Agricultural Marketing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Drug Enforcement Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Kenansville, NC, by adding airspace for ECU Health Duplin Heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at this airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 17, 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, as well as subsequent amendments, can be viewed online at
Marc Ellerbee, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone: (404) 305-5589.
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 Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for ECU Health Duplin Heliport in Kenansville, NC.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA 2024-1981 in the
Class E airspace is published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for ECU Health Duplin Heliport, Kenansville, NC, by adding airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the ECU Health Duplin Heliport, Kenansville, NC. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
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 will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
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 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the 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); 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 6.8-mile radius of Duplin County Airport and within a 6-mile radius of ECU Health Duplin Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action revokes the Class D and Class E airspace in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). RMI is an independent nation, and the FAA does not have regulatory authority to establish or amend domestic airspace pursuant to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 over RMI's land or territorial waters.
Effective date 0901 UTC, April 17, 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 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
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it is a required change due to not having regulatory authority to establish or amend airspace at RMI pursuant to 14 CFR part 71.
In 2024, the FAA received a request for formal interpretation of the airspace associated with Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). This request led to an in-depth review of the Class D and Class E airspace at RMI. In 1947, the United Nations assigned the United States administering authority over the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, which included RMI. During this time, the FAA established Class D and Class E airspace, pursuant to 14 CFR part 71. This airspace was established in support of the Bucholz Army Airfield located on the Kwajalein Atoll in RMI. In 1986, the United States and RMI entered a Compact of Free Association which established RMI as a sovereign nation. When the United States entered the Compact of Free Association with RMI, the FAA's authority to establish or amend airspace pursuant to 14 CFR part 71 was no longer applicable to RMI. However, the previously established airspace was never revoked. This action corrects this and revokes the Class D and Class E airspace associated with RMI.
Class D airspace areas are published in paragraph 5000 and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the Earth are published in paragraph 6005 and of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by revoking the Class D and Class E airspace in the RMI. RMI is an independent nation, and the FAA does not have regulatory authority to establish or amend domestic airspace pursuant to 14 CFR part 71 over RMI's land or territorial waters.
This action is a required change due to the FAA not having regulatory authority to establish or amend airspace at RMI pursuant to 14 CFR part 71, therefore notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
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)
The FAA has determined that this action of revoking Class D and Class E airspace in the RMI qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
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); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a widespread fatigue damage (WFD) scenario review for a certification project that indicated several cracks found around the potable water and wastewater service panels were WFD instead of typical fatigue. This proposed AD would require modification of the potable water and wastewater service panels, 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 March 10, 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.
Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 206-231-3667; 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 Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 206-231-3667; email:
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2024-0105, dated May 30, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0105) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes. The MCAI states that, during the WFD scenario review of the frame for certification of the Airbus SAS Model A321XLR, it has been identified that some previous findings of the full-scale fatigue test in WFD areas were not properly correlated. The WFD criteria in terms of number of findings per location and end-of-test demonstrated life have to be assessed accordingly. Several cracks found around the potable water and wastewater service panels (WFD areas) shall be considered as WFD instead of typical fatigue findings; therefore, WFD fatigue calculations must be updated accordingly. This condition, if not addressed, could affect the structural integrity of the fuselage.
The A321XLR frame design is similar to that of the Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes. Therefore, these airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition. 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 2024-0105 specifies procedures for modification of the potable water service panel at stringer (STR) 43 between frames (FRs) 65 and 66 and the wastewater service panel at STR 40 between FRs 65 and 66. Modification includes:
• Removing the solid rivets in both service panels areas;
• Performing a rotating probe test (
• If any crack is detected in any service panel, obtaining and following approved repair instructions;
• If any crack is not detected in the potable water service panel, cold working the fastener holes;
• If any crack is not detected in the wastewater service panel, drilling the fastener holes; and
• Installing hi-lok fasteners with interference fit in both service panels.
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 2024-0105 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
EASA AD 2024-0105 specifies that accomplishment of the modification on an airplane supersedes airworthiness limitations tasks 534141-02-2 and 534142-02-1 for that airplane unless the approved repair instructions specify otherwise. Note the FAA issued an NPRM, FAA Docket No. FAA-2024-2145 (89 FR 77045, September 20, 2024), to propose mandating new airworthiness limitations, including those tasks.
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 2024-0105 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0105 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 2024-0105 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 2024-0105. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0105 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 344 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 repair of any crack, as specified in this proposed 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.
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 March 10, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0105, dated May 30, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0105).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a widespread fatigue damage (WFD) scenario review for a certification project that indicated several cracks found around the potable water and wastewater service panels are WFD instead of typical fatigue. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks around the potable water and wastewater service panels. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could affect structural integrity of the fuselage.
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, EASA AD 2024-0105.
This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0105.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: 206-231-3667; 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 2024-0105, dated May 30, 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.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that applied to all General Electric Company (GE) Model CF34-10E2A1, CF34-10E6, CF34-10E6A1, CF34-10E7, and CF34-10E7-B engines with certain part-numbered high-pressure turbine (HPT) shroud/low pressure turbine (LPT) nozzle assemblies installed. This action revises the NPRM by adding Model CF34-10E5 and CF34-10E5A1 engines to the applicability. The FAA is proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM the agency is requesting comments on this SNPRM.
The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by March 10, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For GE material identified in this proposed 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.
Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7178; 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 SNPRM 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 SNPRM, 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 SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to GE Model CF34-10E2A1, CF34-10E6, CF34-10E6A1, CF34-10E7, and CF34-10E7-B engines with an installed HPT shroud/LPT nozzle assembly having part number (P/N) 2205M38G01, 2205M38G02, 2205M38G03, 2205M38G04, or 2205M38G05. The NPRM published in the
Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the FAA received comments and determined that Model CF34-10E5 and CF34-10E5A1 engines were inadvertently omitted from the applicability of the NPRM. In addition, the Cost of Compliance section was modified to reflect a more accurate estimate of the number of affected engines. While the number of affected models increased, the number of affected engines is lower than previously estimated.
The FAA received comments from three commenters. The commenters were the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Japan Airlines, and GE. ALPA supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comments received from Japan Airlines and GE and the FAA's response.
Japan Airlines and GE suggested that engine Model CF34-10E5 and CF34-10E5A1 be included in the applicability of the NPRM because the effectivity of GE CF34-10E Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0351 R01, dated July 17, 2019 (GE CF34-10E SB 72-0351 R01) applies to all CF34-10E engines with an installed HPT shroud/LPT nozzle assembly having part number (P/N) 2205M38G01, 2205M38G02, 2205M38G03, 2205M38G04, or 2205M38G05.
The FAA agrees and has revised paragraph (c) of this proposed AD to add engine Model CF34-10E5 and CF34-10E5A1.
The FAA is proposing this AD after determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
The FAA reviewed GE CF34-10E SB 72-0351 R01, which provides instructions for a visual inspection of the combustion case for wear and gouges, repair if necessary, and rework of the affected HPT shroud/LPT nozzle assemblies. This material also introduces a new HPT shroud/LPT nozzle assembly P/N 2205M38G07 with welded retaining rings. This service information 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 proposed AD would require a visual inspection of the combustion case for wear and gouges, repair if necessary, and rework of the affected HPT shroud/
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, affects 221 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need these repairs.
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 March 10, 2025.
None.
(1) This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) CF34-10E2A1, CF34-10E5, CF34-10E5A1, CF34-10E6, CF34-10E6A1, CF34-10E7, and CF34-10E7-B engines with an installed high-pressure turbine (HPT) shroud/low-pressure turbine (LPT) nozzle assembly having part number (P/N) 2205M38G01, 2205M38G02, 2205M38G03, 2205M38G04, or 2205M38G05.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by a report of failed retention features of the inner and outer support air ducts (commonly referred to as spoolies) discovered during engine disassembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the combustion case. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the inner surface of the combustion case having reduced load carrying capability for fan blade out or other extreme event with possible engine separation and loss of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, do a visual inspection of the combustion case inner shell surface for wear and gouges in accordance with paragraphs 3.A.(1) and (2) of the Accomplishment Instructions in GE CF34-10E Service Bulletin (SB) 72-0351 R01, dated July 17, 2019 (GE CF34-10E SB 72-0351 R01).
(i) If any wear or gouges are found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, before further flight, repair the combustion case in accordance with Table 1 of GE CF34-10E SB 72-0351 R01.
(ii) If any wear or gouges exceed the maximum repairable limit in accordance
(2) At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of this AD, rework the affected HPT shroud/LPT nozzle assembly, in accordance with paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE CF34-10E SB 72-0351 R01.
For the purpose of this AD, an “engine shop visit” is defined as when the HPT shroud/LPT nozzle assembly or the HPT rotor disk is removed from the engine.
(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 (j) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Alexei Marqueen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7178; 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.
(i) GE CF34-10E Service Bulletin 72-0351 R01, dated July 17, 2019.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For GE material identified in this AD, contact GE, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone: (513) 552-3272; email:
(4) 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.
(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.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify the Class D surface area airspace, Class E airspace area designated as surface area, Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, and the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, Bozeman, MT. These actions would support the safety and management of visual flight rules (VFR) and instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2025.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-2423 and Airspace Docket No. 23-ANM-63 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3460.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify Class D and Class E airspace to support VFR and IFR operations at Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, Bozeman, MT.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Class D, E2, E4, and E5 airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024 and effective September 15, 2024. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would modify the Class D surface area airspace, the Class E airspace area designated as surface area, the Class E airspace areas designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, and the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, Bozeman, MT.
The radius of the Class D surface area and Class E airspace area designated as surface area should be expanded to 5.1 miles to appropriately contain departures until reaching the next adjacent airspace. The southeast extension of the Class D surface area and Class E airspace designated as surface area should be eliminated as it is no longer needed.
In addition, the Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area northwest of the airport should be lengthened by .8 miles and widened by one mile to better contain arriving IFR aircraft on the Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Runway (RWY) 12 approach while below 1,000 feet above the surface.
Finally, the central radius of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface should be expanded to 7.2 miles to better contain IFR aircraft departing on the BOZEMAN SIX DEPARTURE (OBSTACLE) until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. The southeast extension centered on the 131° bearing should be lengthened and realigned to the 136° bearing to better contain departing IFR aircraft on the BOBKT FIVE DEPARTURE (Area Navigation [RNAV]) until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals on the RNAV (Required Navigation Performance [RNP]) Z RWY 30 approach below 1,500 feet above the surface. The southeast extension centered on the 155° bearing should be expanded by .7 miles, shortened by .1 miles, and realigned to the 165° bearing to better contain IFR departures until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals on the RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 30 approach below 1,500 feet above the surface. The northwest extension should be widened .6 miles and shortened 1 mile to 4.2 miles on either side of the 316° bearing, extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 14.7 miles northwest of the airport to contain the hold-in-lieu of pattern for the Instrument landing System (ILS) Localizer (LOC) RWY 12 arrival procedure for IFR aircraft descending below 1,500 feet above the surface.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 7,000 feet MSL within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 4.1 miles southwest and 3.7 miles northeast of the airport's 316° bearing extending from its 5.1-mile radius to 14.5 miles northwest of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.2-mile radius from the airport, and within 2 miles northeast and 1.3 miles southwest of the airport's 136° bearing extending from its 7.2-mile radius to 14.8 miles southeast of the airport, and within 4.3 miles east and 2 miles west of the airport's 165° bearing extending from its 7.2-mile radius to 10.5 miles south of the airport, and within 4.2 miles either side of the airport's 316° bearing extending from its 7.2-mile radius to 14.7 miles northwest of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to revoke Jet Route J-606 and establish United States Area Navigation Route (RNAV) Q-182 in Alaska. The FAA is proposing this action due to the pending decommissioning of the Chinook, AK, Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB).
Comments must be received on or before March 10, 2025.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-0091 and Airspace Docket No. 24-AAL-125 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the airway structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
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
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004 and United States RNAV Routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11J lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176), which established a joint planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today, NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more predictable.
In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of an ongoing, large, and comprehensive airway modernization project in the state of Alaska. Part of this project is to transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from dependency on NDBs and move to develop and improve the Area Navigation (RNAV) route structure. The FAA is planning to decommission the Chinook, AK, NDB. As a result, J-606 will become unusable. The mitigation to the loss of J-606 is the establishment of RNAV Route Q-182. The proposed routing of Q-182 is a direct overlay of the current J-606.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to revoke J-606 and establish RNAV Route Q-182 in Alaska. The FAA is proposing these actions due to the pending decommissioning of the Chinook, AK, NDB.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Agency for International Development (USAID).
Notice of information collection.
The U.S. Agency for International Development's Innovation, Technology, and Research Hub invites the general public to review this new information collection. This survey is administered by the USAID Innovation, Technology, and Research Hub's Technology Division. Responses to this survey will be used to select the winners of the 2025 Digital Development Awards once the application opens next year. The Digital Development Awards recognize and celebrate USAID-funded projects and activities that harness the power of digital technology to promote inclusive growth.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted by February 24, 2025 to
To access and review the Google Form, please visit
For specific questions related to this collection, please contact John O'Bryan (
The Digital Development Awards recognize and celebrate USAID-funded projects and activities that embrace the Agency's strategic goals of improving development and humanitarian assistance outcomes through the use of digital technology and strengthening open, secure, and inclusive digital ecosystems.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party for the Agency. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The 60-day notice was published November 15, 2024 at 89 FR 90260.
Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice and request for comments.
This notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget, for extension of a currently approved collection titled: Agritourism Directory, from the Office of Management and Budget 0581-0332. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, AMS is responsible for conducting research to enhance market access for small and medium sized farmers. The role of the Local and Regional Foods Division of AMS is to facilitate the fair and efficient marketing of U.S. agricultural products. This information is used to populate the USDA's National Local Food Directories that assists customers looking to buy fresh local foods for their families to wholesale food buyers.
Comments on this notice must be received by March 24, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice. Comments should be submitted online at
Americo Vega-Labiosa, Local and Regional Foods Division, Transportation and Marketing Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Room 1529 South Building, Ag Stop 0264, Washington, DC 20250-0264; Telephone: (202) 384-8936 or Email:
The definitions of farmers markets, on-farm markets, community-supported agriculture (CSA), and food hubs, as utilized by AMS for the purposes of the Local Food Directories and Survey are listed below.
An
An
A
A
This information will be used to continue building the USDA National Local Food Directories describing the characteristics of local food operations and working farms.
Topic areas in the survey:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Zebra Technologies Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Kenosha, Wisconsin within FTZ 41. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on January 13, 2025.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: self-adhesive nameplates, labels, and sheets; plastic mounting components; cellular rubber articles; vulcanized rubber articles; paper packing material; rolls of labels; stylus tethers; straps; steel screws; steel wire springs; metal clips; AC power filter release instrument kits; cable routing tool kits; PCB removal took kits and print head cam sync gauge kits; castors;
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: plastic labels in roll; plastic labels in sheet; plastic end cap parts; plastic with textile labels; plastic bags; plastic caps/plugs/closures; plastic gaskets/seals/washers; plastic name plates, labels, mounts, straps, and ties; rubber gaskets and washer grommets; rubber grommets; corrugated boxes, printed paper labels; self-adhesive paper labels; paper core rolls for labels; paper packing spacers, pads, and inserts; single sheet instructions/manuals; instructions/manuals; instruction/manuals/brochures; stylus tethers; touchpad hand carrying straps and belt loops; lens filters; machine steel screws; steel screws with a diameter less than 6 millimeters; steel screws with a diameter greater than 6 millimeters; steel nuts; steel spring lock washers; flat steel washers; steel rivets; steel cotter pins; steel helical spring; steel extension spring; steel threaded standoff; aluminum belt tensioning device; hex key hand tools; AC power filter release tool kits; phone camera sync devices; maghead insertion cable devices; mirror mount brackets; metal brackets; thermal printers; printer heads; feeder roller; main PCB board; mobile computers and tablets; docking stations; barcode scanners, imagers, and scan engines; point of sale terminals; outer housing; display assembly; ball bearings; clutches, shafts couplings, and joints; chargers; charger parts; battery cells; lithium-ion batteries; cellphone devices; mobile computing devices; data transmitting devices; RFID antennas; aerial reflectors; CD-rom media; smart card media; wet inlay tags; digital cameras; real-time location tags; radio antennas for mobile devices; mobile computing device parts; main PCB board assembly and outer housing; coaxial connectors; mobile computing device touch panel PCB; LED lights; paper-low sensor kits; cables for telecommunication devices; detachable power cables; flex cables (less than 80 volts); feedkey and flex cables for printers; ferrite; spectrometers; industrial fixed mount machine vision devices; printer ribbon high/low torque devices; and flipper deck level devices (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 4.5%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41). The Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.13(c)(2)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Kolade Osho at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain chassis and subassemblies thereof (chassis) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.
Applicable January 23, 2025.
Gemma Larsen, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-8125.
On July 8, 2021, Commerce published in the
On August 14, 2024, Commerce published in the
On September 19, 2024, Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind the instant review in
On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative proceeding by 90 days.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments on proposed renewal incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS received a request from the U.S. Navy on behalf of the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) for the renewal of their currently active incidental harassment authorization (IHA) (hereinafter, the “Project”) to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with the relocation of NOAA research vessels at Naval Station Newport (NAVSTA) in Rhode Island. NOAA OMAO activities are nearly identical to those covered in the current authorization. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), prior to issuing the currently active IHA, NMFS requested comments on both the proposed IHA and the potential for renewing the initial authorization if certain requirements were satisfied. The renewal requirements have been satisfied, and NMFS is now providing an additional 15-day comment period to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal not previously provided during the initial 30-day comment period.
Comments and information must be received no later than February 7, 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
Jessica Taylor, 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 will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definition of all applicable MMPA statutory used above are included in the relevant sections below and can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the NMFS's implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time 1-year renewal of an 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 Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
1. A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
2. The request for renewal must include the following:
• 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 (
• 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.
3. 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 will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at:
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 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 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 determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has preliminarily determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.
On December 21, 2022, NMFS announced issuance of an IHA to NOAA OMAO to take marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with vessel relocation at NAVSTA in Newport, RI (87 FR 78072), effective from February 1, 2024 through January 31, 2025. On November 15, 2024, NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted.
NOAA OMAO's initial IHA authorized take of marine mammals incidental to construction activities associated with NOAA research vessel relocation at NAVSTA in Newport, RI. NOAA OMAO plans to establish adequate pier, shoreside, and support facilities for four NOAA research vessels in Coddington Cove at NAVSTA. All facilities must meet NOAA docking and berthing requirements for the four relocated research vessels. As part of this activity, a new pier, trestle, and bulkhead have been constructed over a total of approximately 191 days. Due to unanticipated delays, NOAA OMAO will be unable to complete the remaining activities before the expiration date of the current IHA. The
The potential impacts of NOAA OMAO's proposed activities on marine mammals could involve acoustic stressors and are unchanged from the impacts described in the notice of the proposed 2022 IHA (87 FR 66133, November 2, 2022). Underwater sound resulting from NOAA OMAO's activities has the potential to result in incidental take of marine mammals in the form of Level A harassment and Level B harassment in the specified geographic region.
This proposed renewal IHA is for the remainder of the work that will not be completed by the expiration date of the initial IHA. The renewal IHA would authorize incidental take, by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, of seven species (comprising seven stocks) of marine mammals for a subset of the construction activities to be completed in 1 year, in the same area, using identical construction methods (vibratory pile driving and removal, impact pile driving, and DTH mono-hammer pile installation) described in the initial IHA. Neither NOAA OMAO nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. The anticipated effects on marine mammals and the affected stocks also remain the same. All mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures would remain exactly as described in the
A detailed description of the construction activities for which incidental take is proposed here may be found in the notices of the proposed IHA (87 FR 66133, November 2, 2022) and final IHA (87 FR 78072, December 21, 2022) for the initial authorization. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are nearly identical to those described in the previous notices. The only differences are in the timing of activities, as described here and in the renewal IHA request. The NOAA OMAO proposed trestle rotary drilling, over a total of 4 in-water work days, and mono-hammer DTH drilling for bulkhead construction, over a total of 12 in-water work days. These actions were not required once construction activities began, thus there was a reduction of 16 in-water work days. In addition, 57 of the 30-inch steel pipe piles for the pier were installed incorrectly. These piles were cut at the mudline, but 57 new 30-inch steel pipe piles needed to be installed instead. The in-water work time for installing the 30-inch steel pipe piles was 4 piles/day, leading to an additional 15 in-water work days than was allotted for these piles. There was also a decrease of 45 in-water work days due to the ability to use a construction template that accommodates 12 piles instead of 4 piles. Lastly, construction activities did not occur concurrently, as previously proposed, and remaining construction activities are not proposed to occur concurrently. The proposed renewal would be effective for a period not exceeding 1 year from the date of expiration of the initial IHA.
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which authorization of take is proposed here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which an authorization of incidental take is proposed here may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (87 FR 66133, November 2, 2022). NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent SARs, information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events, and other scientific literature, and determined that there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (87 FR 66133, November 2, 2022; 87 FR 78072, December 21, 2022). Specifically, the action area and marine mammal density and occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the initial and modified IHA. Similarly, source levels, type of activity, methods of take, and types of take remain unchanged from the initial and modified IHA. However, there are changes to the estimated Level A harassment zones based on the revised amount of piles driven per day and the 2024 draft Technical Guidance, further discussed below. The estimated number of takes proposed for authorization is based on the subset of activities to be completed under this renewal IHA, and therefore represents a proportion of the initial authorized takes. These takes reflect the estimated remaining number of days of work and number of piles to be driven. Estimated take by Level A and Level B harassment was calculated using the same methodology as in the initial and modified IHA.
On October 24, 2024 NMFS published (89 FR 84872) its final Updated Technical Guidance (
NMFS has also considered whether modifications to mitigation requirements,
In this proposed renewal, use of the Updated Technical Guidance results in changes to the estimated Level A harassment zones, but there are no changes to the estimated Level B harassment zones. The updated Level A harassment zones are used to inform our understanding of potential take by Level A harassment. In table 4, total take numbers are based on the methodology that was included in the previous authorizations, incorporating the previously described changes (number of piles per day and the Updated Technical Guidance). Takes are a proportion of the initial authorized takes and based on the days of work included in this renewal IHA. Level A harassment numbers have been held constant in reflection of the increases to estimated Level A harassment zone sizes. Proposed mitigation zones, in consideration of the updated isopleths, are discussed in the Proposed Mitigation section.
The number of takes proposed for authorization are a subset of the initial authorized takes, reflective of the updated generalized hearing ranges and distances to the Level A harassment threshold. The source levels, stocks taken, density values, methods of take, and types of take remain unchanged from the initial IHA. Estimated takes by Level A harassment and Level B harassment, based upon the number of remaining in-water work days, are indicated in table 4.
The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures proposed here are identical to those included in the
• A minimum shutdown zone of 10 m would be applied for all in-water construction activities if the Level A harassment zone is less than 10 meters (m);
• If an activity is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone indicated in table 4 or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal; and
• Construction activities must be halted upon observation of a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met entering or within the harassment zone.
If a marine mammal enters the Level B harassment zone, in-water work would proceed and PSOs would document the marine mammal's presence and behavior. Level B harassment zones remain unchanged since issuance of the initial IHA and are shown in table 12 of the
Monitoring would be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition, PSOs would record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and would document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being driven or removed. Pile driving 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.
Each hydrophone would be calibrated at the start of each action and would be checked frequently to the applicable standards of the hydrophone manufacturer. Environmental data would be collected, including but not limited to, the following: wind speed and direction, air temperature, humidity, surface water temperature, water depth, wave height, weather conditions, and other factors that could contribute to influencing the airborne and underwater sound levels (
• Maximum peak pressure level recorded for all the strikes associated with each pile or shaft, expressed in dB re 1 μPa. For pile driving and DTH mono-hammer excavation, this maximum value would originate from the phase of pile driving/drilling during which hammer/drill energy was also at maximum (referred to as level 4); and
• From all the strikes associated with each pile occurring during the level 4 phase these additional measures would be made: mean, median, minimum, and maximum root mean square (RMS) pressure level in [dB re 1 μPa]; mean duration of a pile strike (based on the 90 percent energy criterion); and number of hammer strikes. The cumulative SEL would be computed from all the strikes associated with each pile occurring during all phases, (
Hydro-acoustic monitoring would be conducted for at least 10 percent and up to 10 of each different pile type for each method of installation as shown in Table 13-1 in the application for the initial IHA. All acoustic data would be analyzed after the project period for pile driving and DTH mono-hammer excavation events to confirm SPLs and rate of transmission loss for each construction activity.
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, NOAA OMAO would report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR) (
As noted previously, NMFS published a notice of a proposed IHA (87 FR 66133, November 2, 2022) and solicited public comments on both our proposal to issue the initial IHA for construction activities associated with the relocation of NOAA vessels to NAVSTA and on the potential for a renewal IHA, should certain requirements be met. No public comments were received on the proposed IHA.
NOAA OMAO's activities are a subset but otherwise unchanged from those analyzed in support of the initial IHA. The effects of the activity, taking into consideration the proposed mitigation and related monitoring measures, remain unchanged from those evaluated in support of the initial IHA.
NMFS has preliminarily concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. This includes consideration of the updated acoustic guidance resulting in updated distances to the Level A harassment thresholds and estimated abundance of common dolphin and harbor porpoise stocks decreasing slightly based upon the 2023 SAR. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has preliminarily determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is proposed for authorization or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this proposed action.
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue a renewal IHA to NOAA OMAO for conducting construction activities associated with NOAA vessel relocation at NAVSTA in Newport, RI through January 31, 2026, provided the previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed and final initial IHA can be found at
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent; withdrawal.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District (the Corps) is issuing this notice to advise Federal, State, and local governmental agencies and the public that the Corps is withdrawing the notice of intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Riverport Development and Proposed New Interchange on I-95 in Jasper County, South Carolina.
The notice of intent to prepare a DEIS in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Charleston District; Attn: Leslie Estill, 69A Hagood Avenue, Charleston, SC 29403.
For further information and/or questions about withdrawal of the Notice of Intent, please contact Leslie Estill, Project Manager, by
The Corps is evaluating an updated (third) DA permit application, dated September 27, 2022, from SLF III—Hardeeville, LLC (aka Stratford Land) for the Riverport-Exit 3 project (SAC-2010-00064) in accordance with Corps regulations and the policies and procedures that are established in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The proposed Riverport-Exit 3 project requires authorization under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), and the Corps previously advertised a public notice for the updated (third) DA permit application on November 23, 2022 (see
On August 1, 2014, the Corps issued a Notice of Intent to prepare a DEIS for the Riverport Development and Proposed New Interchange on I-95 in Jasper County, South Carolina (SAC-2010-00064) (the Riverport-Exit 3 project). Over the last ten years, the permit applicant, SLF III—Hardeeville, LLC (aka Stratford Land), has substantially modified the proposed master plan and the footprint of the proposed Riverport-Exit 3 project several times. As a result, the updated (third) Department of the Army (DA) permit application for the Riverport-Exit 3 project, dated September 27, 2022, has also changed substantially. For instance, the overall project footprint has decreased from 5,136 acres to approximately 4,304.65 acres, impacts to waters of the United States have decreased from 102.16 acres to 46.26 acres, and the mitigation plan has been updated to include an increase that results in obtaining 50% more credit than what is the required amount. Due to these developments, the Corps has elected to proceed with preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the potential significance of the updated (third) DA permit application for the Riverport-Exit 3 project (see 40 CFR 1501.3(c)(2) and 1501.5(a)) and withdraw the notice of intent to prepare a DEIS for the earlier version of the
In notice document 2024-30493, appearing on pages 105790 through 105983 in the issue of Friday, December 27, 2024, make the following correction:
On page 105790, in the first column, in the document heading, the Docket No. should appear as above.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing but is not ready for environmental analysis.
l. The New Cumberland Project would be located at the Corps' existing New Cumberland Locks and Dam and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) a 101-foot-wide, 193-foot-long reinforced concrete powerhouse; (2) a 90-foot-wide by 350-foot-long intake section with trash racks; (3) two identical Kaplan pit turbine-generators with a combined capacity of 19.99 megawatts; (4) a 13.8-kilovolt (kV), 180-foot-long underground utilidor crossing under the Norfolk Southern railway and transitioning to a 350-foot overhead transmission to the powerhouse-substation; (5) a 90-foot-wide by 90-foot-long powerhouse-substation; (6) a 1,050-foot-long, 34.5-kV, three-phase overhead transmission line connecting the powerhouse-substation to the existing 35-kV transmission line, east of Hancock County Bus Garage interconnection point in West Virginia; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
m. A copy of the application is available for review via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
n. 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, environmental justice communities, 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
o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing but is not ready for environmental analysis.
l. The Pike Island Project would be located the Corps' existing Pike Island Locks and Dam and would consist of the following new facilities: (1) a 101-foot-wide, 193-foot-long reinforced concrete powerhouse; (2) a 90-foot-wide, 110-foot-long intake section with trash racks; (3) two Kaplan pit turbine-generators with a combined capacity of 19.99 megawatts; (4) a 95-foot-wide, 150-foot-long tailrace channel; (5) a 13.8-kilovolt (kV), 550-foot-long underground utilidor crossing under River Road; (6) a 2,223 foot-long, 69-kV, three phase overhead transmission line connecting the powerhouse substation to the 69-kV Glenn Run-Tiltonsville interconnection point in Ohio; and (7) appurtenant facilities.
m. A copy of the application is available for review via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
n. 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, environmental justice communities, 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
o. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION,” or “COMPETING APPLICATION;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
p.
On January 3, 2022, Big Wood Canal Company, licensee for the Magic Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 3407 (project), filed a Notice of Intent (NOI) to file an application for a new license for the project pursuant to section 15(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
The 9-megawatt project is located on the Big Wood River in Blaine and Camas Counties, Idaho. The project consists of: (1) a 640-foot-long, 128-foot-high earth-filled dam; (2) a 1,260-foot-long, 50-foot-high dike; (3) a 1,200-foot-long spillway structure; (4) a 3,740-acre reservoir with a storage capacity of approximately 191,500 acre-feet at an elevation of 4,798 feet; (5) a 37-foot-high intake tower; (6) a 620-foot-long, 132-inch-diameter outlet conduit leading to a 170-foot-long, 132-inch-diameter penstock connecting to a powerhouse; (7) a powerhouse containing three generating units with a combined capacity of 9 megawatts; (8) a 9.2-mile-long, 4.16 kilovolt transmission line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The average annual energy generation of the project is approximately 14.3 gigawatt-hours.
Pursuant to section 15(c)(1) of the FPA
The statutory date for filing a final license application cannot be waived.
With this notice, we are waiving those parts of section 16.24(a) and 16.25(a) which bar an existing licensee that missed the two-year application filing deadline from filing another application. Further, because Big Wood Canal Company completed the pre-filing consultation requirements pursuant to Part 4 of the Commission's regulations, we are waiving the consultation requirements in section 16.8(b) and (c) for the existing licensee. Consequently, Big Wood Canal Company will be allowed to file a license application and compete for the license.
The licensee is required to make available certain information described in section 16.7 of the regulations. For more information from the licensee, please contact Big Wood Canal Company's authorized agent Mr. Peter Josten, 2742 Saint Charles Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83404, (208) 339-3542.
Pursuant to section 16.25(b), a potential applicant that files a notice of intent within 90 days from the date of this notice: (1) may apply for a license under Part I of the FPA and Part 4 (except section 4.38) of the Commission's regulations within 18 months of the date on which it files its notice; and (2) must comply with sections 16.8 and 16.10 of the Commission's regulations.
Questions concerning this notice should be directed to Amy Chang at (202) 502-6154 or email at
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, all agencies are required to publish in the
Comments on this modified system of records must be received no later than 30 days after the date of publication in the
Comments may be submitted in writing to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 or electronically to
Mittal Desai, Chief Information Officer & Senior Agency Official for Privacy, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6432 or
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, FERC is updating this notice and republishing it in its entirety. This notice has three (3) new routine uses, routine uses 10, 12 and 13, and updates were made to the language of routine uses 6, 9, and 11. In addition, FERC is amending the following sections to reflect changes made since the publication of the last notice in the
FERC Transit Subsidy Program (TSP) Records (FERC-41).
Unclassified.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Logistics Management Division, Logistics Operations and Publishing Services, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Tyrone Simpkins, Logistics Operations Branch Chief, Logistics Operations and Publishing Services, Logistics Management Division, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6639.
41 CFR 101-6.3; Public Law 103-172, 5 U.S.C. 7905.
The purpose of the system is to support the overall management of transit subsidy operations for the agency. The application is used to submit applications for the federal government's transit subsidy benefits program and to request transit subsidies; to track employees' commuting expenses; and to monitor the program budget.
The categories of individuals covered by the system are FERC employees enrolled in the transit benefits program.
The categories of records in the system include employee's name, supervisor's name, office, home address, office and personal telephone number, special circumstances (senior citizen or disabled), number of days commuting, monthly commuting cost, SmarTrip card number, and mode of transportation.
Information is obtained from current employees seeking to participate in the federal government's employee transit subsidy benefits program.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, information maintained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities outside FERC for purposes determined to be relevant and necessary as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) are as follows:
1. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) FERC suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (b) FERC has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the Commission (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
2. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when FERC determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or (b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
3. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of that individual.
4. To the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when requested in connection with investigations of alleged or possible discriminatory practices, examination of Federal affirmative employment programs, or other functions of the Commission as authorized by law or regulation.
5. To the Federal Labor Relations Authority or its General Counsel when requested in connection with investigations of allegations of unfair
6. To disclose information to another Federal agency, to a court, or a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative proceeding being conducted by a Federal agency, when the Government is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding. In those cases where the Government is not a party to the proceeding, records may be disclosed if a subpoena has been signed by a judge.
7. To the Department of Justice (DOJ) for its use in providing legal advice to FERC or in representing FERC in a proceeding before a court, adjudicative body, or other administrative body, where the use of such information by the DOJ is deemed by FERC to be relevant and necessary to the advice or proceeding, and such proceeding names as a party in interest: (a) FERC; (b) any employee of FERC in his or her official capacity; (c) any employee of FERC in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States, where FERC determines that litigation is likely to affect FERC or any of its components.
8. To non-Federal Personnel, such as contractors, agents, or other authorized individuals performing work on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity on behalf of FERC or Federal Government and who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities.
9. To the National Archives and Records Administration in records management inspections and its role as Archivist.
10. To the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Board's Office of the Special Counsel, when relevant information is requested in connection with appeals, special studies of the civil service and other merit systems, review of OPM rules and regulations, and investigations of alleged or possible prohibited personnel practices.
11. To appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, if the information may be relevant to a potential violation of civil or criminal law, rule, regulation, order.
12. To appropriate agencies, entities, and person(s) that are a party to a dispute, when FERC determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary for the recipient to assist with the resolution of the dispute; and the information may include the name, address, telephone number, email address, and affiliation of the agency, entity, and/or person(s) seeking and/or participating in dispute resolution services, where appropriate.
13. To Office of Personnel Management (OPM) or Government Accountability Office (GAO) during the course of on-site inspections or human resources audits.
Records are maintained in electronic format and stored by individuals first and last names on an internal web-based application. In addition, all FERC employees and contractors with authorized access have undergone a thorough background security investigation. Data access is restricted to agency personnel or contractors whose responsibilities require access. Access to electronic records is controlled by the organization's Single Sign-On and Multi-Factor Authentication Solution. Role based access is used to restrict electronic data access and the organization employs the principle of least privilege, allowing only authorized users with access (or processes acting on behalf of users) necessary to accomplish assigned tasks in accordance with organizational missions and business functions.
Records may be retrieved by employee's name or SmarTrip card number.
Records are retained in accordance with the following applicable National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) schedules:
1. General Records Schedule (GRS) 2.4: Employee Compensation and Benefits Records, Item 130: Disposition Authority: DAA-GRS-2016-0015-0017. Temporary. Destroy when 3 years old, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use.
2. General Records Schedule (GRS) 2.4: Employee Compensation and Benefits Records, Item 131: Disposition Authority: DAA-GRS-2016-0015-0018. Temporary. Destroy 2 years after employee participation concludes, but longer retention is authorized if required for business use.
3. General Records Schedules (GRS) 5.2: Transition and Intermediary Records. Item 020: Disposition Authority: DAA-GRS-2022-0009-0002. Temporary. Destroy upon creation or update of the final record, or when no longer needed for business use, whichever is later.
Individuals requesting access to the contents of records must submit a request through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office. The FOIA website is located at:
Generalized notice is provided by the publication of this notice. For specific notice, see Records Access Procedure, above.
None.
65 FR 21755 (April 24, 2000)
86 FR 71477 (December 16, 202.1)
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new major license to continue to operate and maintain the American Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2736. The project is located at the American Falls Dam, owned and operated by the United States Bureau of Reclamation. The project occupies 7.37 acres of United States land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation in Power County, Idaho. Commission staff
The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system 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, environmental justice communities, 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
For further information, contact Golbahar Mirhosseini at
On November 18, 2024, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (Southern Star) filed an application in Docket No. CP25-19-000 requesting a (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Osage County, Oklahoma. The proposed project is known as the Cedar Vale Compressor Station Project (Project) and would facilitate the delivery of approximately 98,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to customers in Kansas and Missouri and would allow Southern Star to increase the capacity of its existing natural gas transmission system.
On December 3, 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing Federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a Federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The Cedar Vale Project would consist of the following facilities:
• a new 6,091-horsepower Solar Centaur 50 turbine compressor unit;
• approximately 1,028 feet of associated piping; and
• other appurtenant facilities including vales, tanks, control systems, fencing, and security equipment.
On January 7, 2025, the Commission issued a
In response to the Notice of Application, the Commission received environmental comments from the Paul Wayne Kelly Revocable Trust (affected landowner) regarding erosion, special status species, land use/value, air quality/noise, tribal mineral rights, and impacts on vegetation and wildlife/livestock. All substantive comments will be addressed in the EA. No comments have been received in response to the Notice of Scoping.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
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, environmental justice communities, 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
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has changed the date of its December 2025 meeting.
The December 2025 meeting is no longer scheduled for December 9-10, 2025. The new date is December 16-17, 2025.
Agendas, briefing materials, and other meeting information will be available at
Ms. Monica R. Valentine, Executive Director, 441 G Street NW, Suite 1155, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
The purpose of the meetings is to discuss issues related to the following topics:
Notice is hereby given that a portion of each scheduled meeting may be closed to the public. The Appointments Panel, a chartered subcommittee of FASAB that makes recommendations regarding appointments for non-federal member positions, is expected to meet during each meeting. A portion of each Appointments Panel meeting will be closed to the public. The reason for the closures is that matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) will be discussed. Any such discussions will involve matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of the sponsor agencies and the disclosure of information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Such discussions will be segregated into separate discussions so that a portion of each meeting will be open to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1009(d), portions of advisory committee meetings may be closed to the public where the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports determines that such portion of such meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code. The determination shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons for the determination. A determination has been made in writing by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget, as required by section 10(d) of FACA, that such portions of the meetings may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code.
Unless otherwise noted, FASAB meetings begin at 9 a.m. and conclude before 5 p.m. Meetings are either in-person at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) building at 441 G St. NW or virtual. Regardless of whether the Board meeting is virtual or in-person, you may observe the meeting virtually.
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 of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the 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 Office of Management and Budget
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before March 24, 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 Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Blackouts are the unfortunate result of failed retransmission consent negotiations. The Order concludes that a reporting requirement is necessary to provide information that will enable the Commission to assess the functioning of the retransmission consent process, including the effects of blackouts on competition and consumers, and inform Congress. Currently, there is no official, public source that aggregates and reports information on such blackouts. As a result, the Commission and the public do not always have access to this important information through a consistent, reliable, and systematic means. To close this information gap, the Order concludes that obtaining blackout information from MVPDs would be the most effective method for the Commission to gain timely and reliable information about broadcast station blackouts occurring across the country and allow us to better assess the functioning of the retransmission consent process consistent with our statutory obligations and the consequences of breakdowns, and to better advise Congress on the state of the retransmission consent regime and its effectiveness with respect to relevant policy goals. Blackout reports will also provide data that, when combined with other information, can inform empirical analysis of competition and consumer access to programming. In addition, the reporting will enable the Commission to provide better information on the state of the video programming markets as part of the statutorily required Communications Marketplace Report and thus will facilitate a more informed assessment of marketplace developments. The Order contains the following information collection requirements which require OMB approval.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 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. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before February 24, 2025.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
On October 14, 2008, the Commission released an Order on Reconsideration,
The Commission believes these clarifications will assist senders of facsimile advertisements in complying with the Commission's rules in a manner that minimizes regulatory compliance costs while maintaining the protections afforded consumers under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
The Contest Rule permit broadcasters to meet their obligation to disclose contest material terms on an internet website in lieu of making broadcast announcements. Under the amended Contest Rule, broadcasters are required to (i) announce the relevant internet website address on air the first time the audience is told about the contest and periodically thereafter; (ii) disclose the material contest terms fully and accurately on a publicly accessible internet website, establishing a link or tab to such terms through a link or tab on the announced website's home page, and ensure that any material terms disclosed on such a website conform in all substantive respects to those mentioned over the air; (iii) maintain contest material terms online for at least thirty days after the contest has ended; and (v) announce on air that the material terms of a contest have changed (where that is the case) within 24 hours of the change in terms on a website, and periodically thereafter, and to direct consumers to the website to review the changes.
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 (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 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 Commission 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 March 24, 2025.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Notice and request for comment.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the renewal of the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0072, -0093, -0111, -0136, and -0171).
Comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2025.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
All comments should refer to the relevant OMB control number. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the FDIC: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Manny Cabeza, Regulatory Counsel, 202-898-3767,
Proposal to renew the following currently approved collection of information:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comments are invited on (a) whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on January 30, 2025.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC and virtual. (This meeting will be a hybrid meeting.)
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on December 17, 2024, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Maxell, Ltd of Kyoto, Japan. Supplements to the Complaint were filed on December 26, 2024 and January 6, 2025. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile electronic devices by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,130,280 (the “ '280 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,490,004 (the “ '004 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,750,915 (the “ '915 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 11,509,953 (the “ '953 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 12,108,103 (the “ '103 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 11,445,241 (the “ '241 patent”). The complaint, as supplemented, further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Susan Orndoff, The Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-11 and 14-17 of the '280 patent; claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, and 14-20 of the '004 patent; claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, and 14-19 of the '915 patent; claims 1-30 of the '953 patent; claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-21 of the '103 patent; and claims 1-3, 5-14, 17-23, and 25-28 of the '241 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “smartphones and tablets,
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint and supplement is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not be a party to this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint, as supplemented, and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) has determined to review in part a final initial determination (“FID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) finding no violation of section 337. On review, the Commission affirms the determination of no violation. The investigation is hereby terminated.
Carl P. Bretscher, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2382. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On November 17, 2023, the Commission instituted the present investigation based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by Ericsson AB of Stockholm, Sweden and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Stockholm, Sweden (collectively “Ericsson”), alleging violations of section 337 of Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), due to the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale in the United States after importation of certain electronic devices, including mobile phones, tablets, laptops, components thereof, and products containing the same, that allegedly infringe one or more of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,313,178 (“the '178 patent”); 10,972,654 (“the '654 patent”); 9,509,273 (“the '273 patent”); 7,151,430 (“the '430 patent”); and 11,122,313 (“the '313 patent”). 88 FR 80337-338 (Nov. 17, 2023). The complaint alleges that a domestic industry exists.
The Commission subsequently terminated the investigation with respect to certain patents and patent claims that were withdrawn by the Ericsson. Order No. 29 (June 3, 2024),
On July 5, 2024, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to respondent Lenovo Group Limited for good cause because it does not import into the United States, sell for importation, or sell in the United States after importation any accused products. Order No. 30 (June 20, 2024),
On August 13, 2024, the Commission granted in part Ericsson's unopposed motion for summary determination that it has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under section 337(a)(3)(A) with respect to the '178 and '654 patents. Order No. 32 (July 12, 2024),
On November 15, 2024, the presiding ALJ issued the subject FID, finding no violation of section 337 with respect to either the remaining '178 patent or the '654 patent. With regard to the '178
On November 29, 2024, Respondents filed a contingent petition for review, arguing that if the Commission were to review the FID, it should also review: (i) the FID's rejection of Respondents' license defense; (ii) the FID's narrow construction of the term “detect” recited in the asserted claims of the '178 patent and its resultant rejection of certain obviousness defenses; and (iii) the FID's narrow ordering of the claim steps in the '654 patent claims and its resultant rejection of certain anticipation arguments. Respondents did not petition for review of the FID's findings on non-infringement, patent ineligibility, or domestic industry. On December 9, 2024, Ericsson filed a response opposing Respondents' petition for review of the license defense, but it did not address any of the other issues raised by Respondents. Ericsson did not file a petition for Commission review of any findings in the FID.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the FID, the parties' petitions for review and related submissions, the Commission has determined to review the FID in part as to the FID's finding that the asserted claims of the '654 patent are ineligible for patenting under section 101, that Ericsson has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under section 337(a)(3)(B), and concerning Respondents' licensing defense. On review, the Commission has determined to adopt the FID's findings, including its no-violation determination, with the exception that the Commission takes no position on whether the asserted claims of the '654 patent are ineligible under section 101, whether Ericsson has satisfied the economic prong of domestic industry requirement under section 337(a)(3)(B), or the FID's findings regarding Respondents' licensing defense.
The investigation is hereby terminated with a finding of no violation.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on January 16, 2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part a final initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties on the issues under review and submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
Cathy Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket system (“EDIS”) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on February 3, 2023, based on a complaint filed Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“SDC” or “Complainant”) of the Republic of Korea. 88 FR 7463-64 (Feb. 3, 2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleged violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain active matrix organic light-emitting diode display panels and modules for mobile devices, and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1-5 and 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,818,803 (“the '803 patent”); claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,854,683 (“the '683 patent”); claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,414,599 (“the '599 patent”); and claims 1-3, 6-8, and 14-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,330,593 (“the '593 patent”).
On March 22, 2023, the Commission granted Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd.'s (“BOE”) unopposed motion to intervene as a respondent in this investigation. Order No. 7,
Two respondents, Apt-Ability LLC d/b/a MobileSentrix and Mobile Defenders, LLC, were terminated based on a consent order. Order No. 43,
On April 20, 2023, the Commission granted SDC's motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add allegations of infringement related to claims 1-6, 10, 12, 17, 19, 21-23, 40-47, and 51-52 of the '578 patent. Order No. 8,
On November 15, 2023, the BLF Respondents and BOE (collectively, “Respondents”) moved for summary determination that SDC lacked constitutional standing to bring and maintain this investigation. Respondents argued because SDC's parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), “has an unfettered right to grant licenses, SDC lacks the exclusionary rights necessary to prove standing.” Mot. at 18. Finding that “there is no genuine issue of material fact that SEC has an unrestricted right to sublicense the Asserted Patents to others” and that SEC's possession of such a right divested SDC of exclusionary rights, on January 9, 2024, the ALJ granted Respondents' motion for summary determination of no violation due to lack of standing. Order No. 44 at 13, 24-25 (Jan. 9, 2024).
On April 24, 2024, the Commission vacated that initial determination and remanded the investigation for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. In its opinion, the Commission found that “(1) constitutional standing, the Article III requirements of the Constitution related to the authority of federal courts to adjudicate lawsuits, is not required at [the] Commission; and (2) there are genuine issues of material facts relating to [Complainant's] rights in the asserted patents.” Comm'n Op. at 2. The Commission remanded the investigation to the ALJ to “conduct further proceedings as appropriate and consistent with the Commission's opinion herewith.”
On May 2, 2024, the ALJ held a case management conference to discuss how the case would proceed on remand. Respondent BOE indicated that it wished to argue that SDC lacked “all substantial rights” to the asserted patents when it filed its complaint and that it wished to pursue discovery from SEC on this issue. Order No. 50 at 3. SDC responded that a statutory cause of action defense had never previously been raised and thus was waived.
The evidentiary hearing was held on July 8-9, 2024, and July 15-17, 2024.
On November 15, 2024, the ALJ issued a final ID finding no violation of section 337 because SDC failed to show the existence of a domestic industry, among other reasons. In particular, the ID found: (1) SDC failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for all asserted patents; (2) SDC satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for the '803, the '578, and the '599 patents but not for the '593 patent; (3) at least one representative accused product infringes claims 5 and 21 of the '803 patent, claims 5, 10, 17, 40-41, and 47 of the '578 patent, claims 15-16 of the '599 patent, and claim 6 of the '593 patent but not claims 2-3 and 13 of the '599 patent; and (4) the claims have not been shown to be invalid.
On November 29, 2024, SDC filed a petition for review of the ID challenging certain findings related to the '803, the '578, and the '599 patents, including the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. SDC did not petition for review of the ID's findings related to the '593 patent. That same day, Respondent BOE and the BLF Respondents filed a joint contingent petition for review. OUII did not file a petition for review. On December 9, 2024, Complainant, Respondents, and OUII each filed a response to the petitions.
The Commission solicited submissions from the public on the public interest issues raised by the recommended determination. 89 FR 92721 (Nov. 22, 2024). The Commission received comments from Representative John Moolenaar, Chairman of the House Select Committee on China, and Dr. Robert D. Atkinson of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation.
On January 8, 2025, SDC filed a notice of supplemental authority to apprise the Commission of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final written decisions in
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the final ID, the parties' submissions to the ALJ, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review: (1) the ID's findings that the Commission has statutory authority to investigate Complainant SDC's alleged violation under section 337 and that Respondents waived their argument that SDC lacked the ability to bring this investigation under Commission Rule 210.12; (2) the ID's findings related to the technical prong for the '803 patent; and (3) the ID's findings regarding the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. The Commission has determined not to review any other findings presented in the final ID, including the ID's finding of no violation of section 337 with respect to the '593 patent.
In connection with its review, Commission requests responses to the following questions. The parties are requested to brief their positions with reference to the applicable law and the existing evidentiary record.
1. Did Respondents raise in their prehearing brief an argument that Complainant was not the owner of the asserted patents or otherwise lacked all substantial rights in the asserts patents and therefore lacked the ability to bring this investigation under Commission Rule 210.12? If so, please identify where in the brief this argument was raised?
2. Assuming SEC possessed an unrestricted right to sublicense the asserted patents when SDC filed the complaint, please address the merits of Respondents' argument that SDC was not the owner of the asserted patents under Commission Rule 210.12.
3. Did any party bring to the ALJ's attention that the asserted claims of the '803 patent were subject to an
The parties are invited to brief only the discrete issues requested above. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes issuance of,
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order would have on: (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination.
In their initial submissions, Complainant is also requested to identify the remedy sought and Complainant and OUII are requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested to provide the HTSUS subheadings under which the accused products are imported, and to supply the identification information for all known importers of the products at issue in this investigation. The initial written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than close of business on Thursday, January 30, 2025. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on Thursday, February 6, 2025. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1351) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed with the
The Commission vote for this determination took place on January 16, 2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On May 29, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Xubex Community Pharmacy of Casselberry, Florida (Respondent). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, (hereinafter, OSC/ISO), at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Respondent of the immediate suspension of its DEA registration, No. FX3643081, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Respondent's continued registration constitutes ` “an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' ”
The OSC/ISO notified Respondent of its right to file with DEA a written request for a hearing within 30 days after the date of receipt of the OSC/ISO. OSC/ISO, at 4 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(a)). The OSC/ISO also notified Respondent that if it failed to file such a request, it would be deemed to have waived its right to a hearing and be in default.
The RFAA asserts that on June 6, 2024, a DEA Diversion Investigator personally served the OSC/ISO on “a representative of Respondent.” RFAA, at 1.
“In 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.” 21 CFR 1301.43(f)(1). Here, the Government has requested final agency action based on Respondent's default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), because Respondent did not request a hearing or file an answer, and it has not filed a motion with the Administrator seeking to excuse the default.
The Agency finds that, in light of Respondent's default, the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed to be admitted.
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).
(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.
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
According to DEA regulations, “[a]t any hearing for the revocation . . . of a registration, the . . . [Government] shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such revocation . . . pursuant to . . . 21 U.S.C. 824(a) . . . are satisfied.” 21 CFR 1301.44(e);
In the current matter, the Government has alleged that Respondent violated federal and Florida laws regulating controlled substances. OSC/ISO, at 1-5. Specifically, federal law provides that “no controlled substance in schedule II . . . may be dispensed without the written prescription of a practitioner.” 21 U.S.C. 829(a);
Here, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that on November 30, 2023, and December 19, 2023, Respondent dispensed Schedule II controlled substances to CS without a prescription, which is a clear violation of Federal and Florida law. 21 U.S.C. 829(a) and 823(g)(1)(D); Fla. Stat. section 465.015(2)(c). The Agency further finds that this misconduct demonstrates Respondent's negative experience in dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B). Accordingly, the Agency concludes that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest.
As Respondent failed to request a hearing, he has waived the opportunity to present evidence and, therefore, to rebut the Government's
Where, as here, the Government has met its
Regarding these matters, there is no record evidence that Respondent takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the founded violations meaning, among other things, that it is not reasonable to believe that Respondent's future controlled substance-related actions will comply with legal requirements. Accordingly, Respondent did not convince the Agency that he can be entrusted with a registration.
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of revocation. Given the foundational nature of Respondent's violations, which more closely resembled drug dealing than legal dispensing, 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 revocation of Respondent's registration 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), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FX3643081 issued to Xubex Community Pharmacy. 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 Xubex Community Pharmacy to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Xubex Community Pharmacy for additional registration in Florida. This Order is effective February 24, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on January 16, 2025, by Administrator Anne Milgram. 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 September 12, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Neumann's Pharmacy, LLC, of Tallulah, Louisana (Respondent). OSC, at 1. The OSC proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration Number FN4373293, alleging that Respondent's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest.
A hearing was held before DEA Administrative Law Judge Teresa A. Wallbaum (the ALJ), who, on June 18, 2024, issued her Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision (Recommended Decision or RD), recommending that Respondent's registration be revoked. RD, at 41. Respondent filed exceptions to the RD.
Dr. DiGi Graham testified as the Government's expert regarding the standard of care for pharmacy practice in the State of Louisiana.
Dr. Julie Akers, a Washington-licensed pharmacist,
Ms. Neumann, Respondent's owner and PIC, has been licensed as a pharmacist in Louisiana since 1995. Ms. Neumann worked for several independent pharmacies until she bought Respondent in 2014.
Dr. Graham testified that the Louisiana standard of care requires knowledge of, and compliance with, all applicable Federal and State laws.
To determine whether a prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice, a pharmacist must examine each prescription for “red flags” of abuse or diversion of controlled substances. RD, at 15; Tr. 110 (Graham), 285 (Akers). A red flag is “any little alert that requires [a pharmacist] to dig a little deeper and clarify information prior to dispensing.” RD, at 15; Tr. 110 (Graham);
Dr. Graham testified that drug cocktails are combinations of controlled substances that are known to be diverted and may cause significant patient harm. RD, at 15; Tr. 118-20 (Graham), 288 (Akers). For example, opioids and benzodiazepines are both respiratory depressants that can result in a drug-drug interaction causing significant sedation, respiratory depression, coma, or death when taken together. RD, at 15; Tr. 119-20 (Graham). Thus, Dr. Graham testified that concurrent prescriptions for opioids and benzodiazepines are a red flag in Louisiana.
Dr. Graham further testified that making a “cash payment” for a controlled substance, rather than billing insurance, is a red flag, because a patient may pay in cash to evade the insurance company's attempts to monitor for abuse and diversion. RD, at 15; Tr. 81, 121-22, 137-38, 145-46 (Graham). A “cash payment”—also known as “private pay”—refers to any type of payment that is made without billing insurance, and can include actual cash, or payments with a debit or credit card.
Two points on which Dr. Graham and Dr. Akers disagreed were the methods of resolving a red flag and the methods of documenting that resolution. RD, at 16. According to Dr. Graham, a pharmacist can resolve a red flag by speaking to the prescriber or the patient, depending on the type of red flag, to obtain more information about whether the prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose.
According to Dr. Akers, a pharmacist may resolve a red flag by examining “the totality of the patient's file” with the pharmacy, including the fill history, the diagnosis code on the prescription, and the type of provider who issued the prescription. RD, at 16;
On both points, the ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that Dr. Graham's testimony is more credible than Dr. Akers's. RD, at 16. Dr. Akers's testimony on resolving and documenting red flags is inconsistent with the pharmacist's independent corresponding responsibility, because it allows the pharmacist to make assumptions about the patient's treatment based on the prescriptions issued rather than investigating the actual purpose of the prescription by speaking to the prescriber or patient.
Dr. Graham's testimony was consistent with the longstanding principle that documentation is a critical step in resolving red flags and dispensing a lawful prescription. When asked whether a failure to document the resolution of a red flag invalidates any efforts to resolve the red flag, Dr. Graham replied, “Correct. Because if it's not documented, it wasn't done.” Tr. 191. Thus, the Agency credits Dr. Graham's formulation of the standard of care regarding the resolution of red flags, and finds that if a pharmacist identifies a red flag when presented with a prescription, the Louisiana standard of care requires the pharmacist to: (1) speak to the prescriber or patient to obtain more information about whether the prescription was issued for a legitimate medical purpose; and (2) document the resolution of the red flag on the hard copy prescription, in the pharmacy's computer system, or in a logbook prior to dispensing. RD, at 16, 19; Tr. 112-13.
Respondent filled prescriptions for C.E. in July 2021, October 2021, and December 2021 for hydrocodone-acetaminophen (a Schedule II opioid) and clonazepam (a Schedule IV benzodiazepine).
As for Respondent, Ms. Neumann testified that she resolved the red flag based on the diagnosis codes on the prescriptions and having ongoing conversations with C.E. regarding his medical conditions.
Furthermore, even assuming,
However, Ms. Neumann did not document any of these discussions, and there was no documentation resolving the red flag in C.E.'s patient profile or on the hard copy prescriptions. RD, at 19; GX 4, at 1-2, 9-10, 23-26, 48-51; Tr. 130-31, 445. Thus, Dr. Graham opined, and the Agency finds substantial evidence that, Respondent's failure to resolve this red flag and document the resolution rendered Respondent's dispensing to C.E. outside the usual course of professional practice and beneath the Louisiana standard of care.
Respondent filled monthly prescriptions for J.H.R. between September 2020 and January 2022 for hydrocodone-acetaminophen and alprazolam (a Schedule IV benzodiazepine). RD, at 20; ALJX 11, at 2-3, stips. 11, 13, 19; GX 7, at 1; Tr. 133-36. Dr. Graham, Dr. Akers, and Ms. Neumann testified that this drug cocktail raised a red flag due to drug-drug interaction. RD, at 20; Tr. 133-34 (Graham), 383 (Akers), 420, 434, 454 (Neumann). Additionally, from March 2021 through September 2021, J.H.R. made cash payments for her controlled substance prescriptions, while billing insurance for her non-controlled substance prescriptions. RD, at 22-23; GX 6, at 2-3; GX 7, at 1-2; Tr. 137-38 (Dr. Graham testifying that the method of payment for non-controlled substances was “Copay Generic,” which indicates that insurance was billed, while the method of payment for controlled substances was “RX Generic,” which indicates that insurance was not billed). Dr. Graham testified that J.H.R.'s cash payments raised an additional red flag. RD, at 23-
Regarding the cash payments red flag, Ms. Neumann testified that J.H.R. has been a patient at Respondent since 2015. RD, at 11; Tr. 422-23, 426. Until March 2021, J.H.R. used insurance to pay for all medications, including controlled substances and non-controlled substances.
Ms. Neumann testified that she did not document her conversations with J.H.R., and there was no documentation resolving the cash payments red flag in J.H.R.'s patient profile or on the hard copy prescriptions. RD, at 11; Tr. 412. Thus, Dr. Graham opined, and the Agency finds substantial evidence that, Respondent's failure to resolve this red flag and document the resolution rendered Respondent's dispensing to J.H.R outside the usual course of professional practice and in violation of the Louisiana standard of care. RD, at 22-24; Tr. 139-40.
Regarding the drug cocktails, Ms. Neumann acknowledged that the combination of hydrocodone-acetaminophen and alprazolam raised a red flag. RD, at 11; Tr. 420, 434. Ms. Neumann testified that when J.H.R. first became a patient in 2015, she contacted the prescriber, Dr. T.N. (Ms. Neumann's father), and resolved this red flag. RD, at 11; Tr. 420. She testified that she documented the resolution of the red flag on the back of prescriptions issued on August 17, 2015, November 16, 2015, and December 19, 2015, using the notations “DD,” “M0,” and “1G.” RD, at 11; Tr. 420, 422; RX 6 at 2, 4, 6. Dr. Akers testified that “DD” indicates a drug duplication, “M0” indicates a consultation with the prescriber, and “1G” indicates the prescription was filled after consultation with the prescriber. RD, at 11; Tr. 316-318.
The Agency rejects Respondent's arguments that her documentation in 2015 regarding the drug cocktails resolved the red flag for prescriptions issued between 2020 and 2022.
The ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that Dr. Graham's testimony on this issue was more credible than Dr. Akers's. RD, at 21-22, 21 n.23. Neither Dr. Akers nor Respondent produced convincing evidence, supported by concurrent documentation, to establish that the 2020 prescriptions were a “continuation of therapy” from 2015. RD, at 21-22 n.23. As the ALJ noted, there is a significant gap between the 2015 prescriptions and the first prescription charged in the OSC dated September 2020.
On six occasions between May 2020 and December 2021, Respondent dispensed diazepam (a Schedule IV benzodiazepine) along with three forms of butalbital (a Schedule III sedative)
As for Respondent, Ms. Neumann testified that she resolved the drug cocktail red flag through conversations with the prescriber, Dr. T.N. (Ms. Neumann's father), who told her that diazepam was indicated for muscle relaxation. RD, at 12; Tr. 436-37. However, there was no documentation of Ms. Neumann's discussions with Dr. T.N., nor was there any documentation resolving the drug-drug interaction red flag in S.W.'s patient profile or on the hard copy prescriptions. RD, at 24-25; Tr. 142, 414, 419; GX 8. Thus, Dr. Graham opined, and the Agency finds substantial evidence that, Respondent's failure to resolve this red flag and document the resolution rendered Respondent's dispensing to S.W. outside the usual course of professional practice and in violation of the Louisiana standard of care. RD, at 24-26; Tr. 147.
Ms. Neumann testified that Dr. T.N. informed her that S.W. was taking each medication for a specific type of headache, and S.W. knew when to take each medication. RD, at 12; Tr. 419. Ms. Neumann testified that she spoke to S.W., and S.W. reported that she was alternating the butalbital products.
However, there was no documentation of Ms. Neumann's discussions with Dr. T.N. or S.W., nor was there any documentation resolving the therapeutic duplication red flag in S.W.'s patient profile or on the hard copy prescriptions. RD, at 24-25; Tr. 142, 414, 419; GX 8. Thus, Dr. Graham opined, and the Agency finds substantial evidence that, Respondent's failure to resolve this red flag and document the resolution rendered Respondent's dispensing to S.W. outside the usual course of professional practice and in violation of the Louisiana standard of care. RD, at 24-26; Tr. 147.
On February 7, 2020 and March 6, 2021, Respondent filled controlled substance prescriptions for Ms. Neumann that were issued by Dr. T.N., Ms. Neumann's father.
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.
According to DEA regulations, “[a]t any hearing for the revocation . . . of a registration, the . . . [Government] shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such revocation . . . pursuant to . . . 21 U.S.C. 824(a) . . . are satisfied.” 21 CFR 1301.44(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
Having reviewed the record and the RD, the Agency agrees with the ALJ, adopts the ALJ's analysis, and finds substantial record evidence that the Government satisfies its
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, a lawful prescription for
The Agency agrees with the Government expert's opinion and the ALJ's analysis, and finds that there is substantial record evidence that Respondent's dispensing fell below the Louisiana standard of care, and thus was outside the usual course of professional practice. This is because, as detailed above, the Agency finds that there is substantial record evidence that Respondent: (1) repeatedly dispensed controlled substances to three patients without properly addressing and resolving clear red flags of abuse and diversion, including dangerous drug cocktails with drug-drug interactions, therapeutic duplication, and cash payments for controlled substances; (2) failed to maintain appropriate records that documented the resolution of these red flags; and (3) filled several prescriptions for Ms. Neumann that were issued by Ms. Neumann's father, in violation of State law.
In sum, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the Government established a
Where, as here, the Government has met its
Here, the ALJ found, and the Agency agrees, that there is substantial record evidence that Respondent failed to unequivocally accept responsibility for its repeated violations of Federal and State law. RD, at 35-37. Ms. Neumann explicitly denied responsibility for failing to address and resolve red flags.
Ms. Neumann also made statements that minimized Respondent's misconduct.
Respondent's counsel also attempted to shift blame for Respondent's violations to DEA, which further detracts from Respondent's acceptance of responsibility. RD, at 37 (citing
When a registrant fails to make the threshold showing of acceptance of responsibility, the Agency need not address the registrant's remedial measures.
Even though the ALJ offered repeated assurances that she would allow Respondent to present undisclosed testimony about remedial measures, Respondent's counsel chose not to do so. Thus, the ALJ correctly declined to consider evidence of remedial measures that Respondent did not raise at the hearing, and the Agency declines to consider that evidence in this Decision.
In addition to unequivocally accepting responsibility, the Agency considers both specific and general deterrence when determining an appropriate sanction.
Moreover, the Agency agrees with the ALJ that Respondent's actions were egregious.
Dr. Graham testified that she was suspended by the Oklahoma Board of Pharmacy for two years related to misconduct when she was an employee at the Apothecary Shoppe from 2000 to 2002. Tr. 93-94. The ALJ found that this testimony enhanced Dr. Graham's credibly and reliability because she exhibited candor and took responsibility for her misconduct. RD, at 7 n.9. Respondent takes Exception to this finding, as well as to the ALJ's finding that Dr. Graham was a “reliable and persuasive witness.” Exceptions, at 1-3. Respondent asserts that Dr. Graham's explanations of her misconduct were “vague,” that she “mischaracterized her transgressions,” and that she “minimized the severity of her wrongdoing.”
The Agency rejects Respondent's characterizations of the record and adopts the ALJ's credibility findings with respect to Dr. Graham and Ms. Neumann. Although the Agency agrees that Dr. Graham's initial statements about her misconduct were vague, this is not surprising because the misconduct occurred over 20 years ago, and the hearing was about Respondent's misconduct, not Dr. Graham's. Dr. Graham's decision to disclose her distant disciplinary history when testifying about her professional history reflects candor. Respondent's counsel cross examined Dr. Graham about the specifics of the disciplinary charges, and she readily answered his questions, while acknowledging that she did not recall all of the specifics. Tr. 151-52. The Agency does not find that Dr. Graham mischaracterized her disciplinary history, because Dr. Graham's statements about her misconduct were not meant to be an exhaustive summary of the charges, and there is insufficient evidence on the record about the charges to assess the accuracy of Dr. Graham's characterizations.
Moreover, the record does not support Respondent's contention that Dr. Graham attempted to minimize the severity of her misconduct. On the contrary, Dr. Graham acknowledged that her behavior was wrong, Tr. 153, that her conduct was intentional and knowing, Tr. 158, and that she failed to exercise her corresponding responsibility.
Finally, the Agency rejects Respondent's argument that the ALJ exhibited a lack of impartiality when assessing Dr. Graham's and Ms. Neumann's testimony. As the ALJ observed, Ms. Neumann's credibility was diminished by her inconsistent statements about whether documentation is required by the standard of care. RD, at 13-14. Additionally, much of Ms. Neumann's testimony consisted of providing undocumented,
Respondent argues that Dr. Graham's opinions were conclusory and “without any factual support whatsoever to assert that certain prescriptions were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose.” ALJX 27, at 7; RD, at 7 n.10; Exceptions, at 3-5 (“Dr. Graham gave no factual support for her entirely conclusory answers to these questions.”). Respondent further asserts that “the Government failed to offer any evidence that [Ms. Neumann] knew or should have known that any of the
Importantly, the Government need not prove that the prescriptions were not
Respondent also asserts that Dr. Graham “did not address the detailed reasoning provided by [Ms.] Neumann regarding how she resolved the red flags for the subject prescriptions, nor did she address the data contained in the patient profiles that supported [Ms.] Neumann's decision to resolve the red flags and dispense the prescriptions as written.” Exceptions, at 5-6. Dr. Graham did, in fact, address the data contained within the patient profiles. She testified that she reviewed the patient profiles and prescriptions for each patient and identified red flags for each patient for which no resolution was documented. Tr. 122. Respondent's contention that Dr. Graham should have addressed all of Ms. Neumann's undocumented,
Respondent asserts that the ALJ erred in inferring that Respondent failed to resolve red flags from Respondent's failure to document their resolution, because Ms. Neumann testified that she did take steps to address and resolve each red flag. Exceptions, at 7-11. Respondent cites to
However,
Respondent also cites to several prior Agency decisions, including the Agency's recent decision in
The Agency rejects these arguments. First, as discussed throughout this Decision, the Agency may infer from Respondent's failure to document that Respondent failed to address and resolve red flags, and the Agency has repeatedly held that it will not credit a registrant's undocumented,
Here, the Government proved that Respondent filled numerous prescriptions without adequately addressing and resolving several red flags, which rendered Respondent's dispensing beneath the standard of care, outside the usual course of professional practice, and in violation of Federal and State law. The Government also proved that Respondent filled unlawful prescriptions that were written for Ms. Neumann by Ms. Neumann's father. These violations are sufficient to revoke a registration.
In sum, Respondent has not offered any credible evidence on the record that rebuts the Government's case for revocation of its registration and Respondent has not demonstrated that it can be entrusted with the responsibility of registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent's 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. FN4373293 issued to Neumann's Pharmacy, LLC. 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 Neumann's Pharmacy, LLC, to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Neumann's Pharmacy, LLC, for additional registration in Louisiana. This Order is effective February 24, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on January 16, 2025, by Administrator Anne Milgram. 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 January 16, 2025, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed First Material Modification to the 2006 Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in the lawsuit entitled
In this action, the United States and the State of Connecticut sought civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed First Material Modification to the 2006 Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
On January 16, 2025, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree would resolve the affirmative claims of the United States, on behalf of the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”), in
Under the proposed Consent Decree, Defendants and the United States, on behalf of the Department of Energy, will pay a combined $2,100,000, which will go towards natural resource restoration efforts and assessment costs incurred by DOI and the Commonwealth. In exchange, Defendants and the United States, on behalf of the Department of Energy, will receive covenants not to sue under sections 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, and contribution protection under section 113 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613. In addition, Defendants will receive a covenant from the Commonwealth not to sue under the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention and Response Act, Mass. Gen Laws ch. 21E, sections 1-22, or any other statutory law, or any common law.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Enforcement Section, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
On January 16, 2025, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the lawsuit entitled
This case involves violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”) at the Oasis Mobile Home Park (the “Park”) located in Thermal, California. The Park has a public water system that relies on groundwater with high levels of naturally occurring arsenic, a carcinogen that is harmful to human health. In August 2023, the United States filed a complaint against the Defendants alleging violations of the Underground Injection Control regulations with respect to the Defendants' wastewater system as provided in section 1421 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300h, and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 144; violations of the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (“EPA”) emergency administrative order under section 1431 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300i(b), to address deficiencies with the Defendants' public drinking water system; and that the Defendants' public drinking water and wastewater systems presented an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of its users as provided under section 1431(a) of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300i(a).
Under the Consent Decree, the Defendants shall pay the United States a $50,000 civil penalty. The Consent Decree also requires the Defendants to undertake injunctive relief to achieve consistent SDWA compliance. Once the Defendants have fully addressed the compliance for the drinking water system, they will then begin work on the wastewater system and identify corrective actions that they will then take steps to address through an EPA-approved compliance schedule.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
On January 16, 2025, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed a complaint against Turn 14 Distribution, Inc. (“Turn 14”) alleging violations of the Clean Air Act related to Turn 14's offer for sale and sale of devices that defeat emission controls in automobiles. The proposed consent decree resolves the claims alleged in the complaint. The proposed consent decree requires Turn 14 to pay a penalty of $3,600,000 based on its ability to pay and to perform injunctive relief.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the proposed consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
On January 15, 2025, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed first modification to a previously approved consent decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the consolidated lawsuits entitled
The United States, the Bradley Mining Company (“Bradley Mining”), Frederick Bradley, in his representative capacity as Trustee of the Worthen Bradley Family Trust (“Bradley Trust”) (together, “Defendants”), and the Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians of the Sulphur Bank Rancheria, California (“Elem Tribe”) are parties to a consent decree entered by the court on April 19, 2012, which resolved claims and counterclaims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). The consent decree created a redevelopment trust for the benefit of the United States and the Elem Tribe, to which the Defendants conveyed certain land in and around the Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site in Lake County, California, to be managed and maintained for the beneficiaries until the parcels are transferred or sold and the trust is terminated.
The proposed modification to the consent decree changes the trust funding and trustee compensation structure to ensure the trust can continue to manage and maintain the land as required by the consent decree. It also requires the trustee to transfer certain parcels to the United States to be held in trust for the benefit of the Elem Tribe.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the modification to the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the modification to the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before February 24, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
Section 29 CFR part 1926, subpart U and its collections of information provide protection to employees who work with and around blasting operations. In addition, inventories of explosives must be maintained to assure employer and blaster accountability for explosives. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before February 24, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
Each underground coal mine has an emergency response plan and refuge alternative(s) that protect miners when escape from a mine during a mine emergency is not possible by providing secure spaces with isolated atmospheres that create life-sustaining environments. This ICR covers the refuge alternatives portion of emergency response plans and records for examination, maintenance and repair of refuge alternatives and components. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before February 24, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
Title 30 CFR part 45, Independent Contractors, sets forth information requirements and procedures for independent contractors to obtain a Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) identification number and procedures for service of documents upon independent contractors. The information collections associated with this information collection support the appropriate assessment of fines for violations by independent contractors and the deterrent effect of MSHA enforcement actions on independent contractors. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for CSA Group & Testing Certification Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on January 23, 2025.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition for CSA Group Testing & Certification Inc. (CSA), as a NRTL. CSA's expansion covers the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA's recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
CSA submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition on May 30, 2024 (OSHA-2006-0042-0045), requesting the addition of one standard to the NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform an on-site review in response to this application. OSHA staff has preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application for test standard expansion.
OSHA published a
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the CSA expansion application, go to
OSHA staff examined CSA's expansion application and examined other pertinent information. Based on review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CSA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition, subject to the specified limitations and conditions. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of CSA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of CSA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of compliance to the test standard listed below in Table 1.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, CSA also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. CSA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. CSA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. CSA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on CSA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of CSA as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.
Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on January 23, 2025.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA) as a NRTL. TUVRNA's expansion covers the addition of one test site to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, as well as for an expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
TUVRNA submitted an application, dated November 16, 2020 (OSHA-2007-0042-0081), to expand recognition as a NRTL to include one additional testing site located at: TUV Rheinland Taiwan Ltd. Taoyuan Testing Laboratories, 4F-1. No. 38, Huaya 1st Road Guishan District, Taoyuan City 333, Taiwan, R.O.C. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA performed an on-site review of TUVRNA's Taoyuan facility on May 1-6, 2024, in which assessors found some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. TUVRNA has addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the TUVRNA expansion application, go to
OSHA staff examined TUVRNA's expansion application, conducted a detailed on-site assessment, and examined other pertinent information. Based on review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition, subject to the specified limitations and conditions. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVRNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to include the site at Taoyuan, Taiwan listed above. OSHA's recognition of the site limits TUVRNA to performing product testing and certifications only to the test standards for which the site has the proper capability and programs, and for test standards in TUVRNA's scope of recognition. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, TUVRNA also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVRNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
OSHA hereby expands the NRTL scope of recognition for TUVRNA to include one additional test site.
Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Signed at Washington, DC.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for DEKRA Certification Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on January 23, 2025.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of DEKRA Certification Inc. (DEKRA), as a NRTL. DEKRA's expansion covers the addition of six test standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA's recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes: (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
DEKRA submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition on January 5, 2023 (OSHA-2019-0009-0013), requesting the addition of six recognized testing standards. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform an on-site review associated with this application. OSHA staff has preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application.
OSHA published a
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the DEKRA expansion application, go to
OSHA staff examined DEKRA's expansion application and examined other pertinent information. Based on review of this evidence, OSHA finds that DEKRA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition, subject to the specified limitations and conditions. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of DEKRA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of DEKRA's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of compliance to the test standards listed below in Table 1.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, DEKRA also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. DEKRA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. DEKRA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. DEKRA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on DEKRA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of DEKRA as a NRTL, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.
Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Signed at Washington, DC.
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to renew this collection. In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide an opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.
Written comments on this notice must be received by March 24, 2025 to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to an extent practicable. Send comments to address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W18200, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
PREMs enable and foster excellent education, integrate research and education, and create bonds between learning and inquiry so that discovery and creativity more fully support the learning process. PREMs capitalize on broadening participation of underserved communities through participation and collaboration in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.
PREMs will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of the award PREMs will be required to develop a set of management and performance indicators for submission annually to NSF via the Research Performance Project Reporting module in
Each PREM's annual report will include the following categories of activities: (1) research, (2) education (3) outreach, (4) partnerships, (5) pathway for enhancing broadening participation, (6) management, and (7) budget reports.
For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, achievements and accomplishments, potential problems the PREM has encountered in making progress towards goals, anticipated problems in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.
PREMs are required to file a final report through the RPPR and external technical assistance contractor. Final reports contain similar information and metrics as annual reports but are retrospective.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Reschedule of public meeting; reopening of comment period.
On December 6, 2024, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) solicited public comments on draft Supplement 15, Second Renewal, to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, regarding the subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12 for an additional 20 years for Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (V.C. Summer). The public comment period closed on January 21, 2025. The NRC has rescheduled the in-person public meeting to receive comments on the document and is therefore reopening the public comment period to allow more time for members of the public to submit their comments.
The NRC has rescheduled its in-person public meeting to January 28, 2025, at 6 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
Kim Conway, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1335; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0152 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.
On December 6, 2024, the NRC solicited public comments on draft Supplement 15, Second Renewal, to the GEIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, regarding the subsequent renewal of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-12 for an additional 20 years for V.C. Summer. Draft Supplement 15, Second Renewal, to the GEIS includes the NRC staff's evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action.
Pursuant to section 51.73 of title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is recognizing a recent Postal Service filing concerning the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on competitive products income for Fiscal Year 2024. 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.
In accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3634 and 39 CFR 3060.40
In accordance with 39 CFR 3060.42, the Commission establishes Docket No. T2025-1 to review the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax and supporting documentation.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's filing in this docket is consistent with the policies of 39 U.S.C. 3634 and 39 CFR 3060.40
The Commission appoints Jennaca D. Upperman to serve as Public Representative in this docket.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. T2025-1 to consider the calculation of the assumed Federal income tax on Competitive products for FY 2024.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Jennaca D. Upperman is appointed to serve as an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding (Public Representative).
3. Comments are due no later than March 7, 2025.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). 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.
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 January 16, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to (1) increase the QCC volume required for Floor Brokers to earn an additional credit; (2) adopt a new rebate based on a Floor Broker's combined QCC and manual billable volume; (3) increase the maximum combined Floor Broker QCC credits and rebates earned through the Manual Billable Rebate Program; and (4) permit Floor Brokers that restructure while in the Floor Broker Fixed Cost Prepayment Incentive Program (the “FB Prepay Program” or “Program”) to maintain their status in the Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 14, 2025.
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website at
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.
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 a rule change to establish fees for Industry Members
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website at
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 21, 2024, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts business under the name LCH SA (“LCH SA”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”),
LCH SA is a clearing agency registered with the Commission.
Currently, LCH SA's Clearing Members
Clearing Members currently submit these House transactions directly to LCH SA through an ATSS. Under the Proposed Rule Change, Affiliates of Clearing Members, under certain conditions, could submit transactions through an ATSS for clearing at LCH SA on behalf of their affiliated Clearing Members, as House transactions of those Clearing Members.
LCH SA thus proposes adding a new source of proprietary trades for Clearing Members, as submitted by their affiliates. The proposed updates comprise two categories. The first category would make changes to the Rule Book and Procedures to allow these Affiliates to submit House transactions on behalf of Clearing Members. LCH SA would do so by onboarding these Affiliates into a new category of participant known as CDS Dealer. The second category includes other miscellaneous changes.
In the Rule Book, the proposed changes first would amend an existing provision to allow LCH SA to onboard Affiliates of CDS Dealers. As explained below, a Clearing Member that is a CCM
The proposed changes also set out certain requirements for the relationship between a Clearing Member and its Affiliate registered as a CDS Dealer. Specifically, under new Article 2.5.1.1, a CDS Dealer may only submit transactions to LCH SA for a Clearing Member with which the CDS Dealer has entered into a CDS Dealer Clearing Agreement. The proposed changes also modify existing Article 2.3.1.1 to require that each Clearing Member notify LCH SA of any material breach of CDS Clearing Documentation by any CDS Dealer with which the Clearing Member has entered into a CDS Dealer Clearing Agreement. The proposed changes also amend Article 2.3.1.5 (ii) to clarify that Clearing Members will not be in breach of any obligation to provide information to LCH SA if they are prevented by the refusal of a CDS Dealer to provide the information. Finally, the proposed changes would amend Article 4.2.7.2 to authorize Clearing Members to provide Markit LCH Settlement Prices to CDS Dealers.
The proposed changes add a new Chapter 5 in Title II of the Rule Book to explain how a CDS Dealer presents Original Transactions to LCH SA for clearing, novation, and registration in the name of an affiliate Clearing Member. As noted, under new Article 2.5.1.1, a CDS Dealer may only submit transactions to LCH SA for a Clearing Member with which the CDS Dealer has entered into a CDS Dealer Clearing Agreement. Moreover, a CDS Dealer must be admitted by LCH SA into the Register of CDS Dealers, and as explained in new Article 2.5.1.2, an applicant for admission into the Register must satisfy the criteria in Section 1 of the Procedures. The proposed changes state that a CDS Dealer is bound by CDS Clearing Documentation once admitted to the Register of Dealers. The proposed changes in new Chapter 5 also reference Section 1 of the Procedures, specifying the conditions for admission as a CDS Dealer. The proposed changes specify that LCH SA may suspend or remove a CDS Dealer and the CDS Dealer remains bound by its obligations under the CDS Clearing Documentation and the CDS Dealer Clearing Agreement. The proposed changes also automatically suspend a CDS Dealer if the affiliate Clearing Member is suspended.
With respect to the novation of trades submitted by a CDS Dealer, the proposed changes amend Articles 3.1.6.1(iii) and (iv) to state that a Clearing Member in a CDS Dealer Clearing Agreement with a CDS Dealer will be party to any trade novated from an Original Transaction presented by that CDS Dealer for clearing. The proposed changes replace “Clearing Member concerned” with “Clearing Member in whose Trade Accounts such Cleared Transactions are registered” in Article 3.1.6.7.
In addition to these amendments, the proposed changes add new defined terms, and modify existing defined terms, regarding CDS Dealers. For example, the proposed changes add the term “CDS Dealer” to mean a Person admitted by LCH SA to the Register of CDS Dealers and who has not been removed from the Register of CDS Dealers and is not a Clearing Member. The proposed changes also add the term “Register of CDS Dealers” to refer to LCH SA's list of CDS Dealers eligible to submit transactions for clearing. The proposed changes add the term “CDS Dealer Clearing Agreement” to describe the written agreement a CDS Dealer must execute with LCH SA and a CCM. The proposed changes add a reference to a CDS Dealer in the term “ATSS Participant,” add the term “CDS Dealer” to the terms “Clearing Notice,” “House Trade Leg,” “Index Swaption Clearing Service,” and “Procedures,” and amends the term “CCM Client” to exclude CDS Dealers. The proposed changes also amend the term “House Trade Account” to include Cleared Transactions resulting from the novation of Original Transactions presented by a CDS Dealer.
Finally, the proposed changes modify existing provisions of the Rule Book to include the term CDS Dealer. For example, the proposed changes specify in Article 1.2.4.1 that LCH SA can waive the time fixed by the CDS Clearing Documentation for actions by a CDS Dealer, as it can for actions by a Clearing Member. Similarly, the proposed changes ensure that CDS Dealers are covered by the Rule Book by adding
The proposed changes amend Section 1, Section 4, and Section 5 of LCH SA's CDS Clearing Procedures (the “Procedures”).
In Section 1 of the Procedures, the proposed changes establish the application procedure for an Affiliate applying to become a CDS Dealer. The proposed changes first rename the title of Section 1 from “Membership” to “Clearing Member and CDS Dealer Status,” to clarify that the section relates to Clearing Members and CDS Dealers, not just Clearing Members. Similarly, the proposed changes amend Paragraph 1.1 to indicate that it relates to the application procedures for Clearing Member status to distinguish it from the new application procedure for CDS Dealer status, which will be found in Paragraph 1.2. Finally, the proposed changes add references to the status of Clearing Member in 1.1 and deletes the reference to Regulatory Body in Paragraph 1.1(d)(iii).
The proposed changes add a new paragraph 1.2 for the application procedure for CDS Dealer Status. Under new Paragraph 1.2(a), an application for CDS Dealer status must be made in such form and fashion as prescribed by LCH SA from time to time and may be obtained from LCH SA's CDSClear Business Development & Relationship Management team. Moreover, Applicants approved by LCH SA for the CDS Dealer status must, within six months of notification of their approval, fulfil all conditions attached to their approval.
Finally, the proposed changes also clarify the scope of Paragraph 1.3 by adding a reference to the clearing membership, excluding CDS Dealer status.
In Section 4 of the Procedures, the proposed changes amend Paragraph 4.1(c), which specifies certain criteria that a transaction submitted to LCH SA for clearing must satisfy. Among other things, the Clearing Member submitting the transaction must not be suspended, and LCH SA must be permitted to clear the transaction pursuant to Applicable Law. The proposed changes specify that these Eligibility Requirements for the Clearing Member to submit an Original Transaction also apply to a Clearing Member whose CDS Dealers and/or Clients submit Original Transactions, with certain modifications. Specifically, the proposed changes (i) add new criteria pursuant to which a CDS Dealer presenting an Original Transaction shall not be suspended or removed from the Register of CDS Dealers and (ii) require that LCH SA shall be permitted to clear such Original Transaction, including when a CDS Dealer is presenting the transaction.
The proposed changes modify Paragraphs 4.2(f)(ii), 4.3(e)(ii), and 4.4(e)(ii). These provisions currently provide that a Clearing Member may submit a transaction to LCH SA for clearing, even where the transaction does not meet the Eligibility Requirements discussed above, if the transaction is a risk reducing transaction. The proposed changes also add that CDS Dealers and Clients will also be able to submit such risk-reducing transactions in those same circumstances.
Finally, the proposed changes amend Section 5 of the Procedures, which relates to the operations of LCH SA's CDS Clearing services. Paragraph 5.13 currently allows a Clearing Member to reverse a cleared transaction in certain circumstances. The proposed changes add that a Clearing Member may also reverse a transaction submitted on its behalf by a CDS Dealer, in the same circumstances as a transaction submitted directly by the Clearing Member.
LCH SA also proposes several minor formatting changes, typographical corrections, and updates to internal cross references. For example, in the Rule Book, the proposed changes modify the defined term “Trading Venue Transaction” by replacing “[w]ith respect of a Clearing Member” to “[w]ith respect to a Clearing Member.” The proposed changes correct other typos and extraneous spaces in Articles 2.2.3.1, 2.2.1.1(iv), 2.2.2.1(iv), 2.4.1.1, 4.2.7.7., 5.1.1.3(xviii), the second paragraph of Article 5.3.3.2 and Articles 5.3.5.1, 5.3.5.2, 5.3.5.4 and 6.1.1.3(xvi). Similarly, the proposed changes replace references to a “person” with the defined term “Person” in Article 1.0.1.2, Section 1.1.1, Articles 1.2.12.1, 1.2.12.2, 2.1.1.2, 4.2.7.5, 6.1.1.2, and the Annex of Appendix 1. The proposed changes also remove “CCM” before “House Cleared Transactions” in the term “CCM House Margin Account.”
In the Procedures Section 1, LCH proposes new numbering of sub-paragraphs of paragraphs 1.1 and new paragraph 1.2 and the use of the defined term “Person.” The proposed changes
In the Procedures Section 5, the proposed changes replace “LCH Website” with defined term “Website” in paragraphs 5.2(a)(iii), 5.5(a), 5.18.3, 5.18.4, 5.18.5(a), 5.6(a) and 5.8(a), and remove reference to the “CDSClear Margin And Product Flows Document” in Paragraph 5.16(a)(iii)(G)(1).
Finally, the proposed changes update references to certain laws applicable to LCH SA. Specifically, the proposed changes update the term “Data Protection Law” to the latest EU and French regulations. Similarly, the proposed changes add a new Article 1.1.3.10 to Section 1.1.3 to state that nothing in the CDS Clearing Documentation shall compel LCH SA to act in contravention of Applicable Law or other regulatory obligations.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the organization.
The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,
After carefully considering the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to LCH SA. More specifically, for the reasons given below, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(A) and (F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires, among other things, that LCH SA has the capacity to be able to facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements and has the capacity to be able to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
As described above, the proposed changes allow affiliates of Clearing Members to submit trades on behalf of those Clearing Members after being admitted as CDS Dealers. Having more trade sources available to a Clearing Member can help facilitate clearing where a Clearing Member wants to clear house trades from an affiliate without having a to go through a client onboarding process. Expanding trade sources for Clearing Members will also facilitate clearing by providing Clearing Members with additional options for conducting house business as well as managing risk offsets for customer business. The proposed changes also require a potential CDS Dealer to go through a formal application process and secure documentation formalizing the relationship between the Affiliate, Clearing Member, and LCH SA. This formalized application process should help facilitate accurate clearance and settlement by ensuring that only qualified CDS Dealers are approved. The proposed changes also add flexibility for more efficient access to cleared markets, which could help encourage and facilitate clearing. Additionally, Clearing Members accepting House trades from an Affiliate may also benefit from more efficient margin by having all trades for the same financial group in a single margin account which would also facilitate prompt and accurate clearance and settlement.
Based on the foregoing, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Sections 17A(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that LCH SA's rules be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements, and foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions.
As discussed above, the proposed change would allow an Affiliate of a Clearing Member to submit House transactions on behalf of that Clearing Member. By allowing more trade origination sources, the Proposed Rule Change helps facilitate prompt and accurate clearance of security-based swaps. Having more trade sources for a Clearing Member could lead to more trades being cleared. Moreover, the Proposed Rule Change helps foster cooperation and coordination between CDS Dealers and Clearing Members because a Clearing Member may want to consolidate risk with an Affiliate or allow the Affiliate to handle some trading or risk offsetting strategies for a common margin account for a financial group. The Proposed Rule Change also fosters cooperation between CDS Dealers and customers by allowing CDS Dealers to submit for clearing on behalf of their affiliated Clearing Members transactions where the counterparties are Clients of another Clearing Member. This may foster cooperation and promote clearance of transactions, given that some customers may choose to enter into transactions with CDS Dealers instead of a Clearing Member directly.
Based on the foregoing, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18)(i) requires covered clearing agencies to, among other things, establish objective and publicly disclosed criteria for participation which permit fair and open access by indirect participants.
The proposed changes will facilitate LCH SA's ability to permit fair and open access by indirect participants by applying the same public and objective membership standards to potential CDS Dealers as are applied to regular Clearing Members, and by by creating a new category of CDS Dealer, which will allow eligible indirect participants to place trades as a CDS Dealer into an affiliate Clearing Member's house account.
Based on the foregoing, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18)(i) under the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, Sections 17A(b)(3)(A) and (F) of the Act
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 17, 2024, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc., and NYSE National, Inc. (the “Exchanges”) each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
On December 31, 2024, the Exchanges withdrew the proposed rule changes (SR-NYSE-2024-81, SR-NYSEAMER-2024-80, SR-NYSEARCA-2024-113, SR-NYSECHX-2024-37, SR-NYSENAT-2024-33).
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 21.15(b) (Exchange Data Products) to adopt the Cboe Timestamping Service, which is a market data service comprised of two distinct market data reports.
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website (
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt the Cboe Timestamping Service, which is a market data service comprised of two distinct market data reports.
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website (
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
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 21.15(b) (Exchange Data Products) to adopt the Cboe Timestamping Service, which is a market data service comprised of two distinct market data reports.
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website at
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeEDGX-2025-002 and should be submitted on or before February 13, 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 a rule change to establish fees for Industry Members
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website at
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.
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 a rule change to establish fees for Industry
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website at
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.
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 a rule change to establish fees for Industry
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website at
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt the Cboe Timestamping Service, which is a market data service comprised of two distinct market data reports.
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website (
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
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 modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to amend the Floor Broker Fixed Cost Prepayment Incentive Program (the “FB Prepay Program” or “Program”) by (1) increasing the manual and QCC volume required for Floor Brokers to earn an additional credit; (2) adopting a new additional Floor Broker rebate based on Firm Facilitation volume; (3) increasing the maximum combined Floor Broker credits paid for QCC trades and rebates paid through the Manual Billable Rebate Program; and (4) permitting Floor Brokers that restructure while in FB Prepay Program to maintain their status in the Program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 15, 2025.
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website at
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.
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 a rule change to establish fees for Industry Members
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website at
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.
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 delay the implementation of an amendment to Options 3, Section 16, Complex Order Risk Protections, related to a Complex Order that includes at least one P.M.-settled leg and at least one A.M.-settled leg.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
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.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-ISE-2025-04 and should be submitted on or before February 13, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 16, 2024, NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On December 16, 2024, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 1003(f)(v) of the Company Guide (Low Selling Price Issues) currently provides that in the case of a listed common stock selling for a substantial period of time at a low price per share, the Exchange may suspend and delist a company if such company shall fail to effect a reverse split of such shares within a reasonable time after being notified that the Exchange deems such action to be appropriate under all the circumstances. In its review of the question of whether it deems a reverse split of a given issue to be appropriate, the Exchange will consider all pertinent factors, including market conditions in general, the number of shares outstanding, plans which may have been formulated by management, applicable regulations of the state or country of incorporation or of any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the issuer, the relationship to other Exchange policies regarding continued listing, and, in respect of securities of foreign issuers, the general practice in the country of origin of trading in low-selling price issues.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 1003(f) of the Company Guide (Other Events) to add two circumstances relating to effectuating reverse stock splits under which the Exchange would immediately suspend and delist a listed company. First, proposed Section 1003(f)(vi) of the Company Guide would provide that if a listed issuer has effectuated one or more reverse stock splits over the prior two-year period with a cumulative ratio of 200 shares or more to one, the Exchange would commence immediate suspension and delisting procedures in accordance with the procedures set out in Section 1010 of the Company Guide.
The Exchange states that many companies seek to address low selling price issues under Section 1003(f)(v) of the Company Guide by effectuating a reverse stock split.
The Exchange also states that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of Section 1003(f)(v) of the Company Guide related to common stock selling for a substantial period of time at a low price,
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The development and enforcement of meaningful listing standards
The Exchange's proposal would provide that the Exchange would immediately commence suspension and delisting procedures with respect to a listed company that effectuates a reverse stock split in certain circumstances. Specifically, proposed Sections 1003(f)(vi) and (vii) of the Company Guide would provide for the immediate suspension and delisting of any listed company that (i) has effectuated one or more reverse stock splits over the prior two-year period with a cumulative ratio of 200 shares or more to one or (ii) has effectuated a reverse stock split and the effectuation of such reverse stock split results in the company's security falling below any of the continued listing requirements of Section 1003 of the Company Guide.
The Exchange's proposal is reasonably designed to enhance its continued listing standards, thereby protecting investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposal is reasonably designed to curtail the use of reverse stock splits to inappropriately delay delisting and thereby allow a company's security to remain listed on the Exchange for an extended period despite being inappropriate for trading on the Exchange and not being able to maintain compliance with the Exchange's listing standards. As discussed above, the Exchange states that engaging in a pattern of repeated reverse stock splits is often indicative of deep financial or operational distress that renders a company inappropriate for trading on the Exchange for investor protection reasons.
The Exchange's proposal is reasonably designed to further investor protection by limiting the ability of listed companies with a history of having a low stock price to use reverse stock splits to remain qualified for listing.
While the Commission recognizes that the Exchange delisting process is in part designed to allow listed companies experiencing temporary financial and/or business issues to regain compliance with continued listing standards, the proposal reasonably balances the intent of the delisting process with the need to prevent companies from taking advantage of the delisting process for an extended period of time despite being inappropriate for trading on the Exchange and not being able to comply with Exchange standards for continued listing, which is contrary to the goal of protecting investors and the public interest.
The proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 6(b)(7) of the Act
In sum, the Exchange's proposal appropriately identifies securities listed on its market that are more likely to have serious recurrent issues in regaining and maintaining compliance with the Exchange's continued listing standards, and proposes reasonable changes to shorten the time that such non-compliant securities can remain trading on the Exchange, thereby protecting investors and the public interest in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The purpose of this proposed rule change
The proposed rule change, including the Clearing Agency's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Clearing Agency's website at
The Clearing Agency has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
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 a rule change to establish fees for Industry Members
The proposed rule change, including the Exchange's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Exchange's website at
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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 9, 2024,
On July 18, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required national securities exchanges and national securities associations (“Participants”)
On December 16, 2020, the Commission issued an exemptive relief order regarding the implementation of the CAT NMS Plan (“First Order”).
On July 8, 2022, the Commission issued a new exemptive relief order (“Second Order”),
FIF requests that the Commission extend the previously granted temporary conditional exemptive relief until July 31, 2025.
FIF states that the Participants, at the direction of the Commission, will “remove from the CAT system the ability for industry members to report certain flags on Order Fulfillment events (specifically, the `YE' and `YP' flags) in lieu of reporting linkage to specific representative orders” after January 31, 2025.
If Industry Members cannot use the “YE” and “YP” flags to report certain trading scenarios and/or must report the information necessary for FINRA CAT to create lifecycle linkages between customer orders and representative orders, FIF states that Industry Members “will be faced with the choice of either (i) submitting large numbers of Order Fulfillment events that the CAT system will reject and that will not be repairable, or (ii) abandoning certain common existing trading workflows.”
For example, it is a common workflow for industry members to trade as a principal against customer orders without the industry member creating a firm order. This workflow will no longer be possible if the flags referenced above are removed from CAT because a firm will not be able to report Order Fulfillments to CAT when the firm fulfills is `Manning' obligation for this workflow. Conversely, if industry members submit large numbers of Order Fulfillments that the CAT system will reject, this will present a significant processing and workflow challenge for the CAT system, the regulators and industry members as large numbers of rejected and unsubmitted CAT events pile-up.
FIF states that its members have further identified for Commission staff, the Participants, and FINRA CAT the “significant challenges with implementing certain CAT linkage requirements relating to representative orders and order fulfilments” in presentations
Section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act grants the Commission the authority to “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction . . . from any provision or provisions of [the Exchange Act] or of
The Commission agrees that additional time is needed to identify and evaluate appropriate long-term solutions for certain trading scenarios. In developing those solutions, the Commission emphasizes its willingness to consider alternative solutions that achieve the regulatory goals of Rule 613 and the CAT NMS Plan. The Commission therefore determines that the requested extension of the existing exemptive relief is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors under section 36(a)(1) of the Exchange Act, as well as consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, and the perfection of the mechanisms of a national market system under Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS.
Specifically, the Commission grants temporary conditional exemptive relief from the requirements set forth in Appendix D, section 3 of the CAT NMS Plan related to lifecycle linkages between customer orders and representative orders,
Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
The purpose of this proposed rule change
The proposed rule change, including the Clearing Agency's statement of the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change, is available on the Clearing Agency's website at
The Clearing Agency has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 6, 2024, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
This order approves the proposed rule change.
Nasdaq Rules require a company's equity securities listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, Nasdaq Global Market, and Nasdaq Capital Market to maintain a minimum bid price of at least one dollar per share (the “Bid Price Requirement”).
The Nasdaq Rules set forth the circumstances that can curtail or alter the bid price compliance periods. First, Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(3)(A)(iii) provides that if a company's security has a closing bid price of $0.10 or less for 10 consecutive trading days during any bid price compliance period, Nasdaq must issue a Delisting Determination with respect to that security. Second, Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(3)(A)(iv) provides that if a company's security fails to meet the Bid Price Requirement and the company has effected one or more reverse stock splits over the prior two-year period with a cumulative ratio of 250 shares or more to one, then the company is not eligible for any compliance periods and Nasdaq must issue a Delisting Determination with respect to that security. Finally, Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(3)(A) provides that if a company takes a corporate action (
Based on the Exchange's experience administering the rules described above, it is proposing two modifications to the delisting process in Nasdaq Rules 5810 and 5815. These proposed changes are described in more detail below.
First, the Exchange proposes to adopt Nasdaq Rule 5815(a)(1)(B)(ii)d. (“Appeal Process Proposal”) to provide that, notwithstanding the general rule that a timely request for a hearing shall ordinarily stay the suspension and delisting action pending the issuance of a written Hearings Panel decision, a request for a hearing shall not stay the suspension of the securities from trading where the matter relates to a request made by a company that was afforded the second 180-day compliance period described in Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(3)(A)(ii) and that failed to regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement during that period.
The Exchange also proposes to clarify in proposed Nasdaq Rule 5815(a)(1)(B)(ii)d. that, pursuant to Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(3)(A), a company achieves compliance with the Bid Price Requirement by meeting the applicable standard for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days, unless Staff exercises its discretion to extend this 10-day period as set forth in Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(3)(H).
The Exchange states in its proposal that it believes that two consecutive compliance periods for a total of 360 days is a sufficient period of time for a company to regain compliance with the
Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(3)(A)(iv) to provide that if a company's security fails to meet the Bid Price Requirement and the company has effected a reverse stock split over the prior one-year period, then the company shall not be eligible for any compliance period specified in Nasdaq Rule 5810(c)(3)(A) and the Listing Qualifications Department shall issue a Delisting Determination under Rule 5810 with respect to that security (“Prior Reverse Split Proposal”).
The Exchange states that it has observed that some companies, typically those in financial distress or experiencing a prolonged operational downturn, engage in a pattern of repeated reverse stock splits to regain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The development and enforcement of meaningful listing standards
As discussed above, currently, if a company whose security has failed to meet the Bid Price Requirement for one or two compliance periods timely appeals its Delisting Determination to the Hearings Panel, the trading suspension of that security is stayed during the pendency of the Hearings Panel review.
Some comments received on the proposal were generally supportive of
Some commenters opposed the Prior Reverse Split Proposal but also stated that they did not object to the Appeal Process Proposal.
Finally, some commenters opposed the proposed rule change based on an incorrect understanding of the proposed rule change.
The Exchange's proposal is reasonably designed to enhance its continued listing standards, thereby protecting investors and the public interest. The Appeal Process Proposal prohibits continued trading of a company's securities on the Exchange during the pendency of a delisting appeal when a company has not maintained the Exchange's Bid Price Requirement for 360 days. It applies only to companies that have notified the Exchange of their intent to cure the bid price deficiency during the second 180-day compliance period and that therefore receive a second compliance period (for a total of 360 days) and yet still fail to meet the Bid Price Requirement.
The Prior Reverse Split Proposal is reasonably designed to curtail the use of reverse stock splits to inappropriately delay delisting when a security fails to meet the Bid Price Requirement. A commenter expressed concern that the Prior Reverse Split Proposal does not take into consideration the ratio of the prior reverse stock split.
The commenter also expressed concern that the Prior Reverse Split Proposal does not take into consideration whether a security was in compliance with the Bid Price Requirement at the time of the reverse split.
The Commission finds that it is reasonable that the Prior Reverse Split Proposal is not based on the security's compliance with the Bid Price Requirement at the time of the reverse split. The Exchange can reasonably conclude from its experience that a company's inability to maintain compliance with the Bid Price Requirement for at least one year post-reverse split—regardless of its security's compliance at the time of the reverse split—is indicative of serious difficulties within such company that are likely to put continued downward pressure on the stock price, such that the company is less likely to regain compliance within any compliance periods. In this respect, the Prior Reverse Split Proposal is appropriately targeted to those securities that are more likely to have serious recurrent issues in regaining and maintaining compliance with the Bid Price Requirement.
The Exchange's proposal is reasonably designed to further investor protection by limiting the ability of listed companies to engage in a pattern of repeated reverse stock splits to remain qualified for listing. The Exchange states that it is appropriate to subject such securities to heightened scrutiny because, as the Exchange stated in its proposal,
Some commenters raised concerns relating to the impact of the Prior Reverse Split Proposal on access to capital for a segment of Nasdaq-listed small companies, particularly biotechnology companies, and stated that other factors beyond financial distress also contribute to the need for reverse stock splits by these issuers.
The commenters' concern that the Prior Reverse Split Proposal will encourage short-selling activities due to non-compliance with continued listing standards is not unique to the Exchange's proposal and, indeed, exists today.
One commenter raised concerns regarding the Prior Reverse Split Proposal's potential impact on how companies administer reverse stock splits and its potential to cause issues for companies' capitalization; however, the commenter did not specify any harm that would result from this specific proposal, particularly to a company's capitalization.
In sum, the Exchange's proposal appropriately identifies securities listed on its market that are more likely to have serious recurrent issues in regaining and maintaining compliance with the Bid Price Requirement and proposes reasonable changes to shorten the time that such non-compliant securities can remain trading on the Exchange, thereby protecting investors and the public interest in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX” or the “Act”) provides that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) may recognize, as generally accepted for purposes of the securities laws, any accounting principles established by a standard-setting body that meets certain criteria.
On April 25, 2003, the Commission issued a policy statement concluding that the Financial Accounting Standards Board and its parent organization, the Financial Accounting Foundation (“FAF”), satisfied the criteria for an accounting standard-setting body under the Act, and recognizing the FASB's financial accounting and reporting standards as “generally accepted” under Section 108 of the Act.
Section 109 of SOX provides that, in addition to the accounting support fee, the standard-setting body can have additional sources of revenue for its activities, such as earnings from sales of publications, provided that each additional source of revenue shall not jeopardize, in the judgment of the Commission, the actual or perceived independence of the standard setter. In this regard, the Commission also considered the interrelation of the operating budgets of the FAF, the FASB, and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”), the FASB's sister organization, which sets accounting standards used by state and local government entities. The Commission has been advised by the FAF that neither the FAF, the FASB, nor the GASB accept contributions from the accounting profession.
The Commission understands that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined the FASB's spending of the 2025 accounting support fee is sequestrable under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
After its review, the Commission determined that the 2025 annual accounting support fee for the FASB is consistent with Section 109 of the Act. Accordingly,
By the Commission.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Texas dated January 16, 2025.
Issued on January 16, 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.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 20960C and for economic injury is 209610.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Texas.
North Florida Industrial Railroad, LLC (NFIR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease and operate approximately 4,891 feet of track in the vicinity of Lake City in Columbia County, Fla. (the Line), connecting the North Florida Mega Industrial Park (Park) with a rail line operated by Florida Gulf & Atlantic Railroad, LLC (FG&A).
This transaction is related to a concurrently filed petition for exemption in Docket No. FD 36823,
According to the verified notice, the Line is owned by Columbia County, Fla., a noncarrier, and is currently inactive. The verified notice further states that Columbia County is in the process of developing the Park, and that lease and operation of the Line will enable tenants to receive inbound and originate outbound freight shipments via NFIR, which will interchange with FG&A. Pursuant to the proposed transaction, NFIR will maintain and operate the Line, provide switching and related rail services to the Park tenants, and effect the interchange and delivery of inbound and origination and interchange of outbound line-haul rail shipments.
NFIR certifies that its projected annual revenues will not exceed $5 million and will not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II rail carrier. NFIR also certifies that the proposed transaction does not involve any provision or agreement that would limit future interchange with a third-party connecting carrier.
NFIR states that it intends to consummate the proposed transaction as soon as practicable after the effective dates of this exemption and the continuance in control exemption that is the subject of the related petition for exemption in Docket No. FD 36823. The effective date of this lease and operation exemption will be held in abeyance pending review of the petition for exemption.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. If the petition for exemption in Docket No. FD 36823 is granted, a deadline for filing petitions to stay this lease and operation exemption will be established in a decision that also establishes an effective date for this exemption.
All pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36824, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 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, a copy of each pleading must be served on NFIR's representative, Terence M. Hynes, Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005.
According to NFIR, this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c) and from historic preservation reporting requirements under 49 CFR 1105.8(b).
Board decisions and notices are available at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of Passenger Rail Advisory Committee meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Passenger Rail Advisory Committee (PRAC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
The meeting will be held on February 11, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. E.T.
The meeting will be held at the Surface Transportation Board headquarters at 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423.
Brian O'Boyle at (202) 245-0364 or
The PRAC was formed in 2023 to provide advice and guidance to the Board on passenger rail issues on a continuing basis to help the Board better fulfill its statutory responsibilities in overseeing certain aspects of passenger rail service.
The meeting, which is open to the public, will be conducted in accordance with FACA, 5 U.S.C. app. 2; Federal Advisory Committee Management regulations, 41 CFR part 102-3; PRAC's charter; and Board procedures. Further
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice of determination.
The U.S. Trade Representative has determined that China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance is actionable under section 301.
Megan Grimball and Philip Butler, Chairs of the Section 301 Committee, Associate General Counsel Thomas Au or Assistant General Counsel Henry Smith, 202.395.5725.
On March 12, 2024, five labor unions
Petitioners allege that China targets the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sector for dominance and engages in a wide range of unreasonable or discriminatory acts, policies, and practices that provide unfair advantages across maritime industries, such as shipbuilding, shipping, and maritime equipment. The petitioners also aver that China threatens to discriminate against U.S. commerce and disrupt supply chains. Petitioners allege that China's acts, policies, and practices burden or restrict U.S. commerce in various manners.
On April 17, 2024, after consultation with the appropriate advisory committees and the Section 301 Committee, USTR initiated an investigation regarding the issues raised in the petition pursuant to section 302(a)(2) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2412(a)(2)). The notice of initiation solicited written comments on,
Interested persons filed over 40 written comments. USTR and the Section 301 Committee convened a public hearing on May 29, 2024, during which witnesses provided testimony and responded to questions. The public submissions are available at
On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative requested consultations with the government of China pursuant to section 303 of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2413). The government of China has declined to hold consultations under the statutory framework regarding the investigation.
Based on information obtained during the investigation, including the public submissions and the public hearing, USTR and the Section 301 Committee have prepared a report on the acts, policies, and practices under investigation. The report supports a determination that China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce and thus is actionable. The report is available to the public on the USTR' website.
For nearly three decades, China has targeted the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance and has employed increasingly aggressive and specific targets in pursuing dominance. China has largely achieved its dominance goals, severely disadvantaging U.S. companies, workers, and the U.S. economy generally through lessened competition and commercial opportunities and through the creation of economic security risks from dependencies and vulnerabilities.
Top-down industrial planning and targeting is a critical feature of China's state-led, non-market economic system. China organizes the development of its economy at a high level through broad national-level five-year economic and social development plans. It then employs industry-specific plans that typically align chronologically with the national five-year plans. These plans often contain detailed quantitative and qualitative targets, including for production, domestic content, and domestic and international market shares, and outline the non-market policies and practices China should use to achieve these targets. China's plans reveal its targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance.
Market share targets necessitate substitution by Chinese companies at the expense of foreign competitors—for Chinese companies to gain market share, they must displace foreign companies in existing markets and take new markets as they develop in the future. China's industrial targets have become more aggressive and sophisticated over the years.
China's targeting of these sectors for dominance has undercut competition and taken market share with dramatic
Based on the information obtained during the investigation, as reflected in the public report on the investigation, and taking account of public comments, as well as the advice of the Section 301 Committee and advisory committees, the U.S. Trade Representative has made the following determination under sections 301(b) and 304(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(b) and 2414(a)): China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance is unreasonable and burdens or restricts U.S. commerce, and thus is actionable under section 301(b) of the Trade Act.
In particular, China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance is unreasonable because: it displaces foreign firms, deprives market-oriented businesses and their workers of commercial opportunities, and lessens competition; and it creates dependencies on China, increasing risk and reducing supply chain resilience. China's targeting for dominance also is unreasonable because of China's extraordinary control over its economic actors and these sectors.
Furthermore, China's targeting of the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance burdens or restricts U.S. commerce by: undercutting business opportunities for and investments in the U.S. maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors; restricting competition and choice; creating economic security risks from dependence and vulnerabilities in sectors critical to the functioning of the U.S. economy; and undermining supply chain resilience.
These findings provide a basis for finding that responsive action is appropriate to obtain the elimination of the acts, policies, or practices covered in the investigation.
Sections 301(b) and 304(a)(1)(B) of the Trade Act provide that if the U.S. Trade Representative determines that an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country is unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts United States commerce, the U.S. Trade Representative shall determine what action, if any, to take under section 301(b). These matters will be addressed in subsequent proceedings.
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 this person is blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on January 15, 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 January 15, 2025, OFAC determined that the person identified below meets one or more of the criteria for the imposition of sanctions set forth in section 11(a) of Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, “Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation,” (E.O. 14024), as amended by Executive Order 14114 of December 22, 2023, “Taking Additional Steps With Respect to the Russian Federation's Harmful Activities” (E.O. 14114). OFAC has determined to impose blocking sanctions pursuant to section 11(b)(ii) of E.O. 14024, as amended by E.O. 14114 on the person identified below, and therefore all of the person's property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, are blocked, and such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.
1. OJSC KEREMET BANK, 40/4 Togolok Moldo str, Bishkek 720001, Kyrgyzstan; SWIFT/BIC RINBKG22; website
Designated pursuant to section 11(a)(ii) of Executive Order 14024 of April 15, 2021, “Blocking Property With Respect To Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation,” 86 FR 20249, 3 CFR, 2021 Comp., p. 542 (Apr. 15, 2021) (E.O. 14024) as amended by Executive Order 14114 of December 22, 2023, “Taking Additional Steps With Respect to the Russian Federation's Harmful Activities,” 88 FR 89271, 3 CFR, 2023 Comp., p. 721 (Dec. 22, 2023) (E.O. 14114) for having conducted or facilitated any significant transaction or transactions, or provided any service, involving Russia's military-industrial base, including the sale, supply, or transfer, directly or indirectly, to the Russian Federation of any item or class of items as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 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
This action was issued on January 17, 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 January 17, 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.
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. Additionally, OFAC is publishing updates to the identifying information of two persons currently included on the SDN List.
This action was issued on January 16, 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 January 16, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to the request for a copy of exempt or political organization IRS form, application, or letter.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) should be directed to Kerry Dennis at (202) 317-5751, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Bad Debt Reserves of Banks.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Jason Schoonmaker, (801) 620-2128, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning the burden related to the interest rates and appropriate foreign loss payment patterns for determining the qualified insurance income of certain controlled corporations under section 954(i).
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Jason Schoonmaker, (801) 620-2128, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to limitations on passive activity losses and credits.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Kerry Dennis at (202) 317-5751, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning information collection requirements related to branded prescription drugs.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Kerry Dennis at (202) 317-5751, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet, at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10., that the Advisory Committee on the Readjustment of Veterans will meet virtually on February 5, 2025-February 6, 2025. The sessions will begin and end as follows:
The meeting sessions are open to the public, except during the time the Committee is participating in focus group discussions or conducting tours of VA facilities. Tours of VA facilities are closed, to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information, in accordance with 5 U.S.C 552b(c)(6). The meeting will be held via Microsoft Teams.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the VA regarding the provision by VA of benefits and services to assist Veterans in the readjustment to civilian life. The Committee, comprised of 13 subject matter experts, advises the Secretary through the VA Readjustment Counseling Service (RCS). In carrying out this duty, the Committee shall take into account the needs of Veterans who served in combat theaters of operation.
On February 5, 2025, the meeting will be open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. EST for the Chair's call to order, reviewing the agenda, introductions, and a briefing from RCS Chief Officer. The meeting will convene a closed session from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST to conduct a virtual site visit of the Lancaster Vet Center and conduct a focus group with staff, which may include sensitive clinical discussions. Tours of VA facilities are closed, to protect Veterans' privacy and personal information, in accordance with 5 U.S.C 552b(c)(6). The Committee will reconvene an open session at 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. EST for a presentation from three Vet Center Directors. From 2:15 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST, the Committee will again convene a closed session to hear from a Veterans panel discussion on sensitive or Veterans' privacy and personal information; and will reconvene publicly again at 4:00 p.m. EST for a Committee discussion and meeting adjournment.
On February 6, 2025, the entire day will be open to the public and will consist of presentations and discussions with Designated Federal Officers from other VA Federal advisory committees, as well as a committee discussion focused on mapping out the upcoming annual report.
Time will be allotted for the public to provide comments starting at 3:30 p.m. EST and ending no later than 4:00 p.m. EST. The comment period may end sooner if no comments are presented or they are exhausted before the end time. Individuals interested in providing comments during the public comment period are allowed no more than three minutes or their statements. Additionally, the Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues outlined in the meeting agenda or other issues regarding the readjustment of Veterans. Parties should contact Mr. Joshua Mathis via email at
Any member of the public seeking additional information should contact Mr. Mathis at the email address noted above.
You can dial in by phone at 1-872-701-0185 and use the access code 580 084 276#.