Forest Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Institutes of Health
Geological Survey
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
Drug Enforcement Administration
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Disability Employment Policy Office
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
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.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
This interim final rule (“IFR”) amends the Department of Justice (“Department”) regulations relating to the organization of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board” or “BIA”) by reducing the Board to 15 members.
If you wish to provide comments regarding this rulemaking, you must submit comments, identified by the agency name and referencing RIN 1125-AB34 or EOIR Docket No. 25-AB34, by one of the two methods below.
•
•
Stephanie Gorman, Acting Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0289.
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this rule. The Department also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Department in developing these procedures will reference a specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that supports such recommended change.
Each submitted comment should include the agency name and reference RIN 1125-AB34 or EOIR Docket No. 25-AB34 for this rulemaking. Please note that all properly received comments are considered part of the public record and generally may be made available for public inspection at
If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted. The redacted personally identifying information will be placed in the agency's public docket file but not posted online.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
To inspect the agency's public docket file in person, you must make an appointment with the agency. Please see the
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (“EOIR”) administers the Nation's immigration court system. Generally, cases commence before an immigration judge after the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) files a charging document with the immigration court.
Many—but not all—decisions of the immigration judges are subject to review by EOIR's appellate body, the Board, which at full capacity under the current regulations comprises 28 permanent Board members.
The size of the BIA was last addressed through a rule promulgated in April 2024.
The number of permanent Board members has fluctuated over time based on changing circumstances. Throughout the history of the BIA, the number of authorized Board member positions has ranged from as few as 5 members to as many as the current 28 members.
However, increasing the size of the Board has not necessarily equated to a corresponding increase in the number of cases adjudicated or a reduction in the pending caseload. Although many factors may have contributed to this outcome—including organizational and administrative challenges—the data demonstrate that increasing the Board's size has not brought about the hoped-for increases in productivity envisioned by prior expansions. Furthermore, increasing the Board beyond a certain size has added structural inefficiencies that further undermine the Board's ability to effectively adjudicate cases.
The Department notes that several commenters on the 2020 IFR expanding the Board raised similar concerns—
While the number of Board members authorized by regulation has increased by 13 since 2015, the number of cases completed annually by Board members has exceeded the total number completed in 2015 only three years since then, and the current projection for Fiscal Year 2025 is that completions will be less than in Fiscal Year 2015.
Importantly, the expansions have also diminished the Board's ability to meet other critical aspects of its mission. Several commenters on the 2020 IFR expanding the Board also raised these concerns, arguing that the expansion contradicted the Department's stated priorities of maintaining “administrability” and “coherent direction.”
The mission of EOIR is “to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation's immigration laws.” EOIR,
The substantial increase in the number of Board members over the past 10 years has diminished the cohesiveness of the Board's decision-making process, causing the process of issuing precedent decisions to become more time-consuming and challenging. A key purpose of the Board is to publish precedent decisions to provide clear guidance and promote the uniform application of the immigration laws nationwide.
Furthermore, having an even number of Board members presents an added challenge in issuing precedent decisions, which require approval by a majority of the permanent Board members.
In addition, the increasing number of Board members has resulted in greater inconsistency in the Board's non-precedent decisions. Board members exercise independent judgment and discretion in deciding the cases that come before them.
Lastly, the increase in the number of Board members, particularly in the last four years, has not been met with a proportionate increase in the number of attorney advisors, paralegals, and administrative staff, resulting in administrative and supervisory strain on the Board's limited legal staff. Over the last four years, the Department has prioritized immigration-judge and Board-member hiring without prioritizing the hiring of necessary staff to support these positions. At the Board, attorney advisors play a pivotal role in the adjudicatory process, analyzing administrative records, providing guidance and interpretation of immigration law, and preparing proposed decisions for Board-member consideration. Without sufficient attorney advisors and other support staff, the Board cannot efficiently adjudicate its caseload, no matter how much it increases the number of permanent Board members.
Furthermore, the Department believes that, when previously assessing the expansion of the size of the Board from 23 to 28 permanent members, insufficient weight was given to the authority of the Attorney General to appoint temporary Board members to address any significant fluctuations in the Board's caseload or changes in case processing priorities.
Second, temporary Board-member appointments play an important role in the long-term interests of EOIR, including through career development and advancement for immigration judges and others serving temporarily in Board-member positions.
In short, a reduction in permanent Board-member positions will not impede the Board's ability to address exigent circumstances because of the availability of temporary Board members. Further, temporary Board members can be appointed relatively quickly, whereas expanding the Board requires a regulatory change; thus, temporary Board members also provide added flexibility for shifts in the Board's workload.
In conclusion, the Department believes that reducing the number of Board member positions to 15 would increase the consistency of Board decisions and facilitate an efficient en banc process, thereby improving the quantity and value of Board precedents. Fifteen is an odd number, so it reduces the likelihood of tie votes en banc. It also serves as an appropriate baseline by returning the Board to the number of members it had prior to the wave of expansion that began in 2015. In the Board's experience, particularly considering the period between December 2006 and June 2015 when the Board stood at 15 members compared to the subsequent decade when the Board expanded multiple times and nearly doubled in size, a cohort of 15 members represents a realistic capacity to adjudicate cases in a cohesive and efficient manner without sacrificing quality decision-making or the ability to publish precedents which can aid immigration judges, DHS, practitioners, and aliens in addressing the large backlog of pending cases in immigration courts.
It will also increase the Board's ability to more quickly, effectively, and consistently issue precedent decisions on critical questions involving the interpretation of immigration laws. The Department believes that an increase in the number of precedent decisions will be of greater assistance to immigration judges, DHS, practitioners, and individuals in immigration proceedings and will improve overall efficiency in the immigration court system. In particular, the issuance of Board precedent decisions provides guidance to immigration judges, which increases their efficiency by allowing them to rely on such precedent rather than having to provide their own independent legal analysis on some complex recurring issues. Similarly, DHS officers are bound by Board precedent decisions.
This rule is exempt from the usual requirements of prior notice and comment and a 30-day delay in effective date because it relates to a matter of agency organization, procedure, or practice.
Notice and comment is unnecessary because this is a rule of agency management or personnel as well as a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or other law. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). Because this is a rule of internal agency organization and therefore is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking, no RFA analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 or 604 is required for this rule.
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation), and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501
This rule is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 3(d)(3) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Nevertheless, the Department certifies that this regulation has been drafted in accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), and Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The benefits of this rule include providing the Department with an appropriate means of responding to issues regarding the size of the Board. The public will benefit from the reduction of the number of Board members because such reduction will help EOIR better accomplish its mission of adjudicating cases in an efficient and timely manner.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
The provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, do not apply to this final rule because there are no new or revised recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
This is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This action pertains to agency organization, management, and personnel and, accordingly, is not a “rule” as that term is used in 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Therefore, the reports to Congress and the Government Accountability Office specified by 5 U.S.C. 801 are not required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal services, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, the Attorney General is amending part 1003 of chapter V of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1002; section 203 of Pub. L. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2196-200; sections 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1527-29, 1531-32; section 1505 of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 2763A-326 to -328.
(a)(1) * * * The Board shall consist of 15 members.* * *
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of May 13, 2025, for the direct final rule that was published in the
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0200 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Kristina Banovac, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards; telephone: 301-415-7116, email:
On February 27, 2025 (90 FR 10781), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in part 72 of title 10 of the
In the direct final rule, the NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become effective on May 13, 2025. The NRC received and docketed one comment on the companion proposed rule (90 FR 10799; February 27, 2025). An electronic copy of the comment can be obtained from the Federal Rulemaking website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies the Class E airspace designated as a surface area, modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and establishes Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class E surface area at Cortez Municipal Airport, Cortez, CO. This action also updates the administrative portions of the airport's legal descriptions. These actions support the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.
Effective date 0901 UTC, August 7, 2025. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11J, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
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 modifies and establishes Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Cortez Municipal Airport, CO.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
Subsequent to the publication of the NPRM and effective February 10, 2025, the FAA's definition of the acronym “NOTAM” reverted to “Notice to Airmen.” As such, the proposal to update the term within the legal description of the Class E airspace designated as a surface area is no longer necessary and is withdrawn.
Class E2, E4, and E5 airspace areas are published in paragraphs 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 amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11J, dated July 31, 2024, and effective September 15, 2024. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11J is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 to modify Class E airspace designated as a surface area, modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and establish Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class E surface area at Cortez Municipal Airport, Cortez, CO.
The radius of the Class E airspace designated as a surface area is widened by a half mile to better contain arriving IFR aircraft when less than 1,000 feet above the surface when conducting circling maneuvers or when executing the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS]) Runway (RWY) 3 approach, and aircraft conducting the missed approach portions of the Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) RWY 3, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21, and RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 21 approaches until reaching the next adjacent airspace. Furthermore, the Class E airspace designated as surface area is extended .8 miles to the northeast to laterally contain IFR departure operations while between the surface and the base of adjacent controlled airspace when executing the LEDVE RWY 3 or CORTEZ TWO RWY 3 departure procedures. Moreover, the Class E airspace designated as surface area is extended 2.4 miles to the southwest to laterally contain IFR departure operations while between the surface and the base of adjacent controlled airspace when executing the LEDVE RWY 21 or CORTEZ TWO RWY 21 departure procedures. Finally, the northern leg of the Class E airspace designated as surface area no longer serves the purpose of containment and is removed.
An extension to the Class E airspace designated as surface area measuring approximately 8 x 8 miles is established to the northeast, as the previously designated Class E surface area airspace did not fully contain arriving IFR aircraft when less than 1,000 feet above the surface when executing the RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21 or RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 21 approaches. This extension contains these operations more appropriately without imposing a 2-way radio communication requirement.
The central radius of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is reduced from 7 miles to 6.1 miles, as there were portions of the previously designated Class E airspace to the southeast and west that did not provide procedural containment. Secondly, the northern extension of the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is widened by 6 miles and re-aligned to the northeast, which better contains arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet above the surface when executing the RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21 or RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 21 approaches. The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is extended to the southwest to contain aircraft more appropriately until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface when executing the CORTEZ TWO RWY 21 or LEDVE ONE RWY 21 departure procedures, or the missed approach portion of the RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 21 approach until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface. The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is extended 1.8 miles to the north-northwest of the airport to better contain aircraft executing the missed approach portion of the RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 21 approach until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface.
Lastly, the FAA finalizes administrative modifications to the airport's legal descriptions. The airport's name on line two of the legal description text headers is amended to read “Cortez Municipal Airport” to match the FAA's database. Reference to the Cortez VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) on line three of the airport's legal descriptions is no longer needed and is removed. The airspace is now described using the airport reference point. The legal description for the Class E airspace designated as surface area is updated to replace the outdated use of the phrase “Airport/Facility Directory.” This phrase now reads “Chart Supplement,” to align with the FAA's current nomenclature.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.8-mile radius of the airport, within 1.9 miles either side of the airport's 032° bearing extending from its 4.8-mile radius to 5.6 miles northeast, and within 1.9 miles either side of the airport's 217° bearing extending from its 4.8-mile radius to 7.2 miles southwest. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. 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 either side of the airport's 042° bearing extending from its 4.8-mile radius to 13 miles northeast of the airport, excluding that airspace within the airport's Class E airspace designated as a surface area.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.1-mile radius of the airport, within 6.1 miles either side of the airport's 048° bearing extending from the 6.1-mile radius to 18.8 miles northeast, within 1.9 miles either side of the airport's 217° bearing extending from the 6.1-mile radius to 9.4 miles southwest, and within 4.2 miles west of the airport's 350° bearing extending from the 6.1-mile radius to 7.9 miles north.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Final rule; Congressional Review Act revocation.
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress passed, and the President signed, a joint resolution disapproving the final “Protection of Marine Archaeology Resources” rule published by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) on September 3, 2024. That rule required lessees and operators to submit an archaeological report with any oil and gas exploration or development plan they submit to BOEM for approval of proposed activities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Under the joint resolution and by operation of the Congressional Review Act, the “Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources” rule has no force or effect.
This final rule is effective on April 14, 2025.
Karen Thundiyil, Office Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs, BOEM, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240, at email address
Pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1334), the National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, BOEM issued the final rule “Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources.” BOEM published the rule in the
The purpose of that rule was to address concerns regarding BOEM's regulatory requirements for protecting marine archaeological resources. Specifically, those concerns centered on BOEM's inability to accurately identify the location of such potential resources and BOEM's long-standing policy of requiring archaeological surveys only in cases where evidence of a resource existed. The two major provisions of the rule were (1) the replacement of the “reason to believe” standard in the current regulations with the requirement that all proposed exploration or development plans that would disturb the seabed must be accompanied by an archaeological report, and (2) the codification of minimum requirements for any new high resolution geophysical surveys.
The United States Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 11, disapproving the rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
This action is not an exercise of BOEM's rulemaking authority under the Administrative Procedure Act because BOEM is not “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule” under 5 U.S.C. 551(5). Rather, BOEM is effectuating changes to the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect what the congressional action has already accomplished. Accordingly, BOEM is not soliciting comments on this action.
Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Continental shelf, Environmental impact statements, Environmental protection, Federal lands, Government contracts, Investigations, Mineral resources, Oil and gas exploration, Oil pollution, Outer continental shelf, Penalties, Pipelines, Public lands—rights-of-way, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rights-of-way, Sulfur.
This action by the Assistant Secretary is taken pursuant to an existing delegation of authority.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, BOEM amends 30 CFR part 550 as follows:
30 U.S.C. 1751; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1334.
(a) If the Regional Director has reason to believe that an archaeological resource may exist in the lease area, the Regional Director will require in writing that your EP, DOCD, or DPP be accompanied by an archaeological report. If the archaeological report suggests that an archaeological resource may be present, you must either:
(1) Locate the site of any operation so as not to adversely affect the area where the archaeological resource may be; or
(2) Establish to the satisfaction of the Regional Director that an archaeological resource does not exist or will not be adversely affected by operations. This requires further archaeological investigation, conducted by an archaeologist and a geophysicist, using survey equipment and techniques the Regional Director considers appropriate. You must submit the investigation report to the Regional Director for review.
(b) If the Regional Director determines that an archaeological resource is likely to be present in the lease area and may be adversely affected by operations, the Regional Director will notify you immediately. You must not take any action that may adversely affect the archaeological resource until the Regional Director has told you how to protect the resource.
(c) If you discover any archaeological resource while conducting operations in the lease or right-of-way area, you must immediately halt operations within the area of the discovery and report the discovery to the BOEM Regional Director. If investigations determine that the resource is significant, the Regional Director will tell you how to protect it.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface designated for Hagerstown, MD, by updating the reference to the St. Thomas Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Station and Tactical Air Navigation System (VORTAC) to show it as the St. Thomas Tactical Air Navigation System (TACAN). This action would support the safety and management of instrument flight rule (IFR) operations in the area.
Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2025.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-0606 and Airspace Docket No. 25-AEA-6 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11J Airspace Designations and Reporting Points and 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 would amend Class E airspace in Hagerstown, MD, to support the safety and management of instrument flight rule (IFR) operations in the area.
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 E5 airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14
The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 that would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hagerstown, MD. The VOR portion of the St. Thomas VORTAC was decommissioned on November 30, 2023, and only the TACAN remains as a functional part of the NAVAID. This rule would change the associated references in the airspace legal description from St. Thomas VORTAC to St. Thomas TACAN. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
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 Department of Transportation (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 final regulatory action by the FAA.
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), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
(Lat. 39°42′31″ N, long. 77°43′35″ W)
(Lat. 39°41′52″ N, long. 77°51′21″ W)
(Lat. 39°56′00″ N, long. 77°57′03″ W)
(Lat. 39°42′23″ N, long. 77°44′31″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field, and within 3.1 miles each side of the Hagerstown VOR 237° radial and 057° radial extending from 9.6 miles southwest of the VOR to 2.7 miles northeast of the VOR, and within 4.4 miles each side of the Hagerstown Regional Airport-Richard A. Henson Field ILS Runway 27 localizer course extending from the localizer to 12.6 miles east of the localizer, and within 4.4 miles each side of the St. Thomas TACAN 141° radial extending from the 6.6-mile radius to the St. Thomas TACAN, excluding that portion within Prohibited Area P-40.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a public meeting according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act, as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest within Shasta County, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
A virtual and in-person meeting will be held on April 30, 2025, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Pacific daylight time.
All committee meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held in-person at the Shasta-Trinity Supervisors Office, located at 3644 Avtech Parkway Redding, California 96002. The public may also join the meeting virtually via Microsoft Teams Join the meeting now. Meeting ID: 271 414 997 655, Passcode: W3v7yt6a, or Dial in by phone +1 323-886-7051 Phone conference ID: 471 427 872#. Committee information and meeting details can be found at the following website:
Sara Acridge, Designated Federal Officer, by phone at (530) 806-5520 or email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Hear from title II project proponents and discuss title II project proposals;
2. Make funding recommendations on title II projects;
3. Approve meeting minutes;
4. Schedule the next meeting.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
Equal opportunity practices, in accordance with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the Oklahoma Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meeting via ZoomGov on Wednesday, April 23, 2025, from 2 p.m.-3 p.m. CT. For the purpose of beginning their term and to discuss their first project topics.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, April 23rd, from 2 p.m.-3 p.m. CT.
•
•
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Corrine Sanders, Support Services Specialist,
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments can be sent via email to Brooke Peery (DFO) at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meetings.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the District of Columbia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a series of public meetings via Zoom. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss gathering supplemental testimony on the committee's topic of accessibility and provision of special education for students with disabilities in DC public schools.
Thursday, May 1, 2025, from 12 p.m.-1 p.m. Eastern Time.
Thursday, May 22, 2025, from 12 p.m.-1 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the registration links above. Any interested member of the public may attend meetings. Open comment periods will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of meetings will include a list of persons who are present at meetings. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following a scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Sarah Villanueva at
Records generated from meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after meetings. Records of the meetings will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Virginia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom. This is the inaugural meeting of the newly appointed Committee.
Thursday, May 8, 2025, from 3 p.m.-4 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Sarah Villanueva at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
Census Bureau published a document on February 20, 2025, which provided the Census Bureau's plans for the 2026 Government Units Survey. This notice serves as a notification of the cancellation of this collection, the 2026 Government Units Survey.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Joy Pierson, PSFCB Branch Chief, at 301-763-7196 or
On February 20, 2025,
Office of the Secretary, Department of Commerce.
Notice of a new system of records.
The Department of Commerce (Department or Commerce) is issuing this notice of its intent to establish a new system of records entitled “COMMERCE/DEPT-30, Public Affairs Records.” The purpose of soliciting this information is to enable the Department's Office of Public Affairs and the Department's operating units to establish and maintain contact with the media, members of civil society organizations, and the public, as well as circulate information to specific individuals or groups based on self-identified regional and policy interests. This system significantly expands the Department's ability to collect current data, historical data, interviews, and commentary, as well as digitize existing libraries of this data in a searchable format. The Department uses public affairs records (PA Records) for various purposes, including research, historical commentary, storm and disaster
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice will go into effect without further notice on April 14, 2025. All routine uses will go into effect on May 14, 2025, unless otherwise revised pursuant to comments received. The Department will publish any significant changes to the system of records or routine uses resulting from public comment.
You may submit comments, identified as pertaining to “COMMERCE/DEPT-30, Public Affairs Records” via the Federal Rulemaking Portal:
Dr. Brian E. Anderson, Privacy Act Officer, Office of Privacy and Open Government,
The Department is creating a new system of records for PA Records, entitled “COMMERCE/DEPT-30, Public Affairs Records,” as part of its commitment to ensuring that collection, use, retention, or dissemination of information about individuals with any technology, including digitized archival records, complies with the Constitution, Federal law, regulations, and policies. The public affairs function involves exchanging information and communications between the Federal government and the public. This function consists of two main activities: Creating or distributing of official government information such as publications, speeches, agency histories, and educational materials. The Office of Public Affairs oversees the external affairs and communications functions, comprising Congressional Relations; Banking Relations; Press Relations; Internal Communications; External Outreach and Minority Affairs. Consistent with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource, this newly established system of records will be included in Commerce's inventory of records systems. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), Commerce has provided a report of this system of records to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget.
Public Affairs Records, COMMERCE/DEPT-30.
Unclassified.
Records are maintained by Department of Commerce, Office of Public Affairs, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230. The locations at which the system is maintained by Commerce bureaus and operating units are:
1. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC.
2. Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), 14th and Constitution Avenue NW, Room 3876, Washington, DC 20230.
3. U.S. Census Bureau (CENSUS), 4600 Silver Hill Rd., Hillcrest Heights, MD 20746.
4. Economic Development Agency (EDA), 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Suite 71014, Washington, DC 20230.
5. Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs (OUS/EA), 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230.
6. International Trade Administration (ITA), 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Mail Stop 3421, Washington, DC 20230.
7. Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230.
8. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
10. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4897, Washington, DC 20230.
11. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 600 Dulany St., Alexandria, VA 22314.
12. Office of the Secretary (OS), 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Commerce, Office of Public Affairs, Meghan Burris, Director of Public Affairs,
1. BEA, Public Affairs Officer, Jeannine Aversa, 202-606-2649,
2. BIS, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs Office,
3. CENSUS, Office of Public Affairs, or Public Information Office (PIO), 301-763-3030,
4. EDA, Office of Public Affairs,
5. OUS/EA, Office of Public Affairs,
6. ITA, Office of Public Affairs, 202-482-3809,
7. MBDA, Public Affairs Officer, Antavia Grimsley, 202-482-6272,
8. NIST, Public Affairs Office, Jennifer Huergo, 301-975-6343,
9. NOAA, Public Affairs Specialist, Jasmine Blackwell, 202-482-6090,
10. NTIA, Office of Public Affairs (OPA), Stephen Yusko, Director (Acting), 202-482-7002,
11. USPTO, Office of the Chief Communications Officer. Mandy Kraft, Deputy Press Secretary, 571-272-8400,
12. OS, Office of Public Affairs, Meghan Burris, Director of Public Affairs,
5 U.S.C. 301 (Departmental Regulations); 44 U.S.C. 2912 (Preservation of Electronic Messages and Other Records).
The Department of Commerce may use Public Affairs Records for various purposes, including archival references, Central Library documentation, historical research, agency operations, storm and disaster documentation, and documentation of commentary, interviews, and references of matters of significant public interest. By nature, matters that arise to the level of public affairs documentation and essential interactions between the Federal and the public and the information that the Department presents to the public about government activities for the preservation, reference, and retrieval.
a. Current and former employees of the Department and other people whose association with the Department relates to the use of PA records. The names of
b. Agency, partners, individuals, including members of the public, who are identified while assisting the agency or commenting on matters of public interest, dignitaries, or experts in a field, those close to disaster relief efforts, storm tracking, and law enforcement activities. Members of the public could also include fishing vessel owners and occupants (made a comment or had a picture etc.);
c. Media representatives who request interviews with the Office of the Secretary and/or Department principals;
d. individuals who request information from a press officer concerning an issue(s) or information about the Department and its policies;
e. individuals who are on the mailing list for the Secretary's speeches;
f. individuals who invite the Secretary or Department principals to accept a speaking engagement or attend a function;
g. representatives of nongovernmental organizations throughout the United States;
h. state and local government officials; and
i. Department employees who have asked the Office of Public Affairs or the public affairs team within their respective operating unit to place articles about their achievements in their hometown newspapers.
This system is a comprehensive repository, contains contact information for individuals who are involved in the operations of the Office Public Affairs and the offices of public affairs operating within the Department's operating units; travel records, assignments, biographies, speaking engagements, interviews and communications of the Secretary and Department principals and members of the media; records relating to requests for access to Department facilities by members of the press; press releases; names of local media organizations; information on Department employees who asked the Department to publish information/articles about them; and invitations sent to the Secretary and Department principals to include the name/organization of the requester, internal control number, assigned action office and status. On-camera video and audio interviews and commentary, with names of participants, audio recordings from news conferences, image, audio and video legal releases, public affairs photography with caption information, historical journals, capstone emails, notes, transcripts, audio and video logs, graphic images, documentaries, podcasts, and dialogue regarding matters of public interest or scientific significance, textual-based materials (articles, newspaper files, letters, tweets, posts, etc.), and existing records not currently searchable that are to be digitized.
Submissions of images or media from the public and employee documentation of a public interest event obtained during of their official work, capstone email records that include final determinations, policies, and guidance pertaining to agency operations and other news-worthy documentation created or submitted to the agency. Also, these records contain information obtained directly from the individual who is the subject of these records, the agency or organization that the individual represents, published directories, and/or other operating units in the Department.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the Department as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
(1) The Department;
(2) Any employee of the Department in their official capacity; or
(3) Any employee of the Department in their individual capacity where the DOJ or the Department has agreed to represent the employee; or
(4) The United States, when the Department determines that litigation is likely to affect the Department;
is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the DOJ or the Department is deemed by the Department to be relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, the Department determines that disclosure of the records to DOJ is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
11.
12.
13.
Automated storage includes but is not limited to digital audio and video media captured via webinar software, flatbed scanners, and digitization of older film or audio recordings stored on departmental computers and servers. Non-digitized images such as films, audio tapes, and other hardcopy images are maintained in file cabinets or locked storage rooms.
Records may be retrieved alphabetically by last name and/or first name, cross referenced to file number, and by event or topic of newsworthiness.
Records in the system are maintained in accordance with the NARA approved Records Controls Schedules 6.4 Item 010, Temporary. Destroy when 3 years old, or no longer needed, whichever is later; IN1-241-05-001:5; N1-241-06-002:4; N1-241-06-002:6; N1-241-10-001:10.3; and General Records Schedules 1.1 3.2 and 6.1.
Records are protected from unauthorized access and improper use through administrative, technical, and physical security measures.
Individuals seeking to access records maintained in this system of records must submit an access request in accordance with the Department's Privacy Act implementing regulations in 15 CFR part 4, subpart B. The regulations define the procedures for making requests for records in person, not in person, and on behalf of a minor or by a legal guardian.
Individuals contesting the content of records about themselves contained in this system of records must submit a request for correction or amendment in accordance with the Department's Privacy Act implementing regulations in 15 CFR part 4, subpart B. The regulations define the procedures for making requests for correction or amendment and include what should be submitted with the request.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves must submit a request in accordance with the Department's Privacy Act implementation regulations in 15 CFR part 4, subpart B. The regulations define the procedures for making inquiries and what information should be submitted with the request.
None.
None.
Merck, Sharp & Dohme LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Rahway, New Jersey, within Subzone 49Y. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on April 2, 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: drug products for infectious disease; neurologic disease; oncology; immunotherapy; cardiovascular disease; and, monoclonal antibody drug products for neurologic disease and oncology (duty free).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include the following active pharmaceutical ingredients: pyridine infectious disease; lactam cardiovascular disease, pyranol immunotherapy; nucleoside infectious disease; furan infectious disease; pyrimidine infectious disease; monoclonal antibody neurologic disease; pyrimidine neurologic disease; pyridazine oncology; macrocycle infectious disease; monoclonal antibody oncology; alkaloid oncology; macrocycle cardiovascular disease; sulfonamide cardiovascular disease; and, pyran neurologic disease (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.5%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 1702(a)(1)(B) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (section 1702) and section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 1702 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Diane Finver at
Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC) advises and assists the Secretary of Commerce and other Federal officials on matters related to export control policies; the SITAC will meet to review and discuss these matters. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on April 29, 2025, from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. eastern time (all times are eastern time). Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the session virtually should contact
The meeting will only be accessible via teleconference.
Kevin Coyne, Committee Liaison Officer, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce,
The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee (SITAC)
The meeting will include working group reports, open business discussions, and industry presentations.
The meeting will only be accessible via teleconference. Registration in advance is required to receive the meeting invite for virtual attendance. Individuals interested in participating virtually should contact
Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the meeting virtually should contact
To the extent that time permits during the meeting, members of the public may present oral statements to the SITAC. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of materials to the SITAC members, the SITAC suggests that members of the public forward their materials prior to the meeting via email to
If the meeting is cancelled, a cancellation notice will be posted on the TAC website at:
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that the producer/exporter subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) June 1, 2022, through May 31, 2023.
Applicable April 14, 2025.
Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412.
On July 5, 2024, Commerce published the
The products subject to the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on comments received from interested parties regarding our
For these final results, we determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2022, through May 30, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for TYCSA in connection with these final results to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review.
We calculated importer-specific
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by TYCSA for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to an intermediary (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the company listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin that is established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
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), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(3), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable April 7, 2025.
Brian Warnes (the People's Republic of China (China)) and Alexander Cipolla (the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0028 and (202) 482-4956, respectively.
On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China and Vietnam filed in proper form on behalf of CoolSeal USA Inc., Inteplast Group Corporation, SeaCa Plastic Packaging, and Technology Container Corp. (the petitioners), domestic producers of polypropylene corrugated boxes.
On March 20 and 28, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petitions in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV) within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of such products are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the polypropylene corrugated boxes industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions were accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigations.
Because the Petitions were filed on March 18, 2025, and because China and Vietnam are non-market economy (NME) countries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the POI for the China and Vietnam LTFV investigations is July 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
The products covered by these investigations are polypropylene corrugated boxes from China and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these investigations,
On March 20 and 28, 2025, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioners regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of these investigations be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent LTFV and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of polypropylene corrugated boxes to be reported in response to Commerce's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors of production (FOPs) accurately, as well as to develop appropriate product comparison criteria.
Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on April 28, 2025, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice.
Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own 2024 production and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product for the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, the First General Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petitions.
The petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at LTFV. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; low capacity utilization rates; declines in profitability and operating income; and lost sales and revenues.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate LTFV investigations of imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and normal value (NV) are discussed in greater detail in the Country-Specific AD Initiation Checklists.
For China and Vietnam, the petitioners based export price (EP) on pricing information for polypropylene corrugated boxes produced in each country and sold or offered for sale in the U.S. market during the POI.
Commerce considers China and Vietnam to be NME countries.
The petitioners claim that Malaysia is an appropriate surrogate country for China because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of China and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
The petitioners claim that Indonesia is an appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam and is a significant producer of comparable merchandise.
Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations.
Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Chinese and Vietnamese producers/exporters was not reasonably available, the petitioners used the production experience and product-specific consumption rates of a U.S. producer of polypropylene corrugated boxes as a surrogate to value Chinese and Vietnamese manufacturers' FOPs.
Based on the data provided by the petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in
Based upon the examination of the Petitions and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating LTFV investigations to determine whether imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of these initiations.
In the Petitions, the petitioner identified 26 companies in China and seven companies in Vietnam as producers and/or exporters of polypropylene corrugated boxes.
Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Commerce's website at
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). As stated above, instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In order to obtain separate rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate rate application. The specific requirements for submitting a separate rate application in an NME investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on Commerce's website at
Commerce will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:
In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petitions has been provided to the governments of China and Vietnam via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China and/or Vietnam are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by these investigations is polypropylene corrugated boxes. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are boxes, bins, totes, or other load-bearing containers made for holding goods, that are made of corrugated polypropylene sheets, also known as polypropylene hollow core sheets, polypropylene fluted sheets, polypropylene twin wall sheets, or multi wall sheets. Such polypropylene sheets are “corrugated,” “fluted,” or “hollow core,” meaning the inside of the sheet contains channels or pockets of air which make the sheets lightweight, while retaining strength and durability. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are typically produced from a plastic resin consisting of 50 percent or more polypropylene. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are covered by the scope irrespective of the particular mix of polypropylene homo-polymer, polypropylene co-polymer, recycled or virgin polypropylene, or ancillary chemicals such as electrostatic agents or flame retardants. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are formed by corrugated polypropylene sheets cut to length, die-cut into specific box shapes, and may be cut or scored to allow each side of the box to be folded into shape. Polypropylene corrugated boxes may include a tab or attached portion of polypropylene corrugated sheet (commonly referred to as a “manufacturer's joint”) that has been cut, slotted, or scored to facilitate the formation of the box by stapling, gluing, welding, or taping the sides together to form a tight seal. One-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are die-cut or otherwise formed so that the top, bottom, and sides form a single, contiguous unit. Two-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are those with a folded bottom and a folded top as separate pieces. Multi-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are those with separate bottoms and tops that are fitted to a single folded piece comprising the sides of the box. Polypropylene corrugated boxes may be printed with ink or digital designs.
The subject merchandise includes polypropylene corrugated boxes with or without handles, with or without lids or tops, with or without reinforcing wire, whether in a one-piece, two-piece, or multi-piece configuration, and whether folded into shape or in an unfolded form. The subject merchandise includes all polypropylene corrugated boxes regardless of size, shape, or dimension. The subject merchandise also includes polypropylene corrugated box lids or tops when imported separately from polypropylene corrugated boxes.
The products subject to these investigations are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 3923.10.9000. Although the HTSUS statistical reporting number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that producers and exporters subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), November 23, 2021, through May 31, 2023.
Applicable April 14, 2025.
Thomas Martin or Zachary Shaykin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3936 or (202) 482-2638, respectively.
On July 8, 2024, Commerce published the preliminary results of the 2022-2023 administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on raw honey from Argentina
On July 22, 2024, Commerce tolled certain deadlines in this administrative review by seven days.
The merchandise covered by the
All issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed in Appendix I to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically
We made certain changes to the calculation of constructed value and inventory carrying costs from the
For the weighted-average dumping margin assigned to companies not selected for individual examination in an administrative review, Commerce, generally, looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act which provides instructions for calculating the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters,
In this administrative review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for ACA and NEXCO that are not zero,
We have determined that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins for the firms listed below for the period November 23, 2021, through May 31, 2023.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed for these final results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
For an individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by an individually examined respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate (
For the companies that were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the assessment rate equal to the weighted-average of the dumping margins for each individually examined exporter in the final results of review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Upon publication of this notice in the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Goodluck India Limited (Goodluck) and Tube Products of India, Ltd., a unit of Tube Investments of India Limited (collectively, TII), made sales of subject merchandise in the United States at prices below normal value during the period of review (POR) June 1, 2022, through May 31, 2023.
Applicable April 14, 2025.
Colin Thrasher, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3004.
On July 5, 2024, Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised by interested parties in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is included in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our review of the record, Commerce made certain revisions to the margin calculations for Goodluck and made no changes to the margin
We determine that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists for the period June 1, 2022, through May 31, 2023:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. Because Goodluck and TII's weighted-average dumping margins are not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by either of the individually examined respondents for which it did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of CDMT from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Goodluck and TII will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in these final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the completed segment for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the most recently completed segment for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will continue to be the all-others rate (
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 9 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return, or destruction, of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Ban Me Thout Honeybee Joint Stock Company (BMT) and DakLak Honeybee Joint Stock Company (DakHoney), sold raw honey from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) August 25, 2021, through May 31, 2023.
Applicable April 14, 2025.
Krisha Hill or Stephanie Trejo, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-4390, respectively.
On July 5, 2024, Commerce published the
The product covered by this order is raw honey from Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
Based on a review of the record and the comments received from interested parties, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes to the preliminary weighted-average dumping margin calculations for BMT and DakHoney. For further discussion of these changes,
No parties commented on our preliminary separate rate determination. Therefore, we have continued to grant separate rate status to 15 companies/company groups listed in the “Final Results of Review” section, below. Additionally, consistent with the
The statue and Commerce's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually-examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
We calculated a 100.72 percent dumping margin for one of the mandatory respondents in this review, BMT, and a 156.96 percent dumping margin for the other mandatory respondent, DakHoney. Therefore, we assigned the separate rate respondents identified in the rate chart below, a dumping margin equal to the weighted average of the dumping margins for BMT and DakHoney,
We determine that the following dumping margins exist for the period August 25, 2021, through May 31, 2023:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), we will disclose the calculations we performed for these final results to the parties to this proceeding within five days of the publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the publication date of these final results in the
For each individually examined respondent in this review whose weighted-average dumping margin in the final results of review is not zero or
Pursuant to Commerce's refinement to its practice, for sales that were not reported in the U.S. sales database submitted by a respondent individually examined during this review, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate the entry of such merchandise at the dumping margin assigned to the Vietnam-wide entity (
Additionally, where Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, any suspended entries of subject merchandise that entered under that exporter's CBP case number during
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated antidumping duties, where applicable.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility to return or destroy proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
Commerce is issuing and publishing the final results of this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable April 7, 2025.
Shane Subler or Rachel Accorsi, Office VIII, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6241 or (202) 482-3149, respectively.
On March 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from the People's Republic of China (China), filed in proper form on behalf of CoolSeal USA Inc., Inteplast Group Corporation, SeaCa Plastic Packaging, and Technology Container Corp. (the petitioners), domestic producers of polypropylene corrugated boxes.
Between March 20 and April 1, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioners allege that the Government of China (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act, to producers of polypropylene corrugated boxes in China, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, the domestic industry producing polypropylene corrugated boxes in the United States. Consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition was accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioners supporting their allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioners filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioners are interested parties, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the requested CVD investigation.
Because the Petition was filed on March 18, 2025, the POI is January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024.
The product covered by this investigation is polypropylene corrugated boxes from China. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
On March 20 and 28, 2025, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioners regarding the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition is an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.
As discussed in the
Commerce requests that any factual information that parties consider relevant to the scope of this investigation be submitted during that period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party must contact Commerce and request permission to submit the additional information. All scope comments must be filed simultaneously on the records of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.
All submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS), unless an exception applies.
Pursuant to sections 702(b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Act, Commerce notified the GOC of the receipt of the Petition and provided an opportunity for consultations with respect to the Petition.
Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, Commerce shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”
Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs Commerce to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both Commerce and the ITC apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,
Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (
With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
In determining whether the petitioners have standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in the appendix to this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioners provided their own 2024 production of the domestic like product and compared this to the estimated total production of the domestic like product in 2024 by the entire domestic industry.
Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the First General Issues Supplement, Second General Issues Supplement, and other information readily available to Commerce indicates that the petitioners have established industry support for the Petition.
Because China is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from China materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.
The petitioners allege that imports of the subject merchandise are benefiting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioners allege that subject imports from China exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; reduced market share; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; low capacity utilization rates; declines in profitability and operating income; and lost sales and revenues.
Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 702 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China benefit from countervailable subsidies conferred by the GOC. In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination no later than 65 days after the date of this initiation.
Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 18 of the 18 programs alleged by the petitioners. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate on each program,
In the Petition, the petitioners identified 26 Companies in China as producers/exporters of polypropylene corrugated boxes.
Commerce will post the Q&V questionnaires along with filing instructions on Commerce's website at
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b). Instructions for filing such applications may be found on Commerce's website at
In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petition to each exporter named in the Petition, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).
Commerce will notify the ITC of its initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.
The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of polypropylene corrugated boxes from China are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.
Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors of production under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Section 351.301(b) of Commerce's regulations requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted
Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of 19 CFR 351.103(d) (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is polypropylene corrugated boxes. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are boxes, bins, totes, or other load-bearing containers made for holding goods, that are made of corrugated polypropylene sheets, also known as polypropylene hollow core sheets, polypropylene fluted sheets, polypropylene twin wall sheets, or multi wall sheets. Such polypropylene sheets are “corrugated,” “fluted,” or “hollow core,” meaning the inside of the sheet contains channels or pockets of air which make the sheets lightweight, while retaining strength and durability. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are typically produced from a plastic resin consisting of 50 percent or more polypropylene. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are covered by the scope irrespective of the particular mix of polypropylene homo-polymer, polypropylene co-polymer, recycled or virgin polypropylene, or ancillary chemicals such as electrostatic agents or flame retardants. Polypropylene corrugated boxes are formed by corrugated polypropylene sheets cut to length, die-cut into specific box shapes, and may be cut or scored to allow each side of the box to be folded into shape. Polypropylene corrugated boxes may include a tab or attached portion of polypropylene corrugated sheet (commonly referred to as a “manufacturer's joint”) that has been cut, slotted, or scored to facilitate the formation of the box by stapling, gluing, welding, or taping the sides together to form a tight seal. One-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are die-cut or otherwise formed so that the top, bottom, and sides form a single, contiguous unit. Two-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are those with a folded bottom and a folded top as separate pieces. Multi-piece polypropylene corrugated boxes are those with separate bottoms and tops that are fitted to a single folded piece comprising the sides of the box. Polypropylene corrugated boxes may be printed with ink or digital designs.
The subject merchandise includes polypropylene corrugated boxes with or without handles, with or without lids or tops, with or without reinforcing wire, whether in a one-piece, two-piece, or multi-piece configuration, and whether folded into shape or in an unfolded form. The subject merchandise includes all polypropylene corrugated boxes regardless of size, shape, or dimension. The subject merchandise also includes polypropylene corrugated box lids or tops when imported separately from polypropylene corrugated boxes.
The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting number 3923.10.9000. Although the HTSUS statistical reporting number is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that raw honey from Brazil was sold in the United States at prices below normal value. The period of review (POR) is November 23, 2021, through May 31, 2023.
Applicable April 14, 2025.
Rachel Jennings or John Frye, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1110 or (202) 482-3035, respectively.
On July 5, 2024, Commerce published the preliminary results of this review and invited parties to comment.
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The merchandise covered this
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is provided in Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and
Based on a review of the record and comments received from parties, we made no changes to the margin calculations from the
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and
In this review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins of zero percent for Apis Nativa and 2.31 percent for Melbras. Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are applying Melbras' weighted average dumping margin of 2.31 percent to the non-examined companies (
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist during the period November 23, 2021, through May 31, 2023:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations of the final results of an administrative review within five days of a public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Where an importer-specific assessment rate is either zero or
Consistent with Commerce's assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Apis Nativa or Melbras for which these companies did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate those entries at the all-others rate established in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of 9.38 percent,
For the companies that were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific average rates, calculated as noted in the “Rates for Non-Examined Companies” section above. We intend to instruct CBP to take into account the “provisional measures deposit cap,” in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(d). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed in these final results will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently-completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP-23) from India. The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable April 14, 2025.
Brian Warnes, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0028.
On November 17, 2004, Commerce published the countervailing duty (CVD) order on CVP-23 from India.
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review,
The merchandise covered by this
Commerce is conducting this CVD administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to apply companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.” Section 705(c)(5)(A) states that for companies not investigated, in general, we will determine an all-others rate by weight averaging the countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding zero and
Accordingly, to determine the rate for companies not selected for individual examination, Commerce's practice is to weight average the net subsidy rates for the selected mandatory respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rate for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed in connection with these preliminary results to interested parties within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii),), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of the publication of this notice.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this review, we instead request that parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce
Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised by parties in their comments, within 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends, upon publication of the final results, to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown for the company listed above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Frederick Scharf, Ph.D., University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403, has applied in due form for a permit to take Atlantic sturgeon (
Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2025.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Erin Markin, Ph.D., or Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant proposes to continue research on adult, sub-adult, and juvenile Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon to determine their abundance, distribution, habitat use, and migration dynamics in the coastal rivers and estuaries of North Carolina basins (Cape Fear, Neuse, Tar/Pamlico, Roanoke/Chowan). Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon would be captured using gill nets, trammel nets, or trawls, measured, weighed, tagged (PIT, Floy, T-bar), biologically sampled (tissue), and photographed/videoed. A subset of Atlantic sturgeon would be anesthetized and receive an internal acoustic tag. In addition, these same research procedures may be conducted on Atlantic sturgeon captured under other authority in the Frying Pan Shoals area of North Carolina to determine habitat use. The permit would be valid for up to 10 years from the date of issuance.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that Matthew Balazik, Ph.D., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 251 John Tyler Memorial Highway, Henrico, VA 23231, has applied in due form for a permit to take green (
Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2025.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Erin Markin, Ph.D., or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant proposes to test the efficacy of tickler chains as a deterrent for sea turtle interactions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging activities. Green and loggerhead sea turtles captured under other authority at the St. Lucie Power Plant would be used for the research. The applicant would drag a tickler chain array from a boat in the vicinity of up to 50 turtles of each species, annually, and photograph and record their reactions using divers and mounted cameras. The permit would be valid for up to 5 years from the date of issuance.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of public hearing.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) will conduct a public hearing to receive views from interested parties about the Commission's agenda and priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2026, which begins on October 1, 2025, and for FY 2027, which begins on October 1, 2026. We invite members of the public to participate.
The hybrid hearing will be held in person at CPSC's headquarters and remotely via webinar on May 14, 2025, beginning at 12 p.m. eastern daylight time (EDT).
This year's hearing will be held as a hybrid meeting—in person at CPSC's headquarters and remotely via webinar. For individuals attending in person, the meeting will be held at CPSC's headquarters, located at 4330 East-West Highway, 4th Floor—Hearing Room, Bethesda, MD 20814. Individuals who plan to attend the meeting remotely should use the following link to access the meeting:
For information about the hearing, or to request an opportunity to make an oral presentation, whether in person or remotely, please send an email to CPSC's Office of the Secretary at
Section 4(j) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2053(j), requires the Commission to establish an agenda for action under the laws the Commission administers and, to the extent feasible, select priorities for action at least 30 days before the beginning of each fiscal year. Section 4(j) of the CPSA provides further that when establishing its agenda and priorities, the Commission
The hybrid public hearing will be held on May 14, 2025, at 12 p.m. EDT in person at CPSC's headquarters and remotely via webinar. The notice for the hearing will also be made available on the CPSC website on the public calendar:
The Commission is preparing the agency's fiscal year 2026 Operating Plan and fiscal year 2027 Congressional Budget Request. Fiscal year 2026 begins on October 1, 2025, and fiscal year 2027 begins on October 1, 2026. Through this notice, the Commission invites the public to comment on the Commission's agenda and priorities that will be established in the fiscal year 2026 Operating Plan and the fiscal year 2027 Congressional Budget Request.
Proposed priorities should be aligned with the agency's Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2023-2026, which is available at
Persons who desire to make oral presentations at the hearing on May 14, 2025—in person or remotely—should send an email to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission at
If you do not want to make an oral presentation but would like to provide written comments, you may do so. Written comments should be captioned, “Agenda and Priorities FY 2026 and/or 2027,” and sent to Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission at
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice of intent.
Pursuant to the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations, the Department of the Air Force hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive patent license to Kennon Products, Inc., a corporation of the state of Wyoming having a place of business at 1100 Hi Tech Dr., Sheridan, WY 82801.
Written objections must be filed no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Submit written objections to Rachel Bankowitz, DAF Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), 1864 4th Street, Bldg. 15, Room 225, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433; Email:
Rachel Bankowitz, DAF Office of Research and Technology Applications (ORTA), 1864 4th Street, Bldg. 15, Room 225, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433; Phone: (937) 572-6750; or Email:
A cover for an aircraft opening or equipment formed from a collapsible material having programmable magnets encapsulated on at least one edge portion to adhere the cover to an aircraft surface is provided. The programmable magnets have a close field strength sufficient to maintain the cover in place during high winds while not damaging the aircraft surface coatings during installation and removal while not interfering with electric signals or nearby electrical equipment.
U.S. Patent No. 11,772,812 B1, issued on October 3, 2023, and entitled Magnetic Mobile Aircraft Cover.
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/235,988, filed on August 21, 2023, and entitled Magnetic Mobile Aircraft Cover.
The Department of the Air Force may grant the prospective license unless a timely objection is received that sufficiently shows the grant of the license would be inconsistent with the Bayh-Dole Act or implementing regulations. A competing application for a patent license agreement, completed in compliance with 37 CFR 404.8 and received by the Air Force within the period for timely objections, will be treated as an objection and may be considered as an alternative to the proposed license.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a reinstatement without change of a previously approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 14, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Ben Witthoefft, (202) 453-7576.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a virtual meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, May 14, 2025, 1 to 4 p.m. MDT.
This meeting will be held virtually. To receive the virtual access information, please contact Bridget Maestas, Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board (NNMCAB) Executive Director, at the telephone number or email listed below at least two days prior to the meeting.
Bridget Maestas, NNMCAB Executive Director, by Phone: 505-709-7466 or Email:
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. Each filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
On August 16, 2024, BOST4 Hydroelectric LLC (BOST4 or licensee) filed an application for a non-capacity amendment for the Red River Lock & Dam #4 Project No. 12757 and on May 17, 2024, BOST5 Hydroelectric LLC (BOST5 or licensee) filed a similar amendment for the Red River Lock & Dam #5 Project No. 12758. The projects are located on the Red River in Red River and Bossier parishes, Louisiana. The projects occupy Federal lands administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
At Lock & Dam #4, the unconstructed projects would be redesigned from one turbine that would produce 28.1 megawatts (MW) generating capacity to five smaller turbine units that would still have the same generating capacity of 28.1 MW. The powerhouse would be redesigned to hold the five Kaplan bulb turbine-generator units, and would be approximately 170-feet-wide, 135-feet-high, and 180-feet-long. The headrace channel and tailrace channels would also be redesigned from what was originally licensed. A Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protest was issued on September 12, 2024.
At Lock & Dam #5, the unconstructed project would be similarly redesigned with five Kaplan bulb turbine-generator units, instead of one 28.1-MW unit. The powerhouse footprint would be approximately 204-feet-long by 153-feet-wide. The location of the recreation facilities, that the licensee is required to reconstruct, would be relocated from downstream to upstream of the dam. A Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protest was issued on September 30, 2024.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) analyzing the proposed action. The planned schedule for the completion of the EA is July 8, 2025.
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 to 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
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Rebecca Martin at 202-502-6012 or
The license for the Aziscohos Hydroelectric Project No. 4026 was issued for a period ending March 31, 2025.
Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1), requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 4026 is issued to Androscoggin Reservoir Company for a period effective April 1, 2025, through March 31, 2026, or until the issuance of a new license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place on or before March 31, 2026, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that Androscoggin Reservoir Company is authorized to continue operation of the Aziscohos Hydroelectric Project under the terms and conditions of the prior license until the issuance of a subsequent license for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 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 proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 13, 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 to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than May 14, 2025.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW,
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel, April 21, 2025, 8 a.m. to April 23, 2025, 5 p.m., NINR, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the
This meeting is being amended due to a change in the meeting dates. The new meeting dates are April 22-23, 2025. The time of the meeting will remain the same. This meeting will be virtual and closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Regents of the National Library of Medicine.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast website at the following link:
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Any member of the public may submit written comments no later than 15 days in advance of the meeting. Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is proposing a new information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments. To be considered, your comments must be received on or before May 14, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection request (ICR) should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
JoAnn Holloway by email at
In accordance with the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Natural Resources Revenue (“ONRR”), Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), ONRR is proposing to renew an information collection. Through this information collection request (“ICR”), ONRR seeks renewed authority to collect information necessary to report the production and royalties on solid minerals and geothermal resources from Federal and Indian lands. ONRR uses forms ONRR-4292 (Coal Washing Allowance Report); ONRR-4293 (Coal Transportation Allowance Report); ONRR-4430 (Solid Minerals Production and Royalty Report); and ONRR-4440 (Solid Minerals Sales Summary) as part of these information collection requirements.
Your written comments must be received on or before June 13, 2025.
All comment submissions must (1) reference the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) Control Number 1012-0010 in the subject line; (2) be sent to ONRR before the close of the comment period listed under
•
•
Nicole Sweeney, Data Intake, Solutioning and Coordination, ONRR, by email at
Pursuant to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of ONRR's continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, ONRR is inviting the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information in accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1). This helps ONRR to assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand ONRR's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
ONRR is especially interested in public comments addressing the following:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of ONRR's estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. ONRR will include or summarize each comment in its request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask ONRR in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, ONRR cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
ONRR uses the information collected in this ICR to ensure that a lessee properly pays royalty and other mineral revenues due on solid and geothermal resources produced from Federal and Indian lands. ONRR also uses these forms for lessees to claim a coal washing and/or transportation allowance. ONRR shares the data with the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Tribal and State governments for their land and lease management responsibilities. The requirement to report accurately and timely is mandatory.
• 1202, subpart H, which pertains to geothermal resources royalties.
• 1206, subparts F, H, and J, which pertain to product valuation of Federal coal, geothermal resources, and Indian coal.
• 1210, subparts E and H, which pertain to production and royalty reports on solid minerals and geothermal resources leases.
• 1212, subparts E and H, which pertain to recordkeeping of reports and files for solid minerals and geothermal resources leases.
• 1217, subparts E, F, and G, which pertain to audits and inspections of coal, other solid minerals, and geothermal resources leases.
• 1218, subparts E and F, which govern the payment of royalties, rentals, bonuses and other monies due for solid minerals and geothermal resource production.
A lessee uses the following forms for solid minerals production, sales, royalty reporting, and allowances:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
April 8, 2025.
Celia Feldpausch (202) 205-2387 and Laurel Schwartz (202) 205-2398, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
On December 4, 2024, the Commission established a schedule for the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigations (89 FR 103877, December 19, 2024). On April 4, 2025, counsel for ICL-IP America, Inc. (“ICL”) filed a request to appear at the hearing. No other parties submitted a request to appear at the hearing. On April 7, 2025, counsel for ICL withdrew its request to appear at the hearing. Counsel also indicated that they would respond to any written questions from the Commission, as appropriate, in posthearing briefs. Consequently, the public hearing in connection with these investigations, scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 10, 2025, is cancelled. Parties to these investigations should respond to any written questions posed by the Commission in their posthearing briefs, which are due to be filed on April 17, 2025.
For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined to issue a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) barring entry of certain eye cosmetics and packaging therefor that are imported by or on behalf of the following respondents previously found in default: Kaibeauty of Taipei City, Taiwan; I'll Global Co., Ltd of Seoul, South Korea; Hikari Laboratories, Ltd. of Bnei Atarot, Israel; and Kelz Beauty of Budapest, Hungary (collectively, “the Defaulting Respondents”). The investigation is terminated.
B. Rashmi Borah, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2518. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with the investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On July 16, 2024, the Commission instituted the present investigation based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by Amarte USA Holdings, Inc. of Redding, California (“Complainant”), alleging violations of section 337 of the 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 eye cosmetics and packaging thereof that allegedly infringe U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,328,655 (“the Asserted Trademark”), as well as unfair competition and false advertising, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States. 89 FR 57942-43 (July 16, 2024). The complaint alleges that a domestic industry exists. The notice of investigation names, in addition to the Defaulting Respondents, the following respondents: Bourne & Morgan Ltd. of London, United Kingdom (“Bourne & Morgan”); Iman Cosmetics of London, United Kingdom (“Iman Cosmetics”); MZ Skin Ltd. of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom (“MZ Skin”); Strip Lashed of South Yorkshire, United Kingdom (“Strip Lashed”); and Unilever PLC of Merseyside, United Kingdom, Unilever United States, Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and Carver Korea Co., Ltd. of Seoul, South Korea (collectively, “Unilever”). The Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) is also named as a party to the investigation.
The Commission partially terminated the investigation as to the non-defaulting respondents based on settlement agreements, consent orders, or withdrawal of the complaint.
On January 31, 2025, the Commission found the Defaulting Respondents in default pursuant to Commission Rule 210.16. Order No. 19 (Jan. 7, 2025),
On January 26, 2025, Complainant filed a declaration under Commission Rule 210.16 (19 CFR 210.16) requesting the immediate entry of limited exclusion orders against the Defaulting Respondents. EDIS Doc. ID. 841793 (Jan. 26, 2025). Complainant indicated pursuant to 19 CFR 210.16(c)(2) that it is not seeking a general exclusion order.
On February 20, 2025, the Commission issued a notice requesting written submissions on remedy, the public interest and bonding from the parties and from any other interested third party or government agencies.
When the conditions in section 337(g)(1)(A)-(E) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E)) have been satisfied, section 337(g)(1) and Commission Rule 210.16(c) (19 CFR 210.16(c)) direct the Commission, upon request, to issue a limited exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both against a respondent found in default, based on the allegations regarding a violation of section 337 in the Complaint, which are presumed to be true, unless after consideration of the public interest factors in section 337(g)(1), it finds that such relief should not issue.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the parties' submissions in response to the Remedy Notice, the Commission has determined pursuant to section 337(g)(1) (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)) that the appropriate remedy in this investigation is an LEO prohibiting the unlicensed entry of certain eye cosmetics and packaging therefor that infringe Complainant's Asserted Trademark, or constitute unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States and that are imported by or on behalf of the Defaulting Respondents. The Commission has determined that the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(g)(1) do not preclude the issuance of the LEO. Although Complainant requested the Commission to issue cease and desist orders (“CDOs”) directed to the Defaulting Respondents, the Commission has determined not to issue CDOs because of the lack of evidence or allegations that the Defaulting Respondents maintain commercially significant inventories and/or engage in significant commercial operations in the United States.
Chair Karpel agrees that section 337(g)(1) is the appropriate authority for issuance of relief in this investigation, but disagrees with the determination not to issue the CDOs requested by Complainant. Specifically, Chair Karpel supports issuance of both the requested LEO and the requested CDOs against the Defaulting Respondents because the criteria for issuance of such relief under section 337(g)(1)(A)-(E) are met as to these respondents. (19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1)(A)-(E);
The Commission has further determined that the bond during the period of Presidential review pursuant to section 337(j) (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)) shall be in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of the imported articles that are subject to the LEO. The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on April 9, 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 not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 58) issued by the chief administrative law judge (“CALJ”) granting a motion filed by complainants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company (“RJR”) to terminate the investigation in its entirety based on withdrawal of the complaint. The investigation is terminated.
Paul Lall, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2043. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On December 15, 2023, the Commission
On May 13, 2024, the Commission granted RJR's motion to amend the complaint and NOI to correct the mailing address associated with the Flawless Vape respondents.
On June 13, 2024, the Commission granted RJR's motion to amend the complaint and NOI to add the following four entities as respondents in the investigation: (1) Capital Sales Company of Hazel Park, MI; (2) Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape of Buffalo, NY; (3) Hong Kong IVPS International Ltd. of Wanchai, Hong Kong; and (4) KMT Services LLC d/b/a KMT Distribution of Hazel Park, MI.
On November 5, 2024, the Commission found the Flawless Vape respondents to be in default.
On January 10, 2025, RJR filed a motion to terminate this investigation based on a withdrawal of the complaint. ID at 1. On January 15, 2025, the respondents remaining in the investigation filed a response stating they do not oppose the motion to terminate but requested that the CALJ “reconsider the ITC's law concerning terminations with prejudice or recommend that the Commission do so.”
On January 17, 2025, the CALJ requested additional briefing to provide a more detailed explanation of the relevant authority governing respondents' request for termination with conditions.
On March 7, 2025, the CALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 58) terminating the investigation without prejudice. The ID first finds that termination with prejudice is not permitted under Section 337(b)(1).
On March 14, 2025, Respondents filed a petition for review, requesting the same conditions for termination presented to the CALJ. On March 21, 2025, RJR and OUII each filed a response.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID (Order No. 58). In light of respondents' arguments before the CALJ, we note that it would be premature at this time for the Commission to decide the effect, if any, of this termination on a future complaint that might be filed. Accordingly, the Commission need not and does not now decide what action it may take, or what conditions may apply, should RJR file a complaint based on the same or similar alleged violations of section 337 by these respondents in the future. Nor does the Commission now decide whether and how, if a new investigation were instituted based on the same or similar allegations, the record from the instant investigation may be used in such future investigation. However, we note that “during the investigation of any refiled complaint, the facts and circumstances may make it appropriate for the presiding ALJ or the Commission to adopt some or all of the record of the original investigation” and “the parties may not necessarily be forced to duplicate procedures and filings that occurred in the original investigation.”
The investigation is terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on April 8, 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 (“Commission”) has determined to review in part an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 39) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting respondent's motion for summary determination of invalidity of the asserted patent claims due to indefiniteness and also terminating the investigation for good cause. On review, the Commission vacates the ID's termination for good cause. The investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation of section 337 based on invalidity of the asserted patent claims.
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
The Commission instituted this investigation on September 15, 2022, based on a complaint filed by Google LLC of Mountain View, California (“Google”). 87 FR 56702-703 (Sept. 15, 2022). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale in the United States after importation of certain audio players and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,705,565 (“the '565 patent”); 10,593,330 (“the '330 patent”); and 10,134,398 (“the '398 patent”).
On November 2, 2022, the Commission terminated the investigation with respect to the '565 patent. Order No. 7 (Oct. 18, 2022),
On November 30, 2022, the parties filed a joint claim construction chart, identifying the term “low power mode” among the terms in dispute. The parties filed their initial claim construction briefs on December 23, 2022, and their reply briefs on February 10, 2023. The ALJ held a
On May 17, 2023, Sonos filed a motion for summary determination that the asserted claims of the '330 patent and the '398 patent are,
After the
On July 31, 2024, Sonos filed its second motion for summary determination of invalidity (“Second MSD”) that the asserted patent claims are invalid as anticipated or obvious. Google filed its opposition to Sonos's Second MSD on August 20, 2024.
On February 4, 2025, the presiding ALJ issued an order (Order No. 35) inviting the parties to file a motion to terminate the investigation in view of the PTAB's two FWDs of invalidity. Order No. 35 (Feb. 4, 2025),
On February 14, 2025, Sonos also moved to terminate the investigation in view of the PTAB's FWDs of invalidity. Google filed its opposition to Sonos's termination motion on February 28, 2025.
On March 7, 2025, the presiding ALJ issued a claim construction order (Order No. 37) finding that the claim term “low power mode,” which is used in both of the remaining patents, is indefinite, and the asserted patent claims are thus invalid. Order No. 37 (March 7, 2025).
On March 7, 2025, the ALJ issued an order (Order No. 38) denying Sonos' Second MSD because Sonos is estopped from asserting the same prior art in the present investigation that it asserted in the PTAB proceedings. Order No. 38 (March 7, 2025) (citing 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(2)).
On March 7, 2025, the ALJ also issued the subject ID (Order No. 39) granting Sonos's First MSD of invalidity because the claim term “low power mode” is indefinite. Order No. 39 (March 7, 2025) (citing Order No. 37,
No party filed a petition for review of the subject ID.
The Commission has determined to review Order No. 39 in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined not to review, and thus adopts, the ALJ's finding that the asserted claims of the '330 patent and '398 patent are invalid because the term “low power mode” is indefinite. Accordingly, the Commission finds there is no violation of section 337, per 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)(1) (requiring infringement of a valid claim for a finding of violation). The Commission, however, has determined
The investigation is terminated based on the finding of no violation.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on April 8, 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.
In Notice document 2025-05526 beginning on page 14385 in the issue of Tuesday, April 1, 2025, make the following correction:
On page 14385, in the third column, on the 30th line from the top, replace “[insert date thirty days from the date of publication in the
On June 2, 2023, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Eagle Pharmacy of Houston, Texas (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 2, at 1, 9. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA registration, No. FE4992257, alleging that Registrant's continued registration is inconsistent with the public interest.
Specifically, the OSC alleges that “[Registrant] repeatedly filled prescriptions for Schedule II through V controlled substances that contained multiple red flags indicative of diversion and/or abuse without addressing or resolving those red flags, and [that Registrant's decision] to fill those prescriptions despite unresolved red flags, . . . [violated] federal and Texas law, including 21 CFR 1306.04(a) [and] 1306.06; and Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.074(a).” RFAAX 2, at 4.
The OSC notified Registrant of its right to file with DEA a written request for hearing within 30 days after the date of receipt of the OSC. RFAAX 2, at 8 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43(a)). The OSC also notified Registrant 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.
Here, the OSC was served on Registrant and its counsel on June 5, 2023. RFAAX 7. On August 2, 2023, 58 days after service of the OSC, Registrant submitted to the DEA Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) a Request for Hearing, a Motion of Leave to File Late Answer, and an Answer to Show Cause Order (Answer). RFAAX 3-5. On August 3, 2023, a DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order Terminating Proceedings (Order), finding that Registrant was in default because Registrant had failed to timely request a hearing and had failed to timely show good cause to excuse the default. RFAAX 6. The ALJ's Order explained that “because [Registrant] filed its [hearing request] more than 45 days after receiving the OSC, . . . [Registrant] can only be excused from the default by the Office of the Administrator.”
“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 Registrant's default pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43(c), (f), because Registrant has not timely requested a hearing, nor filed a motion with the Administrator seeking to excuse the default.
As already discussed, the OSC alleges that Registrant violated multiple provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in
The OSC's allegations concern the CSA's “statutory and regulatory provisions . . . mandating . . . compliance with . . . prescription requirements” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances,” and “to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels.”
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, a lawful prescription for controlled substances is one that is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional
Texas regulations have a similar requirement that pharmacists ensure that controlled substance prescriptions are “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner in the course of medical practice.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(b); RFAAX 2, at 2;
Texas regulations set forth various “red flag factors” that a pharmacist must consider in preventing the non-therapeutic dispensing of controlled substances. 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(f); RFAAX 2, at 3-4. Pharmacists should consider these red flags “by evaluating the totality of the circumstances rather than any single factor.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(f). These red flags include instances where:
(f)(1) “the pharmacy dispenses a reasonably discernible pattern of substantially identical prescriptions for the same controlled substances . . . , ”
(f)(3) “prescriptions by a prescriber presented to the pharmacy are routinely for controlled substances commonly known to be abused drugs, including opioids, benzodiazepines, muscle relaxants, psychostimulants, and/or cough syrups containing codeine, or any combination of these drugs,”
(f)(5) “prescriptions for controlled substances are commonly for the highest strength of the drug and/or for large quantities . . . , indicating a lack of individual drug therapy in prescriptions issued by the practitioner,”
(f)(6) “dangerous drugs or over-the-counter products . . . are consistently added by the prescriber to prescriptions for controlled substances presented to the pharmacy, indicating a lack of individual drug therapy in prescriptions issued by the practitioner,”
(f)(10) “the Texas Prescription Monitoring Program indicates the person presenting the prescriptions is obtaining similar drugs from multiple practitioners, and/or that the persons [sic] is being dispensed similar drugs at multiple pharmacies,”
(f)(12) “persons consistently pay for controlled substance prescriptions with cash or cash equivalents more often than through insurance.”
RFAAX 2, at 3-8. In addition to evaluating these red flag factors, a Texas pharmacist may not fill a prescription when a pharmacist has reason to believe that a prescription is inaccurate, inauthentic, or not issued for a legitimate medical purpose.
Texas regulations further require pharmacists to “review the patient's medication record” to ensure the “therapeutic appropriateness” of the prescription, and if a problem is observed, the pharmacist must “avoid or resolve the problem including consultation with the prescribing practitioner.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code sections 291.33(c)(2)(A)(i)-(ii); RFAAX 2, at 3. A pharmacist must resolve all problems raised by a prescription before dispensing it and must document how the problem was resolved.
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are deemed admitted. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Accordingly, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that from August 7, 2020 to December 6, 2022, Registrant filled numerous controlled substance prescriptions without resolving red flags of abuse and diversion raised by those prescriptions. RFAAX 2, at 2-8. Registrant is further deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that from August 7, 2020 to December 6, 2022, Registrant repeatedly filled prescriptions outside the usual course of professional pharmacy practice in Texas and beneath the standard of care in Texas.
As discussed above,
Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that Registrant filled a total of 359 prescriptions that raised the red flags of pattern prescribing, prescriptions for controlled substances commonly known to be abused, and prescriptions for controlled substances in their highest strengths and/or in large quantities. RFAAX 2, at 4-7. Specifically, among these prescriptions, from September 2020 to August 2022 Registrant filled 127 prescriptions for hydrocodone
Additionally, from August 2020 to January 2023 Registrant filled six prescriptions for hydrocodone 10 mg and 90 prescriptions for oxycodone
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant filled 359 prescriptions without first resolving the red flags of pattern prescribing, prescriptions for controlled substances commonly known to be abused, and prescriptions for controlled substances in their highest strengths and/or in large quantities.
Texas regulations identify the following prescribing pattern as a red flag factor: “[D]angerous drugs or over-the-counter products [OTC] . . . are consistently added by the prescriber to prescriptions for controlled substances presented to the pharmacy, indicating a lack of individual drug therapy . . . .” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(f)(6); RFAAX 2, at 7. Registrant is deemed to have admitted that from August 2020 to December 2022 Registrant filled numerous prescriptions that combined dangerous drugs and OTC products for 16 individuals. RFAAX 2, at 7. Respondent admits that these prescriptions raise a red flag for a lack of individualized therapy, and further admits that the prescriptions were dispensed without documentation or resolution of that red flag. RFAAX 2, at 7.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant filled numerous prescriptions without first resolving the red flag of lack of individualized therapy.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that individuals who travel long distances to obtain controlled substances is a well-known red flag of abuse or diversion. RFAAX 2, at 7. Registrant is deemed to have admitted that on three separate occasions in April 2022, June 2022, and July 2022, Registrant filled three prescriptions for hydrocodone 10 mg and three prescriptions for carisoprodol 350 mg for an individual who traveled 201 miles one-way to visit the pharmacy.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant filled six prescriptions without resolving the red flag of individuals traveling long distances.
Texas regulations identify the following prescribing pattern as a red flag factor: “[P]ersons consistently pay for controlled substance prescriptions with cash or cash equivalents more often than through insurance.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(f)(12); RFAAX 2, at 7-8. Registrant is deemed to have admitted that all but three of the above-mentioned prescriptions were paid for in cash. RFAAX 2, at 4-8. In addition, Registrant is deemed to have admitted that Registrant filled these prescriptions without first identifying and resolving the red flag of cash payments, which is a common red flag because it allows a patient to avoid the scrutiny associated with the use of insurance.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant filled controlled substance prescriptions without first resolving the red flag arising from cash payments.
DEA retained an independent pharmacy expert who concluded that the above prescription data presented multiple red flags that were highly indicative of abuse and diversion.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant dispensed each of the above-referenced prescriptions without first resolving the red flags of pattern prescribing, prescriptions for controlled substances commonly known to be abused, prescriptions for controlled substances in their highest strengths and/or in large quantities, lack of individualized therapy, individuals traveling long distances, and/or individuals paying with cash or cash equivalents. The Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant's dispensing of these prescriptions was outside the usual course of professional practice and beneath the standard of care in Texas.
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).
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
Here, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence satisfies its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D);
Here, as found above, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that Registrant repeatedly filled prescriptions for controlled substances that contained red flags of abuse and/or diversion without addressing or resolving those red flags. RFAAX 2, at 4-8. Registrant has further admitted and the Agency finds that all of the above-referenced prescriptions were filled outside the usual course of professional practice and beneath the standard of care in Texas.
The Agency further finds that Factors B and D weigh in favor of revoking Registrant's registration as continued registration would be inconsistent with the public interest in balancing the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, the Agency finds that the Government established a
Where, as here, the Government has met its prima facie burden of showing that Registrant's registration is inconsistent with the public interest due to its numerous violations pertaining to controlled substances, the burden shifts to Registrant to show why it can be entrusted with a registration.
Here, Registrant did not timely request a hearing and was deemed to be in default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1); RFAAX 6, at 2. To date, Registrant has not filed a motion with the Office of the Administrator to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1). The only submission that addresses the topic of mitigating evidence is Registrant's untimely Answer, which primarily denies the Government's allegations. RFAAX 4. As such, the record does not contain any evidence from Registrant demonstrating future compliance with the CSA, trustworthiness regarding the responsibilities of holding a DEA registration, acceptance of responsibility, or remedial measures.
Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Registrant's registration.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FE4992257 issued to Eagle 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 Eagle Pharmacy to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Eagle Pharmacy for additional registration in Texas. This Order is effective May 14, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 8, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On May 20, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Mariste Pharmacy (Registrant) of Richmond, Texas. Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the immediate suspension of its DEA Certificate of Registration, Control No. FM2279431, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Registrant's continued registration constitutes “ `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' ”
Specifically, the OSC/ISO alleged that Registrant “repeatedly filled Schedule II-V controlled substance prescriptions that contained red flags indicative of diversion and/or abuse, without appropriately addressing or resolving those red flags, . . . [in] violation of both federal and Texas law, including 21 CFR 1306.04(a) and 1306.06; and Texas Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.074(a).” RFAAX 1, at 5. The OSC/ISO also alleged that Registrant “had numerous record keeping violations and improperly stored controlled substances at a non-registered location,” in violation of 21 CFR 1304.11(a)-(c) and 1304.21(a), (d).
The OSC/ISO notified Registrant of its right to file with DEA a written request for hearing within 30 days after the date of receipt of the OSC/ISO.
To date, Registrant has not filed a hearing request with the OALJ Hearing Clerk,
“A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the [registrant's] right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC/ISO].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e). Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] § 1316.67.”
As already discussed, the OSC/ISO alleges that Registrant violated multiple provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in
The OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's “statutory and regulatory provisions . . . mandating . . . compliance with . . . security controls to guard against diversion, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, and prescription requirements” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances,” and “to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels.”
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, a lawful prescription for controlled substances is one that is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a);
As for state law, Texas regulations have a similar requirement that pharmacists ensure that controlled substance prescriptions are “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by a practitioner in the course of medical practice.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(b);
Texas regulations set forth various “red flag factors” that a pharmacist must consider in preventing the non-therapeutic dispensing of controlled substances. 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(f); RFAAX 1, at 4. Pharmacists should consider these red flags “by evaluating the totality of the circumstances rather than any single factor.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(f). These red flags include instances where: (f)(11) multiple persons with the same address present substantially similar controlled substance prescriptions from the same practitioner; and (f)(12) persons consistently pay for controlled substance prescriptions with cash or cash equivalents more often than through insurance. RFAAX 1, at 4. Texas regulations also identify “the geographical distance between the practitioner and the patient” as a “reason[ ] to suspect that a prescription may have been authorized in the absence of a valid patient-practitioner relationship or in violation of the practitioner's standard of practice.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(c)(4); RFAAX 1, at 8. Further, under Texas regulations, “[a] pharmacist shall not dispense a prescription drug if the pharmacist knows or should know the prescription drug order is fraudulent or forged.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(f). Texas regulations further require pharmacists to “review the patient's medication record” to ensure the “therapeutic appropriateness” of the prescription, and if a problem is observed, the pharmacist must “avoid or resolve the problem including consultation with the prescribing practitioner.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code sections 291.33(c)(2)(A)(i)-(ii); RFAAX 1, at 3. A pharmacist must resolve all problems raised by a prescription before dispensing it and must document how the problem was resolved. 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.33(c)(2)(A)(iv);
Federal law also imposes recordkeeping and security requirements on pharmacies. For example, the CSA requires pharmacies to keep accurate and timely records of inventory and dispensing. 21 CFR 1304.11(a)-(c); RFAAX 1, at 5. This includes conducting and maintaining an “initial inventory . . . of all stocks of controlled substances on hand on the date [the pharmacy] first engages in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances,” as well as conducting and maintaining a “biennial inventory . . . of all stocks of controlled substances on hand.” 21 CFR 1304.11(a)-(c); RFAAX 1, at 5. Pharmacies must retain these inventories “for at least 2 years from the date of such inventory or records, for inspection and copying.” 21 CFR 1304.04; RFAAX 1, at 3. The CSA also requires pharmacies to “maintain, on a current basis, a complete and accurate record of each substance . . . received,” and the pharmacy must “record[ ] . . . the date on which the controlled substances are actually received.” 21 CFR 1304.21(a); RFAAX 1, at 3.
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed admitted.
As discussed above,
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant filled approximately 1,272 controlled substance prescriptions without first resolving the red flag arising from cash payments.
Texas regulations identify the following prescribing pattern as a red flag factor: “[M]ultiple persons with the same address present substantially similar controlled substance prescriptions from the same practitioner.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(f)(11); RFAAX 1, at 7. Registrant is deemed to have admitted that it failed to identify and resolve the red flag of multiple persons with the same address presenting the same prescriptions from the same practitioner. RFAAX 1, at 7-8. Specifically, between February 2021 and August 2023, Registrant filled controlled substance prescriptions for two groups of patients who shared the same address
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant filled numerous controlled substance prescriptions without first resolving the red flag of shared addresses.
Texas regulations identify “the geographical distance between the practitioner and the patient” as a “reason[ ] to suspect that a prescription may have been authorized in the absence of a valid patient-practitioner relationship or in violation of the practitioner's standard of practice.” 22 Tex. Admin. Code section 291.29(c)(4); RFAAX 1, at 8. Registrant is deemed to have admitted that it repeatedly filled prescriptions without identifying and resolving the red flag of patients traveling long distances to obtain controlled substance prescriptions. RFAAX 1, at 8-9. Specifically, Registrant is deemed to have admitted that between February 2021 and June 2022, it filled numerous prescriptions for four individuals (A.S.W., De.D.G., J.G., and C.R.) who traveled more than 45 miles one way to obtain their controlled substance prescriptions, and for three individuals (D.A., F.G., and R.D.) who traveled more than 70 miles one way to obtain their prescriptions.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant filled numerous controlled substance prescriptions without first resolving the red flag arising from long distances traveled.
The OSC/ISO also alleged, and it is therefore admitted, that “Between February 1, 2021, and until at least March 6, 2024, the Pharmacy filled oxycodone 30 mg prescriptions for Patients B.A.C., D.Y., K.M.K., Z.J., S.D.W., R.B., V.R., and H.W. which were for only the highest strength and in high quantities, in violation of Texas law.” RFAAX 1, at 6-7. The OSC/ISO implies that this conduct violates 22 Texas Administrative Code section 291.29(f)(5), which identifies as a potential red flag factor that “prescriptions for controlled substances are commonly for the highest strength of the drug and/or for large quantities (
DEA retained an independent pharmacy expert who concluded that the above prescription data presented multiple red flags that were highly indicative of abuse and diversion.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant dispensed the above-referenced prescriptions without first resolving the red flags of cash payments, long distances, and/or shared addresses, and that Registrant's dispensing of these prescriptions was outside the usual course of professional practice. Additionally, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that none of the above-referenced controlled substance prescriptions was filled for a legitimate medical purpose.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that it failed to adequately maintain an initial inventory and a biennial inventory, which prevented DEA from conducting an audit. RFAAX 1, at 5. Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial evidence that Registrant failed to adequately maintain an initial and biennial inventory.
Further, Registrant is deemed to have admitted that between February 2021 and February 2023, it failed to adequately maintain complete and accurate continuing records regarding its inventory of controlled substances.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial evidence that Registrant failed to maintain a complete and accurate record of each substance received.
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).
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
Here, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence satisfies its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D);
Here, as found above, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that Registrant repeatedly filled prescriptions for controlled substances that contained red flags of abuse and/or diversion without addressing or resolving those red flags. RFAAX 1, at 5-9. Registrant has further admitted and the Agency finds that none of the above-referenced controlled substance prescriptions were filled for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice.
Additionally, as found above, Registrant is deemed to have admitted and the Agency finds that Registrant failed to maintain an initial and biennial inventory. As such, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Registrant violated 21 CFR 1304.11(a)-(c) and 1304.04.
The Agency further finds that Factors B and D weigh in favor of denial of Registrant's application and that Registrant's registration would be inconsistent with the public interest in balancing the factors of 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, the Agency finds that the Government established a
Where, as here, the Government has met its prima facie burden of showing that Registrant's registration is inconsistent with the public interest due to its numerous violations pertaining to controlled substances, the burden shifts to Registrant to show why it can be entrusted with a registration.
Here, Registrant did not timely or properly request a hearing and was deemed to be in default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1), (e), (f)(1); RFAA, at 1-9. To date, Registrant has not filed a motion with the Office of the Administrator to excuse the default. 21 CFR 1301.43(c)(1). Registrant has thus failed to answer the allegations contained in the OSC and has not otherwise availed itself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, Registrant has made no representations as to its future compliance with the CSA nor made any demonstration that it can be entrusted with registration. Moreover, the evidence presented by the Government shows that Registrant violated the CSA, further indicating that Registrant cannot be entrusted.
Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Registrant's application.
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. FM2279431 issued to Mariste 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 Mariste Pharmacy to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Mariste Pharmacy for additional registration in Texas. This Order is effective May 14, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 8, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of Disability Employment Policy, United States Department of Labor.
Notice of information collections and request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Disability Employment Policy is soliciting comments regarding this ODEP-sponsored information collection for the Retaining Employment and Talent After Injury/Illness Network (RETAIN) Demonstration Projects and Evaluation. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, DOL conducts a pre-clearance request for comment to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This request helps to ensure that: requested data can be provided in the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.
Comments pertaining to this information collection are due on or before June 13, 2025.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered.
• If your comment includes confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission.
•
• DOL-ODEP will post your comment as well as any attachments, except for information submitted and marked as confidential, in the docket at
David Rosenblum by telephone at 202-693-7840 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
In FY 2018, the Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration launched a collaboration to develop and test promising stay-at-work/return-to-work (SAW/RTW) early intervention strategies and evaluate outcomes for individuals who are experiencing work disability.
The RETAIN Demonstration Projects are modeled after promising programs currently operating in Washington State, including the Centers of Occupational Health and Education (COHE), the Early Return to Work (ERTW), and the Stay at Work programs. While these programs operate within the state's workers' compensation system and are available only to individuals experiencing work-related injuries or illnesses, the RETAIN Demonstration Projects provide opportunities to improve SAW/RTW outcomes for individuals with both occupational and non-occupational injuries and illnesses.
The primary goals of the RETAIN Demonstration Projects are:
1. To increase employment retention and labor force participation of individuals who acquire, and/or are at risk of developing, work disabilities; and
2. To reduce long-term work disability among project participants, including the need for federal disability benefits (
During FY 2018, eight states received funding through cooperative agreements to create systems changes by developing and implementing partnerships and strategies to test the effects of the provision of comprehensive, coordinated health and employment-related services and supports to injured or ill workers who have acquired, or are at risk of developing, a work disability. In Phase 1, these grantees completed start-up activities and launched a small pilot. In FY 2021, five of these grantees (Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, and Vermont) were competitively awarded Phase 2 funding for a performance period of four years (2021-2024), enabling them to expand and scale up their pilot to full implementation. This performance period has been extended to 2025 for all five grantees and subsequently to 2026 for four grantees, as they continue sustainability activities.
The purpose of the RETAIN employee participant information collection is to understand and assess RETAIN program start-up, pilot projects, and full implementation. Two baseline forms are required to be completed for each participant enrolling in RETAIN, whether in the treatment group or in the control group. The first form is completed by the enrollees themselves, while the second form is completed by a combination of the healthcare provider and Return-to-Work Coordinator, based on information provided by the enrollee. This information collection was approved by OMB in May 2019 with an expiration date of May 31, 2022, and it was subsequently approved by OMB on June 1, 2022 for an extension with an expiration date of June 30, 2025. An extension is requested for another year, to last through the end of Phase 2 for all grantees.
This information collection is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (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.
The DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for one (1) year. OMB authorization for an Information Collection Review cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that currently approved information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
DOL is soliciting comments concerning the proposed information collection related to Retaining Employment and Talent After Injury/Illness Network (RETAIN) Demonstration Projects and Evaluation. DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information has practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of DOL's estimate of the burden related to the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used in the estimate;
• Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Background documents related to this information collection request are available at
This information collection request concerns the Retaining Employment and Talent After Injury/Illness Network (RETAIN) Demonstration Projects and Evaluation. DOL-ODEP has included the number of respondents, responses, burden hours, and burden costs supporting this information collection request below.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the proposed information collection request; they will become a matter of public record and will be available at
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before May 14, 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
This information collection request relates to two prohibited transaction class exemptions (PTEs) that the Department has granted, both of which involve settlement agreements. These two exemptions are described below.
PTE 94-71 exempts from certain restrictions of ERISA and certain taxes imposed by the Code, a transaction or activity that is authorized, prior to the execution of the transaction or activity, by a settlement agreement, to which the Department is a party, resulting from an investigation of an employee benefit plan conducted by the Department. The following information collections are among the conditions for the exemption: (1) A party engaging in a settlement agreement arising out of a Department investigation must provide written notice to the affected participants and beneficiaries of the plan at least 30 days prior to entry into the settlement agreement. The notice must contain an objective description of the transaction or activity, the approximate date on which the transaction will occur, the address of the regional or district office of the Department that negotiated the settlement agreement, and a statement informing participants and beneficiaries of their right to forward their comments to such office. (2) A copy of the notice and a description of the method by which it will be distributed must be approved in advance by the regional or district office of the Department which negotiated the settlement.
PTE 2003-39 exempts from certain restrictions of ERISA and certain taxes imposed by the Code, transactions arising out of the settlement of litigation that involve: the release by the plan or a plan fiduciary of legal claims against parties in interest in exchange for payment given by or on behalf of the party in interest to the plan; an extension of credit by a plan to a party interest in connection with a settlement; and the plan's acquisition, holding, and disposition of employer securities received in settlement of litigation. The relief is granted provided certain conditions are met, such as the requirement of an independent fiduciary who has no relationship to, or interest in, any parties in the litigation to authorize the settlement and the settlement terms of the agreement and any extension of credit are reasonable and no less favorable than comparable arm's length agreement. The other conditions include the following information collections: (1) The terms of the settlement must be specifically described in a written agreement or consent decree. (2) The fiduciary acting on behalf of the plan must acknowledge in writing that the person is a fiduciary with respect to the settlement of the litigation. (3) The plan fiduciary must maintain records of the transaction for six years and must disclose the records on request to the Department and other interested persons. 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 Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-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 May 14, 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
The Form ETA 741, the Occupational Code Assignment (OCA), is necessary to help occupational information users relate an occupational specialty or job title to an occupational code and title within the framework of the O*NET-SOC (Occupational Information Network-Standard Occupational Classification) based system. It helps provide occupational codes for jobs where duties have changed to the extent that the published information is no longer appropriate, or the user is unable to classify the job on their own. The Occupational Code Assignment helps users obtain an O*NET-SOC code which allows for compatibility and standardization in the area of occupational coding. 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.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in its Cadmium in Construction Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 13, 2025.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Seleda Perryman, Directorate of
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The Cadmium in Construction Standard requires initial and periodic exposure monitoring and measurements, medical surveillance by physicians through biological monitoring and examinations, and recordkeeping and notification obligations. These requirements help protect workers from the adverse health effects that may result from their occupational involvement with Cadmium, and provide access to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the affected workers, and designated representatives. The major information collection requirements of this standard include the following elements of the Standard.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Cadmium in Construction Standard. The agency is requesting an increase in the burden hour estimate by 218 hours (from 50,226 hours to 50,444 hours) due to a computational error discovered in the last ICR. OSHA is requesting to retain the same capital cost for operation and maintenance of $2,082,199. OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Scott C. Ketcham, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Request for public comments.
OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection requirements specified in the Lead in General Industry Standard.
Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by June 13, 2025.
For further information on submitting comments, see the “Public Participation” heading in the section of this notice titled
Seleda Perryman, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone (202) 693-2222.
The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent (
The following sections describe who uses the information collected under each requirement, as well as how they use it. The purpose of these requirements is to provide protection for workers from the adverse health effects associated with exposure to Lead. In this regard, the Lead in General Industry Standard requires: monitoring workers' exposure to lead, medical surveillance by physicians through biological monitoring and examinations, and recordkeeping and notification obligations.
OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions to protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information, and transmission techniques.
OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the information collection requirements contained in the Lead in General Industry Standard. The agency is requesting an adjusted increase in burden hours, from 1,134,438 hours to 1,250,537 hours, a difference of 116,099 hours. The adjustment increase is due to an increase in the number of employers (56,906 to 60,569 employers) and an increase in the number of exposed workers (346,894 to 366,629 exposed workers), based on updated data. Also, due to the increase in the estimated number of initial exposure monitoring, initial medical examinations, as well as increased costs to perform biological monitoring and medical examinations under the standard, there is an increase in total operation and maintenance costs of $51,775,260 (from $145,080,120 to $196,201,192).
OSHA will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection requirements.
You may submit comments in response to this document as follows: (1) electronically at
Comments and submissions are posted without change at
Contact the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-2350, (TTY (877) 889-5627) for information about materials not available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to locate docket submissions.
Scott C. Ketcham, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506
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.
4.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 1-202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 16, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to extend the period that newly listed Companies and currently listed Companies may receive the complimentary Capital Markets Solutions under LTSE Rule 14.602 for an additional one year, for a four-year term.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In March 2022, LTSE began offering complimentary Capital Markets Solutions to newly listed and currently listed Companies following the Commission's approval of relevant amendments to Rule 14.602.
Current Rule 14.602(b)(2)(A) provides that within 90 days of listing on the Exchange, a Company has the option to request and commence receiving the Capital Markets Solutions on a complimentary basis for a three-year term. As is the case in the current rule text, the three-year term will begin from the date of first use of the Capital Markets Solutions by the newly-listed Company, subject to the 90-day period from the date of listing to request and begin receiving the service. The only proposed change in Rule 14.602(b)(2)(A) is changing the duration of the period during which a Company may receive the Capital Markets Solutions on a complimentary basis from three years to four years.
The Exchange is proposing a related change to Rule 14.602(b)(2)(B), providing a currently listed Company that has already commenced receiving the services as of the effective date of filing SR-LTSE-2025-06, the option to request to continue receiving such services on a complimentary basis for an additional one-year term. This one-year term will begin from the three-year anniversary of the date the Company initially commenced receiving the Capital Markets Solutions. The Exchange believes extending the period for Companies to receive Capital Markets Solutions on a complimentary basis aligns with LTSE's objective of supporting long-term value creation for listed Companies and their investors. Additionally, by offering such services on a complimentary basis for a longer term—
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is fair and reasonable to offer products and services to companies. The Exchange faces competition from NYSE and Nasdaq as a new entrant into the exchange listing market as both offer complimentary services to newly and currently listed companies in order to attract and retain listings.
The Exchange also believes that to the extent the Exchange's listing program is successful, it will provide a competitive alternative, which will thereby benefit companies and investors, and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Other exchanges also acknowledge the competition in the market for listing services and they compete, in part, by offering products and services to companies. Like other exchanges, LTSE also believes that it is fair and reasonable to offer complimentary services to attract new listings and retain current listings as part of this competition.
LTSE believes extending the term that all newly listed and currently listed Companies receive Capital Markets Solutions on a complimentary basis is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade and the protection of investors and the public interest because it has the potential to enhance current and newly listed companies' engagement and alignment with shareholders for the purpose of long-term value creation. These services are also a reflection of the Exchange's differentiated listing standards, which are explicitly designed to promote long-term focus and value creation,
Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to balance its need to remain competitive with other listing venues, while at the same time ensuring adequate revenue to meet its regulatory responsibilities. The Exchange notes that no Company will be required to pay higher fees because of this proposal, and it represents that providing the proposed services will have no impact on the resources available for its regulatory programs.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, and as discussed in the Statutory Basis section, LTSE believes that the proposed rule change will enhance competition by facilitating LTSE's listing program which will allow the Exchange to provide companies with another listing option, thereby promoting intermarket competition between exchanges in furtherance of the principles of Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act
LTSE also does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on intramarket competition since all currently listed Companies will be able to receive the Capital Markets Services for the proposed four-year term. Moreover, the extension of these complimentary services to four years does not remove the requirement under the existing rule that a Company requesting such services must do so within 90 days of listing on the Exchange. Consequently, LTSE does not believe that the proposal will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities. The requested order includes streamlined terms and conditions as compared to past comparable orders.
Blue Owl Capital Corporation; Blue Owl Capital Corporation II; Blue Owl Credit Income Corp.; Blue Owl Technology Finance Corp.; Blue Owl Technology Income Corp.; Blue Owl Alternative Credit Fund; Blue Owl Credit Advisors LLC; Blue Owl Diversified Credit Advisors LLC; Blue Owl Technology Credit Advisors LLC; Blue Owl Technology Credit Advisors II LLC; Blue Owl Credit Private Fund Advisors LLC; Blue Owl Strategic Equity Advisors LLC; Blue Owl Strategic Equity Partners Advisors LLC; Blue Owl Alternative Credit Advisors LLC; Blue Owl Alternative Credit Advisors II LLC; certain of their wholly-owned subsidiaries as described in Schedule A to the Application; and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Schedule B to the Application.
The application was filed on March 7, 2025, and amended on March 28, 2025, April 3, 2025, and April 9, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Stephan N. Packs, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' Third Amended and Restated Application, dated April 9, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system.
The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1808, Trading Sessions, subparagraph (g), Pricing When Primary Market Does Not Open, to now use the last reported sale price of the security from the previous trading day for purposes of calculating the current index value at expiration of Exchange listed index options on days when the primary market for the underlying security does not open.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1808(g) regarding determination of the price of component securities for purposes of calculating the current index value at expiration of Exchange listed index options on days when the primary market for the underlying security does not open. At the time of this filing, the proposed rule change would apply to only to A.M.-settled index options.
Currently, Exchange Rule 1808(g) provides that when the primary market for a security underlying the current index value of an index option does not open for trading on a given day, the price of that security shall be determined, for purposes of calculating the current index value at expiration, based on the opening price of that security on the next day that its primary market is open for trading.
The Exchange now proposes to delete from the rule the language providing for determination of the price of the component security, for purposes of calculating the current index value at expiration, based on the opening price of that security on the next day that its primary market is open for trading. The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1808(g) so that it provides that
The rule would continue to provide that this procedure shall not be used if the current index value at expiration is fixed in accordance with OCC rules and by-laws. This language recognizes that OCC is authorized under its rules and by-laws to take certain actions relating to settlement in the event of the unavailability or inaccuracy of the current underlying interest value.
The Exchange notes that Exchange Rule 1808(g) as proposed to be amended by this filing, is incorporated by reference into the rulebooks of the Exchange's affiliates, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX Pearl”), MIAX Emerald, LLC (“MIAX Emerald”), and MIAX Sapphire, LLC (“MIAX Sapphire”). As such, the amendment to Exchange Rule 1808(g) proposed herein will also apply to MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, and MIAX Sapphire members.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would provide Members with the certainty of knowing the settlement value on the day on which the primary market fails to open, and eliminate the potential difficulties that could arise if the reporting authority for the index were unwilling or unable to calculate the settlement value using prices for the relevant security(ies) on the next day that its primary market is open for trading.
It would also acknowledge clearly, however, that OCC may, under its rules and by-laws, establish settlement prices for expiring index options that may differ from the settlement prices that would otherwise be provided for in Exchange rules, thereby protecting investors and the public interest by reducing potential for confusion in that regard.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
This proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because the proposed change will apply uniformly to all Members. Further, the proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issues.
The Exchange believes that this proposal does not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition. On the contrary, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will benefit investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general by providing Members with the certainty of knowing the settlement price on the day on which the primary market fails to open, eliminating the potential difficulties that could arise if the reporting authority for the index were unwilling or unable to calculate the settlement value using prices for the relevant security(ies) on the next day that its primary market is open for trading, and retaining the existing provision stating that the Exchange will defer to OCC in
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
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 shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee Schedule to: (1) adopt a new Tape C Quoting Tier that provides an additive rebate for executions of orders in Tape C securities
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 18 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 15.1% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
The Exchange proposes to adopt a new tier applicable to Member participation in Tape C securities, referred to by the Exchange as the Tape C Quoting Tier, in which the Exchange will provide an additive rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume (excluding Retail Orders) in Tape C securities (such orders, “Tape C Volume”) for Members that qualify for the Tier by meeting certain quoting requirements in Tape C securities. Under the proposed Tape C Quoting Tier, the Exchange will provide an additive rebate of $0.0002 per share for executions of Tape C Volume for a Member that qualifies for the Tape C Quoting Tier by achieving an NBBO Time
The Exchange also proposes to exclude Tape C securities that have a closing price less than $1.00 per share from its calculation of a Member's NBBO Time in said security on that trading day, and it will include this in a note under the Additive Rebates pricing table on the Fee Schedule.
The proposed Tape C Quoting Tier is designed to encourage Members, through the provision of an additive rebate for executions of Tape C Volume, to promote price discovery and market quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day in Tape C securities, thereby benefitting the Exchange and investors by providing improved trading conditions for all market participants through narrower bid-ask spreads and increased depth of liquidity available at the NBBO in these securities. The Exchange notes that the proposed Tape C Quoting Tier is comparable to other quoting-based incentives and discounts, which have been widely adopted by exchanges (including the Exchange), including similar pricing incentives applicable to a specific set of securities.
The proposed Tape C Quoting Tier will become the fourth additive rebate currently offered to Members on the Exchange. The current additive rebates include an NBBO Setter Tier, a Tape A Quoting Tier, and a Tape B Volume Tier. Given the similarities between these Tiers, the Exchange believes the presentation of these additive rebates in a single table would be more efficient and easier for Members to read. As such, the Exchange is proposing to re-organize the placement of these existing Tiers within the Fee Schedule by deleting them from their current locations and placing them in a table under the heading “Additive Rebates” along with the newly proposed Tape C Quoting Tier. In making this non-substantive change, the Exchange will consolidate and/or re-state the footnotes which previously followed each of the NBBO Setter Tier, Tape A Quoting Tier, and Tape B Volume Tier pricing tables as new footnotes under the Additive Rebates table. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to delete the “NBBO Setter Tier” table, the “Tape A Quoting Tier” table, and the “Tape B Volume Tier” table along with the accompanying footnote beneath each such table. The Exchange proposes to create the “Additive Rebates” table with rows corresponding to each of the NBBO Setter Tier, the Tape A Quoting Tier, the Tape B Volume Tier, and the new Tape C Quoting Tier. The Exchange does not propose any changes to the additive rebate amount or required criteria for the previously existing NBBO Setter Tier, the Tape A Quoting Tier, nor the Tape B Volume Tier. Further, the Exchange proposes new footnotes to the “Additive Rebates” table which consolidate or re-state the footnotes previously listed under the former “NBBO Setter Tier” table, the “Tape A Quoting Tier” table, and the “Tape B Volume Tier” table and which provide information regarding the new Tape C Quoting Tier.
Lastly, the Exchange is proposing to delete “Tape A Quoting Tier” from the second Note under the Transaction Fees pricing table and replace it with “Additive Rebates” to cover all current and future Additive Rebates to which that note applies.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the Exchange represents only a small percentage of the overall market. The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, to enhance market quality in both a broad manner and in a targeted manner with respect to Tape C securities, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery and enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to adopt the Tape C Quoting Tier that would provide an additive rebate for executions Tape C Volume is reasonable because, as described above, such change is designed to encourage Members to increase their order flow, including in the form of displayed, NBBO-setting orders under the required criteria, as applicable, to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would promote price discovery, enhance liquidity and market quality, and contribute to a more robust and well balanced market ecosystem on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and consistent with an equitable allocation of fees to pay a higher rebate for executions of Tape C Volume to Members that qualify for the Tape C Quoting Tier because of the additional commitment to market
The Exchange notes that volume and quoting-based incentives (such as tiers) have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery process. Furthermore, as noted above, the proposed Tape C Quoting Tier is similar in structure and purpose to pricing programs in place at other exchanges that are designed to enhance market quality.
The Exchange also believes that its reorganization of the Fee Schedule to include the NBBO Setter Tier, Tape A Quoting Tier, and Tape B Volume Tier in a single “Additive Rebates” table along with the newly proposed Tape C Quoting Tier is reasonable, equitable and non-discriminatory because combining these tiers into a single location provides a more concise presentation of the information therein and serves to make the Fee Schedule as clear and as easily understandable as possible with respect to the requirements of the each of these Additive Rebates.
For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the proposal is intended to enhance market quality on the Exchange in a large number of securities, generally, and in Tape C securities in particular, and to incentivize market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members and market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would incentivize Members to promote price discovery and market quality by quoting at the NBBO for a significant portion of each day in Tape C securities, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. The opportunity to qualify for the Tape C Quoting Tier and thus receive the corresponding additive rebate for executions of Tape C Volume would be available to all Members that meet the associated criteria for the Tape C Quoting Tier in any month. The Exchange believes that the proposed criteria for the Tape C Quoting Tier is attainable for several Members that actively quote on exchanges. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow to, including 17 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 15.1% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, including with respect to executions of Added Displayed Volume, and market participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As described above, the proposed change is a competitive proposal through which the Exchange is seeking to encourage additional order flow and quoting activity on the Exchange and to promote market quality through pricing incentives that are comparable to incentives in place at other exchanges.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to reflect an amendment to the Application and Exemptive Order governing the Fidelity Women's Leadership ETF and Fidelity Sustainability U.S. Equity ETF that are listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange adopted NYSE Arca Rule 8.601-E for the purpose of permitting the listing and trading, or trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), of Active Proxy Portfolio Shares, which are securities issued by an actively managed open-end investment management company.
Fidelity Covington Trust, Fidelity Management & Research Company LLC, and Fidelity Distributors Company LLC (the “Applicants”)
Under the Prior Exemptive Order, the Funds are required to daily publish a basket of securities and cash that, while different from the Fund's portfolio, is designed to closely track its daily performance (“Tracking Basket”). Further, under the Prior Exemptive Order, a Fund is permitted to invest only in certain enumerated instruments (“Prior Order Investments”).
On July 30, 2024, as amended on November 22, 2024, January 16, 2025 and February 24, 2025, the Applicants sought to amend the Prior Exemptive Order (the “Updated Application”) to permit a Fund to invest in securities and instruments in addition to Prior Order Investments, including but not limited to fixed income securities, foreign investments that do not trade contemporaneously with Shares, and derivatives (“Amended Order Investments”).
On March 31, 2025, the Commission issued an amended exemptive order (the “Amended Exemptive Order”) that, among other things, requires each Fund, to the extent it invests in Amended Order Investments, to publish a new Tracking Basket that consists of two distinct portions: (1) a first portion corresponding to the Semi-Transparent Sleeve; and (2) a second portion corresponding to the Fully-Transparent
Except for the change noted above, all other representations made in the respective rule filings remain unchanged and will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Funds. The Funds will also continue to comply with the requirements of Rule 8.601-E.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed revision is intended to ensure that each of the Funds will comply with the Updated Application and the Amended Exemptive Order that permits the Funds to expand the universe of instruments in which each Fund is permitted to invest. The proposed rule change would permit the Funds to operate consistent with this updated conditions in the Updated Application and the Amended Exemptive Order. Except for the changes noted above, all other representations made in the respective rule filings remain unchanged and as noted, will continue to constitute continuing listing requirements for the Funds.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. As noted, the purpose of the filing is to reflect an amendment to the Prior Exemptive Order governing the listing and trading of these Funds. To the extent that the proposed rule change would continue to permit listing and trading of another type of actively-managed ETF that has characteristics different from existing actively-managed and index ETFs, the Exchange believes that the proposal would benefit investors by continuing to promote competition among various ETF products.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to provide temporary discounts to current (described below) monthly and annual subscribers to the Liquidity Taker Event Report—Simple Orders, Liquidity Taker Event Report—Complex Orders, and Liquidity Taker Event Report—Resting Simple Orders.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 7, Reports, of the Fee Schedule to provide temporary discounts to current monthly and annual subscribers to the Liquidity Taker Event Report—Simple Orders (the “Simple Order Report”), Liquidity Taker Event Report—Complex Orders (the “Complex Order Report”), and Liquidity Taker Event Report—Resting Simple Orders (the “Resting Simple Order Report”).
In general, each of the Reports is a daily report that provides a Member
Members may purchase each of the Reports on a monthly or annual (12-month) basis. The Exchange assesses fees of $4,000 per month and $24,000 per year for a 12-month subscription for each of the Simple Order Report and Complex Order Report. The Exchange assesses fees of $2,000 per month and $12,000 per year for a 12-month subscription for the Resting Simple Order Report. The Exchange also offers a discounted fee of $40,000 per year for Members that purchase annual subscriptions to both the Simple Order Report and Complex Order Report.
In April 2025, the Exchange plans to perform necessary system upgrades and maintenance that could impact the timeframes (
In an abundance of caution and to provide just customer service, the Exchange proposes to provide existing subscribers to each of the Reports discounted pricing for the month of April 2025 to accommodate Members that receive Reports that may be impacted by the necessary system upgrades and maintenance that is to occur in April 2025. Specifically, subscribers with an active subscription as of March 31, 2025 to the Simple Order Report, Complex Order Report, and/or Resting Simple Order Report will receive the below discounts for the month of April 2025 only. Monthly subscribers would receive 50% off the applicable monthly fee for the April 2025 subscription. 12-month subscribers would receive an additional month at the end of existing 12-month subscription for no additional charge. The above discounts would be available to active subscribers for April 2025 only. The Exchange anticipates that each of the Reports' timeframes that may be impacted by the necessary system upgrades and maintenance would normalize by May 2025 when the upgrades are complete.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed discounts for the Reports are equitable because the discounts are being provided to existing subscribers whose Reports may be affected by the upgrade of the 10G ULL extranet switches and related network analytics infrastructure planned for April 2025.
The proposed discount is also not unfairly discriminatory because limiting it to existing subscribers is to ensure that those who receive the Reports pursuant to a monthly or annual subscription receive a discount to accommodate any potential disruptions. New subscribers that seek to subscribe to the Reports in April 2025 are free to wait until May 2025 to avoid the potential impact, as the Reports are purchased on a voluntary basis. The Exchange anticipates that the Reports' timeframes that may be impacted by the necessary system upgrades and maintenance would normalize by May 2025 when the upgrades are complete and the discounts would have expired.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would not impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intra-market competition because the proposed changes are to ensure that those who receive the Reports pursuant to a monthly or annual subscription receive a discount to accommodate any potential disruptions, provide just customer service, and in an abundance of caution should an existing subscriber's Reports be affected by the upgrade to the 10G ULL extranet switches and related network analytics infrastructure.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would not impose any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on inter-market competition because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response and the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As noted above, the purchase of the Reports is entirely optional and is not necessary for trading purposes. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would not impose any burden on inter-market competition because the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price the Reports is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing discipline in order to compete for the subscribers to the Reports.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities. The requested order includes streamlined terms and conditions as compared to past comparable orders.
BlackRock Credit Strategies Fund, CREDX Subsidiary, LLC, BlackRock Direct Lending Corp., BlackRock Private Credit Fund, BDEBT Subsidiary LLC, BlackRock Private Credit Fund Leverage I, LLC, BlackRock Private Investments Fund, BPIF Subsidiary, LLC, Cayman Private Investments Fund, Ltd., BlackRock TCP Capital Corp., Special Value Continuation Partners LLC, TCPC Funding I, LLC, TCPC Funding II, LLC, TCPC SBIC, LP, TCPC SBIC GP, LLC, BCIC Merger Sub, LLC, BlackRock Capital Investment Advisors, LLC, Tennenbaum Capital Partners, LLC, SVOF/MM, LLC, and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Appendix A to the application.
The application was filed on March 4, 2025, and amended on March 20, 2025, April 3, 2025, and April 8, 2025.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Adam Large, Senior Special Counsel, Jill Ehrlich, Senior Counsel, or Daniele Marchesani, Assistant Chief Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' third amended application, dated April 8, 2025, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
This document provides the public with notice that, on March 27, 2025, Canadian Pacific Railway (CP) submitted a request for amendment (RFA) to its FRA-certified positive train control (PTC) system to temporarily disable the system for a period not to exceed three hours in order to increase the capacity of its PTC system in preparation for consolidation. As this RFA may involve a request for FRA's approval of proposed material modifications to an FRA-certified PTC system, FRA is publishing this notice and inviting public comment on CP's RFA to its PTC system.
FRA will consider comments received by May 5, 2025. FRA may consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable and without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.
Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816-516-7168, email:
In general, title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host railroad's PTC system complies with title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be operated in revenue service. Before making certain changes to an FRA-certified PTC system or the associated FRA-approved PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP), a host railroad must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA to its PTC system or PTCSP under 49 CFR 236.1021.
Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will publish a notice in the
Interested parties are invited to comment on CP's RFA by submitting written comments or data. During FRA's review of CP's RFA, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable, without delaying implementation of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.
In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Receipt of petition.
Evenflo Company, Inc. (Evenflo) has determined that certain Evenflo All4One child restraint systems do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213,
Send comments on or before May 14, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
• Comments may also be faxed to (202) 493-2251.
Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
All comments and supporting materials received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the fullest extent possible.
When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will also be published in the
All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Corey Barlet, General Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (202) 366-1119.
Evenflo filed a noncompliance report dated January 27, 2025, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
This notice of receipt of Evenflo's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
Evenflo prefaces its argument by citing previously granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance that it believes are relevant to its own petition. Evenflo first quotes NHTSA's decision on a petition by Gillig, LLC, describing NHTSA's procedures when considering petitions: “(i)n determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against which the recall would otherwise protect.” (
Evenflo then cites two granted petitions for inconsequential noncompliance to show that NHTSA grants petitions when the manufacturer can show that there are no additional risks of injury caused by the noncompliance (
Evenflo believes that the precedent of these decisions supports Evenflo's petition for the subject noncompliance. Evenflo states that the subject noncompliant child restraint systems still meet the intended purpose of paragraph S5.1.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 as they do not expose occupants to a greater risk of injury than a compliant child restraint system. Evenflo cites a 1996 letter from the NHTSA Chief Council to C. Scott Talbot, Esq. of Howrey & Simon that stated that the purpose of paragraph S.5.1.1(b)(1) is to (1) “prevent a child's fingers or limbs from being caught in shifting parts of the restraint” and (2) prevent the occupant from sliding from under the lap belt during a crash (also known as “submarining”).
Evenflo claims that the risk for children to have their fingers or limbs crushed is negated because all shifting parts of the child restraint systems are located outside and below the seat structure and are inaccessible to the child occupant. Evenflo states that the child has no risk of submarining because the change in recline adjustment only occurred during testing a rear facing test, where submarining is
Additionally, Evenflo recognizes that NHTSA does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries to be relevant when considering the inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, however, Evenflo notes that it has not found any reports or complaints of a child's fingers or limbs being caught in the shifting parts of the subject child restraint systems, nor have there been any reports of submarining caused by the child restraint system's noncompliance with paragraph S5.1.1(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213.
Evenflo concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively, to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on this petition only applies to the subject child restraint systems that Evenflo no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve child restraint system distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant child restraint systems under their control after Evenflo notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Disposition of Treasury Securities Belonging to a Decedent's Estate Being Settled Without Administration.
Written comments should be received on or before June 13, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, Room #4006-A, P.O. Box 1328, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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. Currently the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Trace Request for Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Payment; and Trace Request Direct Deposit.
Written comments should be received on or before June 13, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, Room #4006-A, P.O. Box 1328, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, 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. Currently, the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Voucher for Payment of Awards.
Written comments should be received on or before June 13, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments and requests for additional information to Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A. Sharp, Room #4006-A, P.O. Box 1328, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, or
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 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 Form 5310 is used to request an IRS determination letter about the plan's qualification status qualified or nonqualified under Code section 401(a). Any plan sponsor or administrator of any pension, profit-sharing, or other deferred compensation plan (other than a multi-employer plan covered under Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation insurance) may use this form. Form 6088 is used to show the amounts of distributable benefits to participants in the plan.
Written comments should be received on or before June 13, 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 Marcus McCrary, (470) 769-2001, 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.
(a) heading 9903.01.63 of the HTSUS shall be amended by deleting “34%” each place that it appears and by inserting “84%” in lieu thereof; and
(b) subdivision (v)(xiii)(10) of U.S. note 2 to subchapter III of chapter 99 of the HTSUS shall be amended by deleting “34%”, and inserting “84%” in lieu thereof.
(a) increase the
(b) increase the per postal item containing goods duty in section 2(c)(ii) of Executive Order 14256 that is in effect on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on May 2, 2025, and before 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 1, 2025, from 25 dollars to 75 dollars; and
(c) increase the per postal item containing goods duty in section 2(c)(ii) of Executive Order 14256 that is in effect on or after 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on June 1, 2025, from 50 dollars to 150 dollars.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) The Attorney General shall expeditiously take all appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State laws and continuation of civil actions identified in subsection (a) of this section that the Attorney General determines to be illegal.
(c) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the President, through the Counsel to the President, regarding actions taken under subsection (b) of this section. The Attorney General shall also recommend any additional Presidential or legislative action necessary to stop the enforcement of State laws identified in subsection (a) of this section that the Attorney General determines to be illegal or otherwise fulfill the purpose of this order.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) The Secretary of Energy shall include in the report described in subsection (a) of this section an analysis of the impact that the availability of the coal resources identified could have on electricity costs and grid reliability.
(b) The Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the authorities in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and supplemented (30 U.S.C. 181
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the heads of all relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall consider revising or rescinding Federal actions identified in subsection (a) of this section consistent with applicable law.
(c) Agencies that are empowered to make loans, loan guarantees, grants, equity investments, or to conclude offtake agreements, both domestically and abroad, shall, to the extent permitted by law, take steps to rescind any policies or regulations seeking to or that actually discourage investment in coal production and coal-fired electricity generation, such as the 2021 U.S. Treasury Fossil Fuel Energy Guidance for Multilateral Development Banks rescinded by the Department of the Treasury and similar policies or regulations.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Energy, the Chief Executive Officer of the International Development Finance Corporation, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the heads of all other agencies that have discretionary programs that provide, facilitate, or advocate for financing of energy projects shall review their charters, regulations, guidance, policies, international agreements, analytical models and internal bureaucratic processes to ensure that such materials do not discourage the agency from financing coal mining projects and electricity generation projects. Consistent with law, and subject to the applicable agency head's discretion, where appropriate, any identified preferences against coal use shall immediately be eliminated except as explicitly provided for in statute.
(b) The Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the authority under the Act, shall determine whether metallurgical coal used in the production of steel meets the criteria to be designated as a “critical mineral” under the Act and, if so, shall take steps to place coal on the Department of the Interior Critical Minerals List.
(b) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Energy shall identify regions where coal-powered infrastructure is available and suitable for supporting AI data centers; assess the market, legal, and technological potential for expanding coal-based infrastructure to power data centers to meet the electricity needs of AI and high-performance computing operations; and submit a consolidated summary report with their findings and proposals to the Chair of the NEDC, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto.
(b) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Energy shall submit a detailed action plan to the President through the Chair of the NEDC outlining the funding mechanisms, programs, and policy actions taken to accelerate coal technology deployment.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Energy shall develop a uniform methodology for analyzing current and anticipated reserve margins for all regions of the bulk power system regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and shall utilize this methodology to identify current and anticipated regions with reserve margins below acceptable thresholds as identified by the Secretary of Energy. This methodology shall:
(c) The Secretary of Energy shall establish a process by which the methodology described in subsection (b) of this section, and any analysis and results it produces, are assessed on a regular basis, and a protocol to identify which generation resources within a region are critical to system reliability. This protocol shall additionally:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.