the Agency determined that the data presently available did not justify an exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to alter the performance of an FMVSS-required lighting device (
The Agency's decision to grant this exemption is based on the data suggesting enhanced rear signal systems, such as pulsing brake lights, may help reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes, as well as on the limited number of vehicles operating under the exemption. Coffeyville currently operates a nationwide fleet of approximately 185 CMVs. The installation of the module on a finite number of CMVs operated by a single motor carrier provides the opportunity for the Agency to collect data on the effects of pulsing brake lights in real-world conditions. The terms and conditions FMCSA imposes through this exemption will ensure appropriate Federal oversight in the use of these devices on a finite number of CMVs utilizing a phased-in approach.
Initially restricting the application of this exemption to a limited portion of Coffeyville's fleet will allow for a comparison between the crash involvement of Coffeyville CMVs equipped with the Intellistop device, those without the device, and the overall crash involvement of CMVs operated by similarly sized motor carriers with similar operations and overall safety performance. Data collected through this exemption and any other similar exemptions the Agency may grant in the future will allow for an evaluation of how the Intellistop module may improve following-vehicle driver responses to CMV braking. Consideration of the scope of any particular carrier's operation and the number and types of vehicles the carrier operates are critical to ensuring FMCSA gathers the most relevant data as the Agency considers safety benefits gained by the deployment of these rear brake lamp systems in CMV operations. The Agency's incremental approach in granting this limited exemption will also allow FMCSA to investigate and respond as appropriate to any incidents of alleged driver confusion attributable to use of the brake lamp systems in CMV operations.
Coffeyville maintains two fleets of vehicles, a Clean Products division (approximately 80 combination units) that primarily operates on highways and a Crude Products division (approximately 100 combination units). Coffeyville reports that it intends to install the devices on only the Clean Products division vehicles, and expects that by running the two fleets, a good comparison of effectiveness may be made. FMCSA disagrees with Coffeyville that the Crude Products division would make a good control for comparison to the Clean Products division. As Coffeyville notes in its application, the use cases of the two fleets are different, with the Crude Fleet operating under differing road conditions (“bumpy roads and debris”). Coffeyville cites in its application concerns about maintenance under these rough road conditions and FMCSA shares these concerns. Rather, FMCSA believes it sufficient to limit installations to the Clean Products division in a similar manner to other exempted carriers using the Intellistop module. FMCSA is therefore limiting Coffeyville's exemption to only the Clean Products division vehicles.
FMCSA acknowledges that, until recently, all pulsating rear lamp exemptions the Agency granted involved the addition of non-mandatory auxiliary lights while the Intellistop module that Coffeyville seeks to install alters the functionality of original equipment manufacturers' lamps. Nonetheless, those previous exemptions are instructive. Most notably, the Groendyke exemption involved auxiliary lamps rather than required lighting, but, like the Intellistop module, the modulation of the auxiliary lamps occurs during braking. More importantly, the Groendyke exemption also involved a technology installed on a number of the carrier's CMVs, which allowed the Agency to monitor its compliance more realistically with other applicable regulations. When granting the exemption, FMCSA found Groendyke's experience with brake-activated pulsating warning lamps, which resulted in a 33.7 percent reduction in rear-end crashes, to be compelling. Through the granting of the Groendyke exemption, the Agency was able to collect additional real-world data about the operation of the module at issue. Similarly, limited exemptions with narrowly tailored terms and conditions permitting the use of the Intellistop module will allow the Agency to collect data about the reliability and safety benefits of an integrated alternative rear-signaling system.
FMCSA notes that Coffeyville failed to provide any evidence beyond what is publicly available about the integration of the Intellistop module with its CMVs' existing systems or to support the claim that a malfunction of the device would result in the brake lights returning to OEM functionality. Nonetheless, based on the Agency's understanding of the device's design and assertions made in publicly available materials, FMCSA believes concerns about both the reliability and integration of the device are sufficiently alleviated in this instance because of the narrow scope of the exemption and the stringent requirements imposed by the Agency in the terms and conditions. Any evidence that module failure results in anything less than a return to brake light OEM functionality will result in revocation of the exemption.
Likewise, granting this exemption to an easily identifiable carrier alleviates concerns the Agency previously articulated about its inability to monitor compliance with NHTSA's “make inoperative” prohibition. FMCSA can monitor compliance with this exemption and ensure that only Coffeyville installs the module on its own CMVs.
Notwithstanding the promise the Agency sees in this technology, exemptions are warranted only if the applicant can demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety likely will be maintained. For this reason, the Agency believes it is important to consider the safety record of the applicant motor carrier. The Agency carefully considered Coffeyville's existing on-road safety performance record prior to granting this exemption. Coffeyville's out-of-service (OOS) rate is below the national average, with a vehicle OOS rate of only 1.3 percent (national average—21.4 percent), a driver OOS rate of 0.6 percent (national average—6 percent), and hazardous material OOS rate of 0 percent (national average—4.5 percent). Coffeyville maintains a Satisfactory safety rating.
FMCSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to the FMCSRs only to motor carriers and not to CMV manufacturers or vehicle alterers. FMCSA acknowledges that the research
FMCSA has evaluated Coffeyville's exemption application and the comments received. The Agency believes that granting a temporary exemption to section 393.25(e), and temporary limited exemptions to the requirements of 49 CFR 393.11(a) and 393.25(c) to allow Coffeyville to operate a limited number of CMVs equipped with Intellistop's pulsating-brake module will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
This exemption is restricted to vehicles in Coffeyville's Clean Products division fleet and provides relief from the steady burning requirement for rear clearance, identification, and brake lamp activation for 2 seconds following brake activation. All other FMVSS No. 108 requirements cross-referenced or incorporated within the FMCSRs remain in effect, with a limited exception to the requirement exempted here in sections 393.11(a) and 393.25(c) for only the first two seconds of brake engagement. In addition, through the terms and conditions, FMCSA will be able to monitor to performance of these CMVs to determine whether they were involved in a crash and whether they appear to be overrepresented in crashes compared to a control group (comprised of Coffeyville vehicles that are not equipped with the Intellistop unit but are operating on similar routes with similar schedules, etc., as further described in the Terms and Conditions).
The Agency has evaluated the application and hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period, beginning April 16, 2025 and ending April 16, 2030. During the temporary exemption period, Coffeyville (Applicant) may operate CMVs, in its Clean Products division equipped with Intellistop's module that pulses the rear brake, clearance, and identification lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds. This grant applies only to the “steady-burning” requirement as specified in FMVSS 108 S7.3, and Tables I-a, I-b, and I-c. All other photometric and requirements for stop lamps specified in FMVSS 108 must still be met.
The Applicant is responsible for installing the Intellistop module. This exemption applies only to CMVs owned and operated by the Applicant. THE PRODUCT MUST BE INSTALLED ONLY BY THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1) AND 49 U.S.C. 30122), THE PRODUCT MAY NOT BE INSTALLED BY ANY MANUFACTURER, DISTRIBUTOR, DEALER, RENTAL COMPANY, OR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS.
The Applicant may not install the Intellistop module on more than 25% of its power units, and 25% of its trailers in the Clean Products division fleet during the first year of operation under the exemption, or on more than 50% of its power units, and 50% of its trailers in the Clean Products division fleet during the second year. The Applicant must provide the vehicle identification numbers for the power units and trailers that will be operating under the exemption.
The Applicant must maintain a control group of equal size to the group of power units and trailers equipped with the Intellistop unit during the first year of the exemption. And the CMVs in the control group must operate on routes with schedules that are similar to those of the Intellistop-equipped vehicles.
Installed modules may be used only to modulate rear clearance, identification, and stop lamps.
Within 30 business days of its first installation of the Intellistop module, the Applicant must notify the Agency via email at
If the Applicant sells or transfers ownership of any CMV equipped with an Intellistop module under this exemption, or if the exemption is terminated for any reason, the Applicant must remove the module and restore the CMV to full compliance with the FMCSRs and FMVSSs prior to the transfer of ownership, or upon termination of the exemption. The Applicant must also certify in writing to the purchaser/transferee and FMCSA that the CMV has been restored to compliance with the FMCSRs and FMVSSs.
The Applicant must ensure that each driver of an Intellistop-equipped CMV performs a pre-trip inspection to confirm that the Intellistop module operates only for 2 seconds and does not interfere with the normal operation of lamps after 2 seconds. If the lamps are not steady burning after 2 seconds, the CMV must not be dispatched until repairs are made. At the end of each work shift, drivers must note any problems observed by or reported to them concerning the Intellistop module on a driver vehicle inspection report (see 49 CFR 396.11), and the motor carrier must correct the problem before the vehicle is dispatched again.
The Applicant must notify FMCSA within 5 business days after it becomes aware, or otherwise determines, that the continued use of a module or entire type or subtype of module covered by this exemption is no longer likely to maintain a level of safety that is at least equivalent to the level that would be achieved absent this exemption. Notification must be made by sending an email to FMCSA at
During the exemption period, the Applicant must provide quarterly submissions to FMCSA of the data described below. The Applicant's first quarterly submission is due on July 16, 2025, and thereafter will be due every 3 months, on the first business day of the month. The first quarterly submission must include the required data beginning 60 days prior to the date of module installation. All quarterly submissions must include data through at least the 14th day (inclusive) of the month immediately preceding the submission. Unless otherwise agreed to by FMCSA, quarterly submissions must be sent via email to FMCSA at
In the quarterly submission, the Applicant must provide FMCSA the following information known to the Applicant regarding all crashes and other incidents (“crash or incident”) involving a CMV equipped with an Intellistop module covered by this exemption where the Intellistop module is potentially implicated. Crashes involving a CMV equipped with an Intellistop module that are “head-on” or otherwise involve only the front of the Intellistop-equipped CMV impacting some other object (such that the Intellistop module, without question, could not be implicated) are not subject to this condition. For the first quarterly submission, data must include any crash or incident occurring in the 60 days prior to installation of the Intellistop module that would have been contained in this reporting category had the module been installed at the time of the crash or incident. The Applicant's knowledge includes, but is not limited to: (1) outreach from a consumer, lawyer, or any other person or organization (via letter, email, fax, telephone call, social media, or any other medium); (2) lawsuits to which the Applicant is a party, or otherwise knows exist where an Intellistop module covered by this exemption is an issue in the litigation; and (3) insurance claims against the Applicant related to use of the Intellistop module. When in the Applicant's possession, information provided to FMCSA shall include:
1. The date of first contact regarding, or the Applicant's first awareness of, the crash or incident;
2. The date of the most recent follow-up contact, if any, between the Applicant and the other party;
3. The date, time, and location of the crash or incident;
4. A brief description of the crash or incident;
5. The Intellistop module type and/or subtype(s) involved in the crash or incident; and
6. Information, if any, indicating that the Intellistop module is, or was, not working as intended, or caused confusion or a roadway hazard for either the consumer or other motorists.
The exemption is valid for 5 years from the date of issuance unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. FMCSA will terminate the exemption if: (1) the Applicant fails to comply with the terms and conditions; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate that Coffeyville's CMVs equipped with Intellistop's pulsating rear-light module may not be achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
This limited and conditional exemption does not constitute an endorsement of the Intellistop product by FMCSA, NHTSA, the U.S. DOT, or any of their components, or by any of these agencies' employees or agents. As a condition of the continued effectiveness of this exemption, Intellistop is expressly prohibited from describing its product as approved by, endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by FMCSA, NHTSA, or U.S. DOT, or as compliant with Federal safety regulations.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition; grant of exemption.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) announces its decision to grant an application from Casey's Services Company, USDOT No. 162449, (Casey) for an exemption to allow it to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) equipped with a module manufactured by Intellistop, Inc. (Intellistop). The Intellistop module is designed to pulse the required rear clearance, identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds when the brakes are applied
This exemption is effective April 16, 2025 and ending April 16, 2030.
Mr. David Sutula, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-PSV, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-9209;
To view comments, go to
To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)). The Agency must publish its decision in the
Section 393.25(e) of the FMCSRs requires all exterior lamps (both required lamps and any additional lamps) to be steady burning, with certain exceptions not relevant here. Two other provisions of the FMCSRs—section 393.11(a) and section 393.25(c)—mandate that required lamps on CMVs meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 in effect at the time of manufacture. FMVSS No. 108, issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), includes a requirement that installed brake lamps, whether original or replacement equipment, be steady burning.
Casey applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) to allow it to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's module. When the brakes are applied, the Intellistop module is designed to pulse the rear clearance, identification, and brake lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds and then maintain the original equipment manufacturer's (OEM) level of illumination for those lamps until the brakes are released and reapplied. Intellistop asserts that its module is designed to ensure that if the module ever fails, the clearance, identification, and brake lamps will default to normal OEM function and illumination.
Casey's application followed the Agency's October 7, 2022, denial of Intellistop's application for an industry-wide exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to operate CMVs equipped with the Intellistop module (87 FR 61133). While the Agency determined that the scope of the exemption Intellistop sought was too broad to ensure that an equivalent level of safety would be achieved, the Agency explained that individual motor carrier applications for exemption may be more closely aligned with FMCSA authorities. Exemptions more limited in scope would allow the Agency to ensure compliance with all relevant FMCSA regulations because the individual exemptee would be easily identifiable and its compliance with applicable regulations could be monitored, thus providing a level of safety equivalent to compliance with 49 CFR 393.25(e).
Casey stated that previous research demonstrated that the use of pulsating brake-activated lamps increases the visibility of vehicles and should lead to a significant decrease in rear-end crashes. In support of its application, Casey submitted several reports of research conducted by NHTSA on the issues of rear-end crashes, distracted driving, and braking signals.
A copy of the application is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
FMCSA published a notice of the Casey application in the
NTTC, ATA, and MVLMSI submitted comments in support of Casey's request for a five-year exemption to use the Intellistop electronic module. NTTC emphasized the safety benefits of
ATA highlighted the importance of innovative lighting solutions in improving truck visibility and reducing rear-end and roadside crashes, a persistent issue in the trucking industry. ATA also emphasized that granting this exemption would allow DOT to collect valuable real-world data on the effectiveness of these technologies, complementing ongoing research and previous exemptions for similar technologies. It advocated using this data to modernize regulations and establish best practices for lighting solutions, with input from organizations like the Technology & Maintenance Council (TMC).
Additionally, MVLMSI highlighted that California has permitted the use of similar systems since 1984 without jeopardizing federal safety funding. They also noted that other States allow the use of flashing brake lamps on the rear of vehicles. Furthermore, MVLMSI noted that both NHTSA and FMCSA currently permit the use of flashing red lamps in specific applications, such as warning signals and school bus lighting.
Several individual commenters echoed support for the exemption, citing various benefits of brake-activated pulsating lamps, including (1) enhanced awareness that the vehicle is making a stop, and (2) increased visibility in severe weather conditions. Other commenters noted that 37 States currently allow brake lamps to flash. In addition, one commenter noted that the guidelines developed by the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association advise driving instructors to teach new drivers to pulse brake lamps when stopping to improve visibility.
An Anonymous commenter expressed opposition to Casey's request for an exemption to use the Intellistop system. The commenter highlighted that FMCSA previously determined the Intellistop system does not meet safety requirements to exceed current standards and stated that Casey has not provided sufficient new evidence to justify reconsideration. The commenter also noted that the application lacks critical details required under 49 CFR 381.310, such as the number of drivers and vehicles affected, as well as supporting reference materials. Additionally, concerns were raised about potential unintended consequences of pulsating lights, including driver distraction, confusion with emergency vehicles, and the “startle” effect.
Casey requested that FMCSA grant an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e)—requiring certain exterior lamps to be steady burning—to allow it to operate CMVs equipped with Intellistop's module. FMCSA has determined that in order for Casey to operate vehicles in compliance with the FMCSRs, an exemption from 49 CFR 393.25(e) must be accompanied by limited exemptions from 49 CFR 393.11(a) and 393.25(c), both of which mandate that required lamps on CMVs operated in interstate commerce must, “at a minimum, meet the applicable requirements of 49 CFR 571.108 (FMVSS No. 108) in effect at the time of manufacture of the vehicle.” FMCSA grants exemptions only when it determines “such exemption[s] would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the exemption[s].”
Rear-end crashes generally account for approximately 30 percent of all crashes. They often result from a failure to respond (or delays in responding) to a stopped or decelerating lead vehicle. Data on crashes that occurred between 2010 and 2016 show that large trucks are consistently three times more likely than other vehicles to be struck in the rear in two-vehicle fatal crashes.
Both FMCSA and NHTSA have examined alternative rear-signaling systems to reduce the incidence of rear-end crashes. While research efforts concluded that improvements in the incidence of rear-end crashes could be realized through certain rear-lighting systems that flash,
The Agency acknowledges the limitations of the research studies completed to date and the overall data deficiencies in this area. Nonetheless, as noted in its Intellistop decision, the Agency recognizes that existing data do suggest a potential safety value in the use of alternative rear-signaling systems, generally. Specifically, FMCSA considered NHTSA's research concerning the development and evaluation of rear-signaling applications designed to reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes via enhancements to rear-brake lighting. The study examined enhancements for (1) redirecting drivers' visual attention to the forward roadway (for cases involving a distracted driver) and (2) increasing the saliency or meaningfulness of the brake signal (for inattentive drivers).
While some of the data collected in the study may not be statistically significant, the study results nonetheless indicate that additional efforts to get drivers' attention when they are approaching the rear of a CMV that is stopping may be helpful to reduce driver distraction and, ultimately, rear-end crashes. This was among several reasons why researchers concluded that the promising nature of enhanced brake lighting systems warranted additional work and research. FMCSA believes the acquisition of relevant data through real-world monitoring is of critical importance as the Agency continues to seek new and innovative options for reducing crashes. This is particularly true given the data limitations noted in previous studies.
Despite finding a potential safety value in the use of alternative rear-signaling technology, in the Intellistop decision the Agency determined that the data presently available did not justify an exemption to allow all interstate motor carriers to alter the performance of an FMVSS-required lighting device (
The Agency's decision to grant this exemption is based on the data suggesting enhanced rear signal systems, such as pulsing brake lights, may help reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes, as well as on the limited number of vehicles operating under the exemption. Casey currently operates a nationwide fleet of approximately 526 CMVs. The installation of the module on CMVs operated by a single motor carrier provides the opportunity for the Agency to collect data on the effects of pulsing brake lights in real-world conditions. The terms and conditions FMCSA imposes through this exemption will ensure appropriate Federal oversight in the use of these devices on a finite number of CMVs utilizing a phased-in approach.
Initially restricting the application of this exemption to a limited portion of Casey's fleet will allow for a comparison between the crash involvement of Casey CMVs equipped with the Intellistop device, those without the device, and the overall crash involvement of CMVs operated by similarly sized motor carriers with similar operations and overall safety performance. Data collected through this exemption and any other similar exemptions the Agency may grant in the future will allow for an evaluation of how the Intellistop module may improve following-vehicle driver responses to CMV braking. Consideration of the scope of any particular carrier's operation and the number and types of vehicles the carrier operates are critical to ensuring FMCSA gathers the most relevant data as the Agency considers safety benefits gained by the deployment of these rear brake lamp systems in CMV operations. The Agency's incremental approach in granting this limited exemption will also allow FMCSA to investigate and respond as appropriate to any incidents of alleged driver confusion attributable to use of the brake lamp systems in CMV operations, which a commenter has raised as a potential concern.
FMCSA acknowledges that, until recently, all pulsating rear lamp exemptions the Agency granted involved the addition of non-mandatory auxiliary lights while the Intellistop module that Casey seeks to install alters the functionality of original equipment manufacturers' lamps. Nonetheless, those previous exemptions are instructive. Notably, the Groendyke exemption involved auxiliary lamps rather than required lighting, but, like the Intellistop module, the modulation of the auxiliary lamps occurs during braking. More importantly, the Groendyke exemption also involved a technology installed on a number of one carrier's CMVs, which allowed the Agency more realistically to monitor it's compliance with other applicable regulations. When granting the exemption, FMCSA found Groendyke's experience with brake-activated pulsating warning lamps, which resulted in a 33.7 percent reduction in rear-end crashes, to be compelling. Through the granting of the Groendyke exemption, the Agency was able to collect additional real-world data about the operation of the module at issue. Similarly, limited exemptions with narrowly tailored terms and conditions permitting the use of the Intellistop module will allow the Agency to collect data about the reliability and safety benefits of an integrated alternative rear-signaling system.
FMCSA notes that Casey failed to provide any evidence beyond what is publicly available about the integration of the Intellistop module with its CMVs' existing systems or to support the claim that a malfunction of the device would result in the brake lights returning to OEM functionality. Nonetheless, based on the Agency's understanding of the device's design and assertions made in publicly available materials, FMCSA believes concerns about both the reliability and integration of the device are sufficiently alleviated in this instance because of the narrow scope of the exemption and the stringent requirements imposed by the Agency in the terms and conditions. Any evidence that module failure results in anything less than a return to brake light OEM functionality will result in revocation of the exemption.
Likewise, granting this exemption to an easily identifiable carrier alleviates concerns the Agency previously articulated about its inability to monitor compliance with NHTSA's “make inoperative” prohibition. FMCSA can monitor compliance with this exemption and ensure that only Casey installs the module on its own CMVs.
Notwithstanding the promise the Agency sees in this technology, exemptions are warranted only if the applicant can demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety likely will be maintained. For this reason, the Agency believes it is important to consider the safety record of the applicant motor carrier. The Agency carefully considered Casey's existing on-road safety performance record prior to granting this exemption. Casey's out-of-service (OOS) rate is below the national average, with a vehicle OOS rate of only
FMCSA has authority to grant temporary exemptions to the FMCSRs only to motor carriers and not to CMV manufacturers or vehicle alterers. FMCSA acknowledges that the research described above did not fully address all of the implications of allowing pulsating stop lamps, especially by automobiles where stop lamp design is stylized and often brand-specific, and that it remains unclear whether deviation from the uniform brake-light patterns of CMVs may cause confusion among highway users when the lamps are pulsated during braking. When Intellistop sought an industry-wide exemption, FMCSA concluded that the potential risks of widespread adoption outweighed the potential benefits. But FMCSA reaches a different conclusion here, where any risks will be more limited and easier to monitor. FMCSA notes, moreover, that the research suggests that the use of rear-signaling systems may be a means to reduce the frequency and severity of rear-end crashes involving CMVs, as do the reductions in rear-end crashes reported by Groendyke (84 FR 17910, April 26, 2019) utilizing an auxiliary flashing rear-signaling system. These facts and the specific safety record of the applicant motor carrier support the conclusion that permitting the use of Intellistop's pulsating-lamp module among a limited and known population of vehicles of a single motor carrier, subject to terms and conditions for monitoring, is likely to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
FMCSA has evaluated Casey's exemption application and the comments received. The Agency believes that granting a temporary exemption to section 393.25(e), and temporary limited exemptions to the requirements of 49 CFR 393.11(a) and 393.25(c) to allow Casey to operate a limited number of CMVs equipped with Intellistop's pulsating-brake module will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
This exemption is restricted to vehicles in Casey's fleet and provides relief from the steady burning requirement for rear clearance, identification, and brake lamp activation for 2 seconds following brake activation. All other FMVSS No. 108 requirements cross-referenced or incorporated within the FMCSRs remain in effect, with a limited exception to the requirement exempted here in sections 393.11(a) and 393.25(c) for only the first two seconds of brake engagement. In addition, through the terms and conditions, FMCSA will be able to monitor to performance of these CMVs to determine whether they were involved in a crash and whether they appear to be overrepresented in crashes compared to a control group (comprised of Casey vehicles that are not equipped with the Intellistop unit but are operating on similar routes with similar schedules, etc., as further described in the Terms and Conditions).
The Agency has evaluated the application and hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period, beginning April 16, 2025 and ending April 16, 2030. During the temporary exemption period, Casey (Applicant) may operate CMVs, equipped with Intellistop's module that pulses the rear brake, clearance, and identification lamps from a lower-level lighting intensity to a higher-level lighting intensity 4 times in 2 seconds. This grant applies only to the “steady-burning” requirement as specified in FMVSS 108 S7.3, and Tables I-a, I-b, and I-c. All other photometric and requirements for stop lamps specified in FMVSS 108 must still be met.
The Applicant is responsible for installing the Intellistop module. This exemption applies only to CMVs owned and operated by the Applicant. THE PRODUCT MUST BE INSTALLED ONLY BY THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL LAW (49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1) AND 49 U.S.C. 30122), THE PRODUCT MAY NOT BE INSTALLED BY ANY MANUFACTURER, DISTRIBUTOR, DEALER, RENTAL COMPANY, OR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS.
The Applicant may not install the Intellistop module on more than 25% of its power units, and 25% of its trailers during the first year of operation under the exemption, or on more than 50% of its power units, and 50% of its trailers during the second year. The Applicant must provide the Agency the vehicle identification numbers for the power units and trailers that will be operating under the exemption.
The Applicant must maintain a control group of equal size to the group of power units and trailers equipped with the Intellistop unit during the first year of the exemption. And the CMVs in the control group must operate on routes with schedules that are similar to those of the Intellistop-equipped vehicles.
Installed modules may be used only to modulate rear clearance, identification, and stop lamps.
Within 30 business days of its first installation of the Intellistop module, the Applicant must notify the Agency via email at
If the Applicant sells or transfers ownership of any CMV equipped with an Intellistop module under this exemption, or if the exemption is terminated for any reason, the Applicant must remove the module and restore the CMV to full compliance with the FMCSRs and FMVSSs prior to the transfer of ownership, or upon termination of the exemption. The Applicant must also certify in writing to the purchaser/transferee and FMCSA that the CMV has been restored to compliance with the FMCSRs and FMVSSs.
The Applicant must ensure that each driver of an Intellistop-equipped CMV performs a pre-trip inspection to confirm that the Intellistop module operates only for 2 seconds and does not interfere with the normal operation of lamps after 2 seconds. If the lamps are not steady burning after 2 seconds, the CMV must not be dispatched until repairs are made. At the end of each work shift, drivers must note any problems observed by or reported to them concerning the Intellistop module on a driver vehicle inspection report (see 49 CFR 396.11), and the motor carrier must correct the problem before the vehicle is dispatched again.
The Applicant must notify FMCSA within 5 business days after it becomes aware, or otherwise determines, that the continued use of a module or entire type
During the exemption period, the Applicant must provide quarterly submissions to FMCSA of the data described below. The Applicant's first quarterly submission is due on July 16, 2025, and thereafter will be due every 3 months, on the first business day of the month. The first quarterly submission must include the required data beginning 60 days prior to the date of module installation. All quarterly submissions must include data through at least the 14th day (inclusive) of the month immediately preceding the submission. Unless otherwise agreed to by FMCSA, quarterly submissions must be sent via email to FMCSA at
In the quarterly submission, the Applicant must provide FMCSA the following information known to the Applicant regarding all crashes and other incidents (“crash or incident”) involving a CMV equipped with an Intellistop module covered by this exemption where the Intellistop module is potentially implicated. Crashes involving a CMV equipped with an Intellistop module that are “head-on” or otherwise involve only the front of the Intellistop-equipped CMV impacting some other object (such that the Intellistop module, without question, could not be implicated) are not subject to this condition. For the first quarterly submission, data must include any crash or incident occurring in the 60 days prior to installation of the Intellistop module that would have been contained in this reporting category had the module been installed at the time of the crash or incident. The Applicant's knowledge includes, but is not limited to: (1) outreach from a consumer, lawyer, or any other person or organization (via letter, email, fax, telephone call, social media, or any other medium); (2) lawsuits to which the Applicant is a party, or otherwise knows exist where an Intellistop module covered by this exemption is an issue in the litigation; and (3) insurance claims against the Applicant related to use of the Intellistop module. When in the Applicant's possession, information provided to FMCSA shall include:
1. The date of first contact regarding, or the Applicant's first awareness of, the crash or incident;
2. The date of the most recent follow-up contact, if any, between the Applicant and the other party;
3. The date, time, and location of the crash or incident;
4. A brief description of the crash or incident;
5. The Intellistop module type and/or subtype(s) involved in the crash or incident; and
6. Information, if any, indicating that the Intellistop module is, or was, not working as intended, or caused confusion or a roadway hazard for either the consumer or other motorists.
The exemption is valid for 5 years from the date of issuance unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. FMCSA will terminate the exemption if: (1) the Applicant fails to comply with the terms and conditions; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate that Casey's CMVs equipped with Intellistop's pulsating rear-light module may not be achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.
This limited and conditional exemption does not constitute an endorsement of the Intellistop product by FMCSA, NHTSA, the U.S. DOT, or any of their components, or by any of these agencies' employees or agents. As a condition of the continued effectiveness of this exemption, Intellistop is expressly prohibited from describing its product as approved by, endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by FMCSA, NHTSA, or U.S. DOT, or as compliant with Federal safety regulations.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption. States may, but are not required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate commerce.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on April 9, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On April 9, 2025, OFAC determined that the person identified below meets one or more of the criteria for the imposition of sanctions set forth in section 1(a)-(c) of Executive Order 14059 of December 15, 2021, “Imposing Sanctions on Foreign Persons Involved in the Global Illicit Drug Trade,” 86 FR 71549 (E.O. 14059). OFAC has selected to impose blocking sanctions pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 on the person identified below. As a result, the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following person are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. BELTRAN GUZMAN, Jesus Alfredo (a.k.a. “Alfredito”; a.k.a. “El Mochomito”; a.k.a. “Tito”), Mexico; DOB 23 Apr 1991; POB Sinaloa, Mexico; nationality Mexico; Gender Male; C.U.R.P. BEGJ910423HSLLZS02 (Mexico) (individual) [ILLICIT-DRUGS-EO14059].
Designated pursuant to section (1)(a)(i) of E.O. 14059 for having engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that have materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation or illicit drugs or their means of production.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons and vessels that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. The vessels placed on the SDN List have been identified as property in which a blocked person has an interest.
This action was issued on April 10, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On April 10, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
1. BRAR, Jugwinder Singh, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; DOB 15 Mar 1962; POB Kot Kapura, India; nationality India; Gender Male; Identification Number 01872998 (India) (individual) [IRAN-EO13902].
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(i) of Executive Order 13902 of January 10, 2020, “Imposing Sanctions With Respect to Additional Sectors of Iran,” 85 FR 2003, 3 CFR, 2020 Comp., p. 299 (E.O. 13902), for operating in the petroleum sector of the Iranian economy.
1. GLOBAL ELEGANCE (E5U4389) Chemical/Oil Tanker; Former Vessel Flag Cook Islands; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9232955; MMSI 518998409 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
2. GLOBAL EMERALD (3E2462) Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8982888; MMSI 352001105 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
3. GLOBAL PEAK (3FBM7) Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9125712; MMSI 354117000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
4. GLOBAL RANI (T8A4955) Chemical/Oil Tanker Palau flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9136113; MMSI 511101535 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
5. GLOBAL STAR (3FYM8) Chemical/Oil Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9164500; MMSI 354068000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
6. GLOBAL EVEREST (3EUO4) Oil Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9125724; MMSI 352995000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
7. GLOBAL FALCON (T8A4956) Chemical/Oil Tanker Palau flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9399167; MMSI 511101536 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
8. GLOBAL MAHARANI (8P2426) Oil Products Tanker Barbados flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9546708; MMSI 314932000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
9. GLORY STAR I (3E4656) Oil Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9463528; MMSI 352002878 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
10. HARMONY (8PVO9) Oil Products Tanker Barbados flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9397030; MMSI 314825000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
11. OCEAN PRINCESS 1 (3EVR9) Oil Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 8413306; MMSI 373094000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: BRAR, Jugwinder Singh).
Identified as property in which JUGWINDER SINGH BRAR, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
12. CHIL 1 (C5J280) Chemical/Oil Tanker Gambia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9171498; MMSI 629009268 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
13. GLOBAL CREST (3FHI8) Crude Oil Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9113094; MMSI 372463000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
14. GLOBAL DOMINANCE (V2YZ5) Bunkering Tanker Antigua & Barbuda
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
15. MIRAGE (8P2465) Chemical/Oil Tanker Barbados flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9254422; MMSI 314963000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
16. NADIYA (3E3423) Oil Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9118745; MMSI 352001151 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
17. PURNA (a.k.a. “SAMPURNA RAJYA”) (C5J300) Oil Products Tanker Gambia flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9176656; MMSI 629000928 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
18. GLOBAL ACE (3FJW3) Chemical/Oil Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9190078; MMSI 374808000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
19. GLOBAL ANGEL (3FVC9) Oil Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9311309; MMSI 353283000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
20. GLOBAL BEAUTY (3E6819) Chemical/Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9221267; MMSI 352004530 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
21. GLOBAL DIGNITY (3E2062) Chemical/Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9309227; MMSI 352898795 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
22. GLOBAL EAGLE (D6A3537) Chemical/Products Tanker Comoros flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9422847; MMSI 620999538 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
23. GLOBAL HAWK (E5U3877) Chemical/Oil Tanker; Former Vessel Flag Cook Islands; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9422859; MMSI 518100966 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
24. GLOBAL PEACE (E5U3881) Oil Products Tanker Cook Islands flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9555199; MMSI 518100969 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC).
Identified as property in which GLORY INTERNATIONAL FZ-LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
25. GLOBAL ASPHALT (3FZQ3) Oil Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9005338; MMSI 354816424 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLOBAL TANKERS PRIVATE LIMITED).
Identified as property in which GLOBAL TANKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
26. GLOBAL GENESIS (E5U3771) Oil Products Tanker; Former Vessel Flag Cook Islands; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9451501; MMSI 518100860 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLOBAL TANKERS PRIVATE LIMITED).
Identified as property in which GLOBAL TANKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
27. LUANDA 1 (3FWF5) Anchor Handling Vessel Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9372705; MMSI 357029000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: PRIME TANKERS LLC).
Identified as property in which PRIME TANKERS LLC, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.
28. SIMRAN (HO4539) Oil Products Tanker Panama flag; Vessel Registration Identification IMO 9136644; MMSI 356762000 (vessel) [IRAN-EO13902] (Linked To: GLOBAL TANKERS PRIVATE LIMITED).
Identified as property in which GLOBAL TANKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13902, has an interest.