Agricultural Marketing Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Reclamation Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule; correction.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Dairy Program published a final rule in the
Effective May 7, 2025.
Erin Taylor, USDA/AMS/Dairy Programs, Order Formulation and Enforcement Division, STOP 0231—Room 2530, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0231, (202) 720-4392; Telephone: (202) 720-7183; Email:
In the final rule FR Doc. 2025-06939, beginning on page 16997 in the issue of April 23, 2025, make the following correction. On page 16997, in the third column, in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Discontinuation of rulemaking activity; denial of petition for rulemaking.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing a rulemaking activity, “Long-Term and Unattended Water Makeup of Spent Fuel Pools,” and denying a petition for rulemaking. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require that nuclear power plant licensees ensure long-term cooling and unattended water makeup of spent fuel pools (SFPs). The purpose of this action is to inform members of the public that this rulemaking activity is being discontinued and to provide a brief discussion of the NRC's decision to discontinue the rulemaking and deny the aspects of the petition not previously addressed by the NRC.
Effective May 7, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0069 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:
•
•
•
Christopher Prescott, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, telephone: 301-287-9452; email:
The NRC received a petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated March 14, 2011, submitted by Thomas Popik on behalf of the Foundation for Resilient Societies. On March 15, 2011, the petition was docketed by the NRC as PRM-50-96. The petitioner requested that the NRC amend its regulations to require facilities licensed by the NRC under part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” of title 10 of the
Licensees shall provide reliable emergency systems to provide long-term cooling and water makeup for spent fuel pools using only on-site power sources. These emergency systems shall be able to operate for a period of two years without human operator intervention and without offsite fuel resupply. Backup power systems for spent fuel pools shall be electrically isolated from other plant electrical systems during normal and emergency operation. If weather-dependent power sources are to be used, sufficient water or power storage must be provided to maintain continual cooling during weather conditions which may temporarily constrict power generation.
On May 6, 2011, the NRC published a notice of receipt and request for public comment for this petition in the
On December 18, 2012, the NRC closed the docket for PRM-50-96 by publishing a document in the
On August 9, 2019, the NRC published the MBDBE final rule (84 FR 39684), which partially resolved this PRM because it requires, in part, that licensees have plans to acquire and use offsite assistance and resources to support the functions of maintaining or restoring core cooling, containment, and SFP cooling capabilities during an extended loss of alternating current power. Furthermore, in the preamble for the MBDBE final rule, the Commission stated that the NRC would address the remaining issues in PRM-50-96 following the completion of the MBDBE rulemaking. A discussion of the NRC's decision to discontinue this rulemaking activity and deny PRM-50-96 is provided in section II of this document.
The NRC will discontinue rulemaking activities associated with PRM-50-96 and deny aspects of the petition related to the two issues that were not fully addressed by the MBDBE final rule. The first such issue was that current NRC regulations do not require power reactor licensees to undertake mitigating efforts for prolonged grid failure scenarios that could be caused by geomagnetically induced currents resulting from an extreme solar storm. The second issue was the petitioner's request that licensees be required to have emergency systems to assure long-term cooling and water makeup of SFPs capable of operating for a period of 2 years without human intervention and without offsite fuel resupply. These concerns not resolved by the MBDBE final rule have been addressed by other industry and government action, as described below.
Since 2012, there have been improvements in electrical grid resilience to geomagnetic disturbances and overall knowledge regarding the potential impacts of geomagnetic disturbances that address, in large part, the unresolved aspects of the PRM. The current understanding is that geomagnetic disturbances may cause localized grid failures but are unlikely to cause a widespread, long-term grid failure. This is demonstrated by improvements in space weather induced geoelectric field modeling through research sponsored by the United States Geological Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (see examples listed in section III of this document), in conjunction with industry efforts to quantify the associated risk to the power grid such as the 2017 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) report, “Magnetohydrodynamic Electromagnetic Pulse Assessment of the Continental U.S. Electric Grid: Voltage Stability Analysis.” Additionally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has worked to improve the resiliency of the grid to geomagnetic disturbances by implementing improved standards such as the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) TPL-007-4, “Transmission System Planned Performance for Geomagnetic Disturbance Events.” Currently, more than 80 percent of extra high voltage transformers are resistant against the effects of geomagnetically induced currents. With TPL-007-4 in effect, a widespread, long-term grid failure is unlikely because such grid failure is largely driven by failure of extra high voltage transformers that are now subject to standards for vulnerability assessments and associated corrective action plans.
Moreover, improvements in space weather monitoring allow grid operators to take actions that can protect grid equipment. Grid operators are directly engaged with NOAA—Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC). For example, the SWPC provides grid operators with timely notification of impending geomagnetic storms, forecasts, and real-time onset, strength, and duration information. This information allows active mitigation of potential space weather impacts. As such, damage to transformers and other vital equipment is less likely to occur. In 2014, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy established the Space Weather Operations, Research, and Mitigation (SWORM) Subcommittee to address operations, research, and mitigation of space weather issues. The first National Space Weather Strategy and Action Plan (NSW-SAP) in 2015 established the framework for a government-wide approach to space weather. In 2019, building on this coordinated effort and supported by Executive Order 13744, “Coordinating Efforts to Prepare the Nation for Space Weather Events,” the SWORM developed a revised NSW-SAP that improved and clarified ongoing and future space weather activities. The 2023 Implementation Plan of the National Space Weather Strategy serves as a roadmap for implementing the 2019 NSW-SAP over the following 5 years and supports continued grid management activities. Therefore, the petitioner's concerns of a potential geomagnetic disturbance resulting in 2-year grid failure have been addressed.
The second issue raised in the PRM regarding licensees' capability to have adequate fuel supply to provide continual power for active cooling and/or water makeup of SFPs during a grid failure resulting from a geomagnetic disturbance has also been addressed. The NRC has reasonable assurance of an onsite 7-day fuel supply to maintain safe shutdown; that offsite diesel fuel can be obtained in the event of such a grid failure through existing industry contracts; and that Federal, State, and local organizations have the capability to provide fuel supplies, if needed. The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, establish the minimum requirements for the principal design criteria for water-cooled nuclear power plants. Criterion 17, “Electric Power Systems,” requires that onsite electric power supplies, and the onsite electric distribution system, to have sufficient independence, redundancy, and testability to perform their safety
The NRC concludes that there is no safety concern necessitating the changes requested by the petitioner.
The NRC received 97 comment submissions on PRM-50-96. The NRC considered all the comments on the PRM and the comments from the MBDBE rulemaking that were not addressed by the final rule. Of the 97 comment submissions, 58 were form letter submissions. One comment came from an industry group, and the remainder were either anonymous submissions or from individuals.
For PRM-50-96, the only comment submission recommending the denial of the petition came from the Nuclear Energy Institute. The majority of comments supporting the petition were in a form letter format and did not provide additional technical information. The common concerns raised included long-term grid failure, loss of operators, inadequate or unreliable emergency generator fuel supply, SFP fires, solar flares, electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, and cyberattack.
Since the events of September 11, 2001, the NRC has actively addressed cybersecurity threats by establishing requirements in 2009 to protect safety, security, and emergency preparedness (SSEP) functions at commercial nuclear power plants. Specifically, 10 CFR 73.54, “Protection of digital computer and communication systems and networks,” requires commercial nuclear power plant licensees to protect digital computer and communication systems and networks associated with SSEP functions against cyberattacks. Commercial nuclear power plant licensees submitted cybersecurity plans and an implementation schedule that were reviewed and approved by the NRC in 2010. Since then, licensees completed full implementation of their cybersecurity programs from 2017 to 2020. During this period, the NRC conducted inspections verifying compliance with the requirements and the implementation schedule. Cybersecurity inspections are still ongoing to make sure those systems required for SSEP are protected, protections are maintained, and that upgrades are analyzed to ensure that adequate protections are in place prior to installation. Licensee cybersecurity programs are required to provide defense-in-depth protective strategies to ensure the capability to detect, respond to, and recover from cyberattacks, and these aspects are verified every 2 years via inspections.
Multiple comments raised the issue of the impacts of geomagnetic disturbances from solar flare activity or an EMP attack on transmission system protections. As described in section II.A of this document, this issue has been addressed through the implementation of the National Space Weather Action Plan, improved grid reliability standards, and other activities required by the 2019 Executive Order 13865, “Coordinating National Resilience to Electromagnetic Pulses,” as well as close coordination between the utilities, grid operators, and the SWPC.
Additionally, several commenters were concerned with the safety of SFPs and potential risks from fires, malicious attacks, and the compromise of structural integrity. These comments did not introduce any new information that has not been previously considered and addressed by the NRC. The NRC has a long history of evaluating SFP safety and security and has taken action to enhance safety and security, when necessary. The NRC's responses to public comments on the MBDBE proposed rule, dated July 31, 2019, include a description of some of the more important NRC actions involving SFPs.
Public comment submissions also echoed the concern of the petitioner that emergency systems need to be able to run without human intervention for up to 2 years and suggested that operators may be unavailable to reach the site to perform their duties. As discussed in part A of this section, the aspect of the PRM regarding licensees' capability to provide continual power for active cooling and/or water makeup of SFPs has been addressed. In addition, experience with past natural disasters and emergency events has shown that the NRC and licensees can respond to emergency situations affecting the ability of operators to perform their duties. For example, during the COVID-19 public health emergency, licensees were restricted in their ability to maintain an appropriate workforce to meet the NRC's minimum reactor operator staffing requirements. Despite these personnel challenges, public health and safety were maintained during continuous nuclear power plant operations. Therefore, the NRC has reasonable assurance that long-term disruptions to emergency systems will not occur and that operators will be able to perform their duties.
Over two-thirds of the public comment submissions for PRM-50-96 were partially addressed by the MBDBE final rule as they included concerns about the sufficiency of long-term cooling and offsite power availability. The requirements in § 50.155(b)(1) and (c) address, in part, the issues raised by the comments because these regulations require licensees to establish offsite assistance to support maintenance of the key functions, including both reactor and SFP cooling, following an extended loss of alternating current power.
Additionally, the NRC received multiple public comment submissions on the MBDBE proposed rule that concerned the effects of geomagnetic disturbances, and the Commission deferred these comments to the resolution of the outstanding issues in PRM-50-96. Although the MBDBE rule requires mitigation strategies that could be initially deployed and used to address the effects of geomagnetic disturbances if such disturbances lead to adverse impacts on the transmission system and an associated loss of offsite power, the MBDBE rule's regulatory scope does not address the issue of geomagnetic disturbances in its entirety. The deferred comments were concerned about the long-term failure of critical
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
The NRC is denying the aspects of PRM-50-96 that were not fully addressed by the MBDBE final rule and is discontinuing the “Long-Term Cooling and Unattended Water Makeup of Spent Fuel Pools” rulemaking for the reasons discussed in this document. If the NRC decides to pursue similar or related rulemaking activities in the future, it will inform the public through new rulemaking entries in the Unified Agenda.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule; withdrawal of determination.
DOE is withdrawing its prior determination that miscellaneous gas products (“MGPs”), which include decorative hearths and outdoor heaters, qualify as covered products under Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”).
The effective date of this final rule is June 6, 2025.
The docket for this activity, which includes
The docket web page can be found at
Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), DOE may add consumer products to the list of covered products for which energy conservation standards can be established.
On February 7, 2022, DOE published a notice of proposed determination (“NOPD”) that proposed to determine coverage for MGPs, which are comprised of decorative hearths and outdoor heaters. 87 FR 6786 (“February 2022 NOPD”). After considering public comments, data, and information from interested parties submitted on the February 2022 NOPD, DOE finalized the coverage determination for MGPs. 87 FR 54330 (Sept. 6, 2022) (“September 2022 Determination”).
On March 13, 2025, DOE published a proposed withdrawal of determination, in which DOE proposed to withdraw its determination that MGPs are covered products under EPCA for which DOE is authorized to establish test procedures and energy conservation standards, on the basis that outdoor heaters and decorative hearth products are not similar enough in function to be grouped together for the purposes of establishing a new type of covered product. 90 FR 11908 (“March 2025 Proposed Withdrawal”). This proposal included striking the definitions for “miscellaneous gas products,” “decorative hearth product,” and “outdoor heater” from the CFR, as established by the September 2022 Determination.
DOE developed this final withdrawal of coverage after considering comments, data, and information from interested parties that provided comments on the March 2025 Proposed Withdrawal.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
In response to the March 2025 proposed withdrawal, DOE received four general comments from individuals in support of withdrawing the coverage determination for MGPs. (Anonymous, No. 4, p. 1; Straunch, No. 5, p. 1; MacGregor, No. 7, p. 1; Williams, No. 13, pp. 3-4) AFP commented that it supports the withdrawal of coverage for MGPs and supported the rationale that the products are not similar enough in function to be grouped together for purposes of establishing a new type of covered product. (AFP, No. 8 at p. 3).
AGA, APGA, and the NPGA submitted a joint comment stating their support for the withdrawal of coverage of miscellaneous gas products as covered products under EPCA. (AGA
ASAP and Earthjustice submitted a joint comment, in which they expressed support for the adoption of an energy conservation standard for MGPs. In their comments, they highlight the potential of a design standard that would disallow continuous standing pilot lights for decorative hearth products, as well as the potential for performance standards for outdoor heaters. (ASAP and Earthjustice, No. 16, p. 1) However, ASAP and Earthjustice note they do not oppose the withdrawal of coverage for these products, as they do not support DOE maintaining federal coverage over products that are not subject to federal energy standards. (ASAP and Earthjustice, No. 16, pp. 1-2) DOE responds by noting that it has not adopted energy conservation standards for MGPs. Further, in this final rule, DOE has determined that MGPs, as defined in the September 2022 Determination, are not a “type of consumer product” for which DOE can establish coverage under 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1) and that as a result the coverage determination is not necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of statute. Should DOE decide to consider a design standard for outdoor heaters or decorative hearth products, it would need to initiate a new rulemaking or rulemakings as provided under EPCA.
NEEA expressed their opposition to the withdrawal of coverage for MGPs and encouraged DOE to maintain coverage of these products. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 1-2). DOE additionally received four comments from individuals opposing the proposal to withdraw the coverage determinations for MGPs, on the basis that there is potential for energy savings and an opportunity to mitigate climate impacts. (Penna, No. 3, p. 1; Claxton, No. 6, p. 1; Anonymous, No. 9, p. 1; Dawson, No. 15, p. 1)
Several comments received from individuals referred to products outside the scope of this rulemaking. (Moore, No. 2, p. 1; Straunch, No. 5, p. 1; Anonymous, No. 9, p. 1; Anne, No. 10, p. 1) The coverage of MGPs is limited to decorative hearth heaters and outdoor heaters that are gas-fired. All comments are available to review in the docket for this rulemaking.
AFB, APGA
HPBA expressed that they agree with DOE's rationale for withdrawing the determination of coverage and noted in their comments that the definitions for outdoor heaters and decorative hearth products are overly broad and encompass materially different products. (HPBA, No. 14, p 2) As identified by their comments, the “decorative hearth products” category includes vented gas fireplaces, indoor log sets, and outdoor products such as fire tables, which all serve different consumer needs and have different design requirements.
Williams stated that DOE should withdraw coverage of MGPs as a category to be consistent with precedent, but that the Department should consider regulating outdoor heaters and decorative hearths as separate covered products. (Williams, No. 13, pp. 3-4) Claxton, while opposing the withdrawal of the determination of coverage of MGPs, also commented that decorative hearth products and outdoor heaters could be redefined and categorized as separate products. (Claxton, No. 6, p. 1)
NEEA, ASAP and Earthjustice, and Claxton all commented that they disagree with the rationale that outdoor heaters and decorative hearth products do not share a major function and therefore cannot be grouped together to be regulated as a single type of consumer product. (NEEA, No. 12, pp. 1-2; ASAP and Earthjustice, No. 16, p. 1; Claxton, No. 6, p. 1) ASAP and Earthjustice stated that this action does not account for the complexity of the overlapping market for these products, and noted that DOE previously has acknowledged that aesthetic values are an important part of the function of both decorative hearth products and outdoor heaters. (ASAP and Earthjustice, No. 16, p. 1) These joint commenters further noted that EPCA names “electric motors and pumps” as a single type of covered equipment, despite the fact that electric motors have a wider array of applications than pumps. They similarly noted that EPCA groups battery charger and external power supplies together although the function of these products differs in all but the broadest sense of facilitating energy use in other products. (ASAP and Earthjustice, No. 16, p. 2)
On a similar note, NEEA stated that while some MGP designs focus more on aesthetics and others focus more on supplemental heat, both types of these appliances provide some supplemental heat to consumers in indoor or outdoor spaces. (NEEA, No. 12, p. 2) Claxton additionally noted that both types of appliances are gas-powered, used in households, and consume significant amounts of energy, which could be used as justification for grouping these products as one covered product. (Claxton, No. 6, p. 1)
Upon consideration of these comments, DOE agrees with those commenters which have expressed that outdoor heaters and decorative hearth products are not similar enough in function to be grouped together for the purposes of establishing a new type of covered product. DOE notes that the categories of outdoor heaters and decorative hearths cover a wide variety of products, and these varied products as a whole do not share a major function on a consistent enough basis in order to establish them as a single covered product. While some decorative products may provide some ambient heat, and some outdoor heaters may have an aesthetic component to their design, as defined in the September 2022 Determination these functions are not required to meet the definition of either a decorative hearth product or an outdoor heater. Indeed, while decorative hearths are defined to expressly exclude products “designed to provide heat proximate to the unit,” outdoor heaters are defined to be “designed to provide
For the reasons discussed in the preceding section of this document, DOE has determined that outdoor heaters and decorative hearth products are not similar enough in function to be grouped together for the purposes of establishing a new type of covered product. As a result, DOE has determined that MGPs, as defined in the September 2022 Determination, are not a “type of consumer product” for which DOE can establish coverage under 42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1) and that as a result the coverage determination is not necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of statute.
Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this regulatory action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed this final withdrawal of a determination under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. This withdrawal does not establish test procedures or standards for MGPs and if adopted, DOE would no longer have the authority to consider adopting such measures. Therefore, DOE concludes that the impacts of the withdrawal would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of an IRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
This final withdrawal of a determination, which concludes that MGPs as defined by the September 2022 Determination do not meet the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may consider prescribing energy conservation standards pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, the OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”), DOE has analyzed this final withdrawal in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that are strictly procedural. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A6. DOE has determined this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion A6 because it is a strictly procedural rulemaking and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final determination.
E.O. 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this withdrawal of a determination and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this withdrawal of a determination meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
DOE examined this withdrawal of a determination according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the withdrawal of coverage does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final withdrawal of a determination would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), DOE has determined that this final withdrawal of a determination would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at:
E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This final withdrawal of a determination, which does not amend or establish energy conservation standards for MGPs, is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly,
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (“the Bulletin”). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses are “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2664, 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses that are typically used and prepared a report describing that peer review.
DOE has examined this final withdrawal of a determination and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154 “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and Presidential Memorandum, “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis.”
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule; withdrawal of determination.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 1, 2025, by Louis Hrkman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2025.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-09-14 which applied to certain Airbus Helicopters (Airbus) Model SA330J helicopters. AD 2021-09-14 required repetitively inspecting for a gap between the main gearbox (MGB) oil cooling fan assembly (fan) rotor blade and the upper section of the guide vane bearing housing, installing improved MGB fan rotor shaft bearings, and repetitively inspecting the improved MGB fan rotor shaft bearings. Since the FAA issued AD 2021-09-14, Airbus has developed modifications to the components of the MGB fan bearing assembly and issued new material regarding these modifications. This AD retains the actions required by AD 2021-09-14 and also requires installing the improved MGB fan rotor bearing assembly, which constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections. These actions are specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective June 11, 2025.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 11, 2025.
• For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Hal Jensen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (303) 342-1080; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-09-14, Amendment 39-21528 (86 FR 26829, May 18, 2021) (AD 2021-09-14). AD 2021-09-14 applied to Airbus Model SA330J helicopters with MGB fan rotor shaft bearings (both rear and front) part number (P/N) 704A33651114 (manufacturer P/N (MP/N) 205FFTX74K6-G33) or P/N 704A33651268 (MP/N 594918) installed. AD 2021-09-14 required repetitively inspecting for a gap between the MGB fan rotor blade and the upper section of the guide vane bearing housing and, depending on the results or within a specified compliance time, installing improved MGB fan rotor shaft bearings and repetitively inspecting the improved MGB fan rotor shaft bearings. The FAA issued AD 2021-09-14 to prevent rotor burst of the MGB fan, damage to the hydraulic lines and flight controls, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain all the requirements of AD 2021-09-14 and require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2022-0191 except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD and except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and EASA AD 2022-0191.” You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0191, which requires repetitively inspecting for play (a gap) on the MGB fan rotor shaft bearings (both rear and front) between the MGB fan rotor blade and the upper section of the guide vane bearing housing. If there is play that does not meet the minimum requirement or at a specified compliance time, EASA AD 2022-0191 requires replacing the affected MGB fan rotor shaft bearings with serviceable MGB fan rotor shaft bearings (both rear and front) as defined in EASA AD 2022-0191. Additionally, EASA AD 2022-0191 allows credit for performing these inspections and corrective action, provided specific requirements are met.
EASA AD 2022-0191 also requires modifying the MGB fan bearing assembly, which would constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
Lastly, EASA AD 2022-0191 only allows installing serviceable MGB fan rotor shaft bearings as defined in EASA AD 2022-0191 and installing an improved MGB fan bearing assembly as defined in EASA AD 2022-0191.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
The inspection material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0191 specifies returning certain parts to the manufacturer, whereas this AD requires removing those parts from service instead. The inspection material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0191 specifies completing a response form, whereas this AD does not require that action.
The modification material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0191 specifies sending the fan-bearing assembly to an approved D-level maintenance center for modification, whereas this AD requires installing modification 0776102, and as applicable, modification 0725373.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 6 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD.
Inspecting for a gap between the MGB fan rotor blade and the upper section of the guide vane bearing housing takes 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $1,020 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.
Replacing the MGB fan rotor shaft bearings takes 6 work-hours and parts cost $1,938 for an estimated cost of $2,448 per helicopter and $14,688 for the U.S. fleet.
Removing the flexible duct, installing new flexible duct MOD 0776104, removing the fan-bearing assembly, and installing the modified fan-bearing assembly takes 8 work-hours and parts cost $10,000 for an estimated cost of $10,680 per helicopter and $64,080 for the U.S. fleet.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 11, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2021-09-14, Amendment 39-21528 (86 FR 26829, May 18, 2021) (AD 2021-09-14).
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6322, Main Gearbox Oil Cooler.
This AD was prompted by the development of a modification for an improved main gearbox (MGB) fan rotor bearing assembly. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent rotor burst of the MGB fan, damage to the hydraulic lines and flight controls, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0191, dated September 15, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0191).
(1) Where EASA AD 2022-0191 refers to August 11, 2020 (the effective date of EASA AD 2020-0171, dated July 28, 2020) and to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2022-0191 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD requires using hours time-in-service.
(3) Where the inspection ASB material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0191 specifies to return certain parts to Airbus Helicopters, this AD requires removing those parts from service.
(4) Where the inspection ASB material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0191 specifies completing the response form in Appendix 4, this AD does not require that action.
(5) Where the modification ASB material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0191 specifies “sending the fan-bearing assembly to an approved D-level maintenance center to integrate modification 0776102 and where applicable, modification 0725373,” this AD requires replacing that text with “installing modification 0776102, and as applicable, modification 0725373.”
(6) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2022-0191.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0191 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the actions of this AD can be performed, provided there are no passengers onboard.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local Flight Standards District Office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Hal Jensen, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (303) 342-1080; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0191, dated September 15, 2022.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 7, 2025. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 7, 2025.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Romana B. Wolf, Manager, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Office of Safety Standards, Flight Standards Service, Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone (405) 954-1139.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective May 7, 2025. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 7, 2025.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Romana B. Wolf, Manager, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Office of Safety Standards, Flight Standards Service, Aviation Safety, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone (405) 954-1139.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Air Missions (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
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. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Final rule.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has adopted a final rule making inflation adjustments to civil monetary penalties within its jurisdiction. This final rule represents the annual 2025 inflation adjustments of monetary penalties. These adjustments are required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
This final rule is effective May 7, 2025.
Griffin Farris, Office of the General Counsel, NASA Headquarters, (202) 358-1448.
The Inflation Adjustment Act, as amended by the 2015 Act, required Federal agencies to adjust the civil penalty amounts within their jurisdiction for inflation by July 1, 2016. Subsequent to the 2016 adjustment, Federal agencies were required to make an annual inflation adjustment by January 15 every year thereafter.
Pursuant to the Act, adjustments to the civil penalties are required to be made by January 15 of each year. The annual adjustments are based on the percent change between the United States Department of Labor's Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment and the CPI-U for October of the prior year (28 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2461 note, section (5)(b)(1)). Based on that formula, the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for the 2025 adjustment is 1.02598. Pursuant to the 2015 Act, adjustments are rounded to the nearest dollar.
This final rule makes the required adjustments to civil penalties for 2025. Applying the 2025 multiplier above, the adjustments for each penalty are summarized below.
This rule codifies these civil penalty amounts by amending parts 1264 and 1271 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
NASA issues this rule under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990,
Section 553 of title 5 of the U.S.C. generally requires an agency to publish a rule at least 30 days before its effective date to allow for advance notice and opportunity for public comments.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866, it is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis.
No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.
Claims, Lobbying, Penalties.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, NASA is amending 14 CFR parts 1264 and 1271 as follows:
31 U.S.C. 3809, 51 U.S.C. 20113(a).
Section 319, Pub. L. 101-121 (31 U.S.C. 1352); Pub. L. 97-258 (31 U.S.C. 6301
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Office of General Counsel.
Interim final rule; request for comments; extension of comment period.
On March 3, 2025, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published in the
The comment period for the interim final rule published on March 3, 2025, at 90 FR 11020, is extended. Comments should be received on or before May 9, 2025.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Regulations Division,
1.
2.
Andrew Hughes, Chief of Staff, or Brian Miller, Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-402-2244 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
On March 3, 2025, at 90 FR 11020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published in the
The interim final rule provided for a 60-day comment period, which would have ended May 2, 2025. However, following a migration performed on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 23, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Bombardier material identified in this proposed AD, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-2999; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
John Massey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7300; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to John Massey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7300; email:
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2024-17, dated May 23, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-17) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address potential structural, control system, and navigational system failures which could result in loss of control of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed the following Bombardier documents:
• Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 300 Time Limits/Maintenance Check (TLMC), Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, Revision 24, dated August 9, 2023. (For obtaining Bombardier Challenger 300 TLMC, Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, use Document Identification No. CH 300 TLMC.)
• Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger
This material specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for safe life limits and certification maintenance requirements. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and material referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 782 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by June 23, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address potential structural, control system, and navigational system failures. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the applicable time limits/maintenance checks (TLMC) manual identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD. The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of the applicable TLMC manual identified in paragraph (g)(1) or (2) of this AD is at the time specified in the applicable TLMC manual, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(1) For Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 20003 through 20457 inclusive: Bombardier Challenger 300 Time Limits/Maintenance Check (TLMC), Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, Revision 24, dated August 9, 2023.
(2) For Model BD-100-1A10 airplanes having S/Ns 20501 through 21399 inclusive: Bombardier Challenger 350 TLMC, Publication No. CH 350 TLMC, Revision 14, dated August 9, 2023.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact John Massey, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (516) 228-7300; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 300 Time Limits/Maintenance Check (TLMC), Publication No. CH 300 TLMC, Revision 24, dated August 9, 2023.
(ii) Part 2, “Airworthiness Limitations,” of Bombardier Challenger 350 TLMC, Publication No. CH 350 TLMC, Revision 14, dated August 9, 2023.
(3) For Bombardier material identified in this AD, contact Bombardier Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514 855 2999; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
This action provides a second extension of the comment period for a NPRM that was originally published on March 20, 2025. In that document, the FAA proposed to establish restricted areas R-5305A, R-5305B, and R-5305C at Camp Lejeune, NC; and restricted areas R-5307A, R-5307B, and R-5307C at Cherry Point, NC. A four-day extension to the comment period was previously issued on April 16, 2025. The present extension provides an additional two weeks for comments in response to a request by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) to extend the comment period to analyze newly provided supporting graphics.
The comment period for the NPRM published on March 20, 2025 (90 FR 13112), was initially scheduled to close on May 5, 2025; an extension of the comment period was published in the
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2025-0273 and Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-43 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations Group, Policy Directorate, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
The FAA originally published a NPRM for Docket No. FAA 2025-0273 in the
On April 29, 2025, the FAA received a request from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) to include graphical depictions in Docket No. FAA 2025-0273 of the proposed restricted areas R-5305A, R-5305B, and R-5305C at Camp Lejeune, NC; and proposed restricted areas R-5307A, R-5307B, and R-5307C at Cherry Point, NC. Subsequently, the requested graphics of each proposed restricted area were uploaded to the docket. Additionally, AOPA further requested that the comment period be extended by two weeks, to May 23, 2025, to allow additional time for the public to analyze the graphics and to provide feedback. The FAA finds it appropriate for the comment period to be extended and hereby grants a two-week extension as requested.
The FAA has determined that an extension of the comment period is consistent with the public interest, and that good cause exists for taking this action. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the comment period for Docket No. FAA-2025-0273; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-43 originally published in the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public 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 Utah Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom at 3 p.m. mountain time (MT) on Tuesday, July 22, 2025. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the Committee's report on the topic, “The Civil Rights Implications of Disparate Outcomes in Utah's K-12 Education System”.
Tuesday, July 22, 2025, from 3 p.m.-4 p.m. MT.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Brooke Peery, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration 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. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be 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 within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Brooke Peery at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via the file sharing website,
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cased pencils (pencils) from the People's Republic of China (China) for the period of review (POR) December 1, 2023 to November 30, 2024.
Applicable May 7, 2025.
Elizabeth Beuley, 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) 482-3269.
On December 28, 1994, Commerce published in the
On January 13, 2025, Commerce issued a questionnaire to Aloha Pencil Co. (Aloha Pencil) to assess its standing as a domestic producer, manufacturer, or wholesaler of pencils during the POR.
On February 7, 2025, Aloha Pencil timely submitted its Standing Questionnaire Response.
On March 25, 2025, based on the information on the record, Commerce determined that Aloha Pencil was not a
On March 26, 2025, Commerce released the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data to all interested parties under an administrative protective order and requested comments regarding the data and respondent selection.
On April 3, 2025, Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind this review in full because there were no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise from the five remaining companies under review and invited comments from interested parties.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an antidumping duty order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable May 7, 2025.
Brian Smith and Hannah Lee, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement
On January 2, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of imports of erythritol from the People's Republic of China.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in an LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On April 22, 2025, the petitioner
For the reasons stated above and because there are no compelling reasons to deny the request, Commerce, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable April 30, 2025.
Thomas Schauer, Office I, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.
On April 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of lattice boom crawler cranes from Japan, filed in proper form on behalf of The Manitowoc Company, Inc. (the petitioner), a domestic producer of lattice boom crawler cranes.
Between April 15 and 23, 2025, Commerce requested supplemental information pertaining to certain aspects of the Petition in supplemental questionnaires.
In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of lattice boom crawler cranes from Japan 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 lattice boom crawler cranes industry in the United States. Consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition was accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.
Commerce finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry, because the petitioner is an interested party, as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. Commerce also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support for the initiation of the requested LTFV investigation.
Because the Petition was filed on April 10, 2025, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) for the Japan LTFV investigation is April 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025.
The products covered by this investigation are lattice boom crawler cranes from Japan. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
Between April 15 and 28, 2025, Commerce requested information and clarification from the petitioner 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
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 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.
Commerce is providing interested parties an opportunity to comment on the appropriate physical characteristics of lattice boom crawler cranes 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 cost of production (COP) 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. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) general product characteristics; and (2) product comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product comparison criteria. We base product comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe lattice boom crawler cranes, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, Commerce attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.
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 May 20, 2025, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, and should also be limited to public information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 30, 2025, which is 10 calendar days from the initial comment deadline. All comments and submissions to Commerce must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of the LTFV investigation.
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 petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation.
On April 29, 2025, we received an industry support challenge from Link-Belt Cranes (Link-Belt), a U.S. producer and importer of lattice boom crawler cranes.
Section 732(c)(4)(B) of the Act states that (i) Commerce “shall disregard the position of domestic producers who oppose the petition if such producers are related to foreign producers, as defined in section 771(4)(B)(ii), unless such domestic producers demonstrate that their interests as domestic producers would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping duty order”; and (ii) Commerce “may disregard the position of domestic producers of a domestic like product who are importers of the subject merchandise.” In addition, 19 CFR 351.203(e)(4) states that the position of a domestic producer that opposes the petition (i) will be disregarded “if such producer is related to a foreign producer or to a foreign exporter under section 771(4)(B(ii) of the Act, unless such domestic producer demonstrates to the Secretary's satisfaction that its interests as a domestic producer would be adversely affected by the imposition of an antidumping duty order”; and (ii) may be disregarded if the producer “is an importer of the subject merchandise {or} is related to such an importer, under section 771(4)(B)(ii) of the Act.”
The information on the record indicates that Link-Belt is related to a foreign producer of lattice boom crawler cranes and/or imported subject merchandise from Japan.
Based on our analysis and review of the information on the record, we have determined that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.
The petitioner alleges 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 petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by a significant increase in the volume of subject imports; increase in subject market share; lost sales and revenues; underselling and price depression and/or suppression; low capacity utilization; adverse impact on employment variables; and negative impact on financial performance.
The following is a description of the allegations of sales at LTFV upon which Commerce based its decision to initiate an LTFV investigation of imports of lattice boom crawler cranes from Japan. 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 Japan AD Initiation Checklist.
The petitioner based export price (EP) on a transaction-specific average unit value (AUV) (
The petitioner based NV on home market pricing information it obtained
As noted above, the petitioner provided information indicating the prices for lattice boom crawler cranes sold or offered for sale in Japan were below the COP. Therefore, the petitioner calculated NV based on CV.
Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, the petitioner calculated CV as the sum of the cost of manufacturing, selling, general, and administrative (SG&A) expenses, financial expenses, and profit.
Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of lattice boom crawler cranes from Japan are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 772 and 773 of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for lattice boom crawler cranes from Japan is 157.43 percent.
Based upon the examination of the Petition and supplemental responses, we find that they meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an LTFV investigation to determine whether imports of lattice boom crawler cranes from Japan 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 determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.
In the Petition, the petitioner identified two companies in Japan as producers and/or exporters of lattice boom crawler cranes.
Commerce will also 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 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the government of Japan 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 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 Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of lattice boom crawler cranes from Japan 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
Section 773(e) of the Act addresses the concept of particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of CV,
Neither section 773(e) of the Act, nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v), sets a deadline for the submission of cost-based PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a cost-based PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of a respondent's initial section D questionnaire response.
We note that a PMS allegation filed pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii)(III) or 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act (
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 countervailing duty 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 732(c)(2) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.203(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation consists of lattice boom crawler cranes, and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies. Lattice boom crawler cranes combine the assemblies defined below, among other components, including a lower carriage assembly fitted with tank-link crawler tracks, an upper carriage housing the operator cab, engine, and hydraulics, and a boom made of steel pipe welded together in a distinctive lattice pattern. The scope of this investigation covers lattice boom crawler cranes and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, and whether or not the lattice boom crawler crane contains any additional features that provide for functions beyond the primary lifting function. All lattice boom crawler cranes are included in the scope regardless of maximum lift capacity, lattice boom length, jib configuration, or other added features.
Subject merchandise includes, but is not limited to, the following lattice boom crawler crane assemblies which can be imported in isolation or combined in different configurations at the time of import:
• Lattice boom assemblies and pieces thereof. Lattice boom assemblies are formed of interlocking sections of welded high-strength steel pipe, that form the lifting attachment of the crane. A lattice boom is formed by welding main chords together with lacing pipes typically arranged in a “W” or “V” pattern. Lattice boom assemblies consist of a boom butt (also known as a boom bottom or boom base), which attaches to the upper carriage assembly, and a boom head (also known as a boom tip or boom hat), which forms the other end of the boom structure. In between the boom butt and boom head, boom inserts of various lengths can be inserted to reach the desired boom height and load bearing capability. Lattice boom assemblies may be imported with boom butt, boom tip, and boom inserts together, but boom butt, boom tip, and boom inserts imported alone are also covered by the scope.
• Lower carriage assembly. The lower carriage assembly (also may be referred to as a carbody or lower works) is constructed with high-strength steel components and forms the base of the crawler crane. The lower carriage assembly typically includes various motors, drive mechanisms, and hydraulics. The lower carriage assembly may also include a set of counterweights to provide backward stability for the assembled crane. The lower carriage typically has a circular center that is connected to the upper carriage assembly with a bearing. The lower and upper carriage assemblies may or may not be connected by a bearing at the time of importation. Steel arms extend from the center of the lower carriage and connect to
• Crawler assembly. Each lattice boom crawler crane contains at least two crawler assemblies, which are continuous tracks that provide mobility and distribute the crane's weight evenly across the ground. The tracks of a lattice boom crawler crane consist of steel track shoes, which are interlocking steel plates that form the tread of the tracks and make direct contact with the ground, a track chain, which is a continuous loop of interconnected steel links, and a crawler body and track rollers, which support the track shoes and track chain. Typically, drive motors mounted on the lower carriage assembly connect to crawler-mounted drive sprockets, which engage the track chain and allow the LBCC to move forward and backward.
• Upper carriage assembly. The upper carriage assembly, also known as the upper works, typically includes the operator's cab, hydraulic systems, engine, boom hoist, mast, and a turntable base with swing drive mechanism that connects to the lower carriage assembly and allows the upper carriage to pivot on the lower carriage assembly. The upper and lower carriage assemblies may or may not be connected by a bearing at the time of importation. The upper carriage assembly may also include a separate counterweight tray and counterweights, which allow the crane to maintain balance while lifting heavy loads, as well as a gantry, which helps lift the boom and counterweights during installation, although the counterweight tray, counterweights, and gantry are not required to be attached for the upper carriage assembly to be a subject assembly. The boom butt may or may not be attached to the upper carriage assembly at the time of entry.
• Hoisting assembly. The hoisting assembly, housed within the upper carriage assembly and lattice boom assembly, powers the lifting and lowering of loads and typically consists of a hoisting line of high strength steel cable, a hoist motor, hoist brakes, hoisting drums, and a hook block formed from steel sheaves, which helps distribute the load on the hoisting line and increases lifting capacity. The main hoisting line typically runs from the hoist drums, housed in the upper carriage assembly, up through the lattice boom (which may or may not house additional hoist drums) and hook block.
• Jib assemblies. Jib assemblies are optional components that can be added to the top end of the boom to provide the crane with greater reach. Similar to lattice boom assemblies, jib assemblies typically consist of interlocking sections of welded steel pipe, arranged in a “V” or “W” lattice pattern. Jib assemblies can consist of either fixed jib, which extends from the main lattice boom at a fixed angle, or a luffing jib, which can be raised or lowered by the operator through a separate set of controls.
Importation of any of these assemblies, whether assembled or unassembled, constitutes unfinished lattice boom crawler cranes for purposes of this investigation. Inclusion of other components not identified as comprising the finished or unfinished lattice boom crawler cranes and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies do not remove the products from the scope.
Processing of lattice boom crawler cranes and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies such as welding, joining, bolting, painting, coating, finishing, or assembly, either in the country of manufacture of the in-scope product or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope. Lattice boom crawler cranes and lattice boom crawler crane assemblies subject to this investigation include those that are produced in the subject country whether assembled with other components in the subject country or in a third country. Processing or completion of finished and unfinished lattice boom crawler cranes and the covered lattice boom crawler crane assemblies either in the subject country or in a third country does not remove the product from the scope.
Lattice boom crawler cranes subject to this investigation are typically classifiable under subheadings 8426.49.0010 and 8426.49.0090 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Lattice boom crawler crane assemblies may also be classified under subheadings 8426.49.0010 or 8426.49.0090, or may be classified under subheadings 8431.49.1090, 8431.49.1060, or 8425.19.0000 of the HTSUS. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that countervailable subsidies were provided to producers and exporters of forged steel fluid end blocks (fluid end blocks) from Italy, during the period of review (POR) January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable May 7, 2025.
Stefan Smith or Theodore Pearson, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4342 or (202) 482-2631, respectively.
On January 21, 2021, Commerce published in the
For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this administrative review,
The merchandise covered by the
Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each subsidy program found countervailable, we preliminarily find that there is a subsidy,
There are two companies, Cogne Acciai Speciali S.p.A. (CAS) and Forge Monchieri S.p.A. (Forge Monchieri) for which a review was requested, which had reviewable entries, and which were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent. For these companies, because the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, Lucchini and Metalcam, were above
Commerce preliminary determines that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these preliminary results to interested parties within five days of the public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days after publication of this notice.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs to Commerce no later than 21 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review.
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 interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless extended, we intend to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we preliminarily determined subsidy rates in the amounts shown above for the producers/exporters shown above. Upon completion of the administrative review, consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
For Lucchini, Metalcam, and the non-selected companies under review, we intend 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
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 the estimated countervailing duties in the amounts calculated in the final results of this review for the respective companies 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. If the rate calculated in the final results is zero or
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.
These preliminary results of review are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that the exporters of passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (China) listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below, sold subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), August 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023. Further, we also determine that certain companies under review had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Applicable May 7, 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 September 11, 2024, we published the
The products covered by this
We addressed all the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised is provided in Appendix I of 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 comments received from interested parties regarding the
In the
In the
In the
Finally, we also stated in the
Commerce's policy regarding conditional review of the China-wide entity applies to this administrative review.
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address what rate to apply to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. 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 companies 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,
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 2022, through July 31, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results to interested parties within five days of any public
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), 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. 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
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because Junhong reported the entered value for its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
Pursuant to Commerce's assessment practice,
For respondents not individually examined in this administrative review that qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be equal to the dumping margin calculated for Junhong. Finally, for the companies listed in Appendix II found to be part of the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to liquidate all entries of subject merchandise during the POR exported by these companies at the China-wide assessment rate of 76.46 percent.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date for the final results of review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Junhong and the other exporters listed above that have a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or
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 this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing these final results of administrative review and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1) and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain corrosion-resistant steel
Applicable May 7, 2025.
Deborah Cohen or Anjali Mehindiratta, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4521 or (202) 482-9127, respectively.
On September 4, 2024, Commerce published the
The products covered by 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 attached as the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding the
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to individual 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 review 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 or
For the final results of this administrative review, we calculated a dumping margin of zero percent for SYSCO and 0.99 percent for Prosperity. Thus, we assign to the non-selected company, Great Grandeul Steel Company Limited (Samoa), a weighted-average dumping margin of 0.99 percent, based on the rate calculated for Prosperity, the only rate that is not zero,
Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection with these final results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(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
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondents for which they did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries not reviewed at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
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 upon publication of the final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on, or after, the publication date of the final results of review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the companies identified above in the “Final Results of Review” section will be equal to the company-specific weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior complete segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the producer of the merchandise; (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 11.04 percent,
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the final reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(l) and 777(i)(l) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) on May 28, 2025. See
The SSC meeting will be held via webinar from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m., EDT on May 28, 2025.
The meeting will be held via webinar.
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-
The meeting is open to the public via webinar as it occurs. Webinar registration is required. Information regarding webinar registration is available from the Council's website at:
The meeting agenda includes a review of the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) 92: Atlantic Blueline Tilefish Stock Assessment, the SEDAR 76 Update: South Atlantic Black Sea Bass catch level projections, and the terms of reference for the 2026 gag grouper stock assessment. The SSC will receive an update on the SEDAR process changes and conduct other business as needed. The SSC will provide guidance to staff and make recommendations for Council consideration.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability.
Notice is hereby given that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) have provided Hatchery and Genetic Management Plans (HGMPs) pursuant to the protective regulations promulgated for Pacific salmon and steelhead under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The HGMPs include the Big Creek Chum, Washougal winter steelhead (Skamania stock), Grays River Tule conservation, and the Abernathy Tule conservation programs. This document serves to notify the public of the availability of these HGMPs for comment prior to a decision by NMFS on whether to approve the proposed hatchery programs.
Comments must be received at the appropriate address (see
Written responses to the addendum should be addressed to the NMFS Sustainable Fisheries Division, 1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232. Comments may be submitted by email. The mailbox address for providing email comments is:
Natasha Preston at (503) 320-4997 or by email at
The HGMPs submitted by WDFW and ODFW include the Big Creek Chum, Washougal winter steelhead (Skamania stock), Grays River Tule conservation, and the Abernathy Tule conservation programs. The HGMPs were submitted to NMFS for review under ESA Limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule. The HGMPs describe broodstock collection, incubation, rearing, release, and monitoring and evaluation.
The Big Creek chum program was submitted by ODFW. It has a prior 4(d) authorization of producing 300k chum salmon. This HGMP is proposing a new goal of releasing 1,690,000 chum salmon. WDFW submitted the three conservation hatchery programs (Washougal winter steelhead, Grays River Tule, and Abernathy Tule), as part of the updated Mitchell Act Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation (2024). All HGMPs are designed to aid in conserving their populations across the Evolutionary Significant Unit and/or Distinct Population Segment range. The programs use adaptive management procedures and the best available science to reduce adverse genetic effects and lessen competition and predation impacts typically associated with salmon and steelhead hatchery programs.
Prior to approving an HGMP under limit 5 of the 4(d) Rule, NMFS must publish notification announcing the availability of the HGMP for public review and comment.
Dated: April 30, 2025.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 87 Review Workshop for Gulf brown, pink, and white shrimp.
The SEDAR 87 assessment process of Gulf brown, pink, and white shrimp will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 87 Review Workshop will be held from 1 p.m. on June 23, 2025, until 1 p.m. on June 27, 2025. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the assessment process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data/Assessment Workshop, and (2) a series of webinars. The product of the Data/Assessment Workshop is a report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses, and describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and State and Federal agencies.
The items of discussion in the Review Workshop are as follows:
Participants will evaluate the data and assessment reports, as specified in the Terms of Reference for the workshop and determine if they are scientifically sound.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of application to renew one scientific research and enhancement permit; request for comments.
Notice is hereby given that NMFS has received a request to renew an existing scientific research and enhancement permit for white abalone. The proposed work is intended to increase knowledge of species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and to help guide management, conservation, and recovery efforts. The application may be viewed online at:
Comments or requests for a public hearing on the application must be received at the provided email address (see
All written comments on the application should be submitted by email to
Anyone requesting a hearing on the application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on the application would be appropriate, submitted by email to
Susan Wang, Long Beach, CA (email:
The following listed species are covered in this notice:
Endangered white abalone (
Scientific research and enhancement permits are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
The NMFS West Coast Region (WCR) has requested to renew a research and enhancement permit that currently authorizes a field outplanting program for white abalone. The permit allows the NMFS WCR and approved partners to outplant captive-bred larval, juvenile, and adult white abalone from captive facilities to various subtidal field sites along the southern California coast and to monitor white abalone at these sites over time. The requested permit renewal would allow these activities to continue for an additional 5 years.
The purpose of the proposed research and enhancement activities is to develop an effective strategy for recovering white abalone throughout the species' range. The permit renewal would allow researchers to continue outplanting efforts and optimizing methods (including life stages, outplant densities, selection of outplant sites) to maximize the growth and survival of outplanted abalone. The proposed work would benefit the listed species by increasing the numbers of white abalone in the wild to create self-sustaining populations in locations where white abalone are close to or at local extinction.
Activities would include field outplanting of white abalone at the larval, juvenile, and adult stages, as well as post-outplant monitoring to assess
This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decision will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD; Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Notice of intent; extension of comment period.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation (co-lead agencies) are further extending the scoping period and re-scheduling public meetings for the notice of intent entitled, “Notice of Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Columbia River System Operations,” published in the
The co-lead agencies invite Federal and State agencies, Native American Tribes, local governments, and the public to submit scoping comments relevant to the supplemental National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process no later than August 15, 2025. Information also will be provided at public meetings. Information on the public meetings is provided under the
Written comments, requests to be placed on the project mailing list, and requests for information may be mailed by letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Northwestern Division Attn: CRSO SEIS, P.O. Box 2870, Portland, OR 97208-2870; or by email to
Tim Fleeger, Columbia River Basin Policy and Environmental Coordinator, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 (800) 290-5033 or email
The scoping period for the notice of intent published in the
Denali Commission.
Notice.
The Denali Commission (Commission) is an independent Federal agency based on an innovative Federal-State partnership designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure and support for economic development and training in Alaska by delivering Federal services in the most cost-effective manner possible. The Commission is required to develop an annual work plan for future spending which will be published in the
Comments and related material to be received by June 16, 2025.
Submit comments to the Denali Commission, Attention: Anne Stanislowski, 550 W 7th Avenue, Suite 1230, Anchorage, AK 99501.
Anne Stanislowski, Denali Commission, 550 W 7th Avenue, Suite 1230, Anchorage, AK 99501. Telephone: (907) 271-1414. Email:
By creating the Commission, Congress mandated that all parties involved partner together to find new and innovative solutions to the unique infrastructure and economic development challenges in America's most remote communities. Pursuant to the Denali Commission Act, the Commission determines its own basic operating principles and funding criteria on an annual Federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30) basis. The Commission outlines these priorities and funding recommendations in an annual work plan. The FY 2026 Work Plan was developed in the following manner.
• A workgroup comprised of Denali Commissioners and Commission staff developed a preliminary draft work plan.
• The preliminary draft work plan was published on
• A public hearing was held to record public comments and recommendations on the preliminary draft work plan.
• Written comments on the preliminary draft work plan were also accepted.
• All public hearing comments and written comments were provided to Commissioners for their review and consideration.
• Commissioners discussed the preliminary draft work plan in a public meeting and then voted on the work plan during the meeting.
• The Commissioners forwarded their recommended work plan to the Federal Co-Chair, who then prepared the draft work plan for publication in the
• At the conclusion of the
• If no revisions are made to the draft, the Federal Co-Chair provides notice of approval of the work plan to the Commissioners, and forwards the work plan to the Secretary of Commerce for approval; or, if there are revisions the Federal Co-Chair provides notice of modifications to the Commissioners for their consideration and approval, and upon receipt of approval from Commissioners, forwards the work plan to the Secretary of Commerce for approval.
• The Secretary of Commerce approves the work plan.
• The Federal Co-Chair then approves grants and contracts based upon the approved work plan.
The Commission has historically received Federal funding from several sources. The three primary sources at this time include the Energy & Water Appropriation Bill (“base” or “discretionary” funds), transfers from the Department of Transportation and an annual allocation from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Liability (TAPL) fund. The proposed FY 2026 Work Plan assumes the Commission will receive $17,000,000 of base funds and a $3,500,000 TAPL allocation based on discussions with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The total base funding shown in the Work Plan also includes an amount typically available from project closeouts and other de-obligations that occur in any given year. Absent any new specific direction or limitations provided by Congress in the current Energy & Water Appropriations Bill, these funding sources are governed by the following general principles, either by statute or by language in the Work Plan itself:
• Funds from the Energy & Water Appropriation are eligible for use in all programs.
• TAPL funds can only be used for bulk fuel related projects and activities.
• Appropriated funds may be reduced due to Congressional action, rescissions by OMB, and other Federal agency actions.
• All Energy & Water and TAPL investment amounts identified in the work plan, are “up to” amounts, and may be reassigned to other programs included in the current year work plan, if they are not fully expended in a program component area or a specific project.
• Energy & Water and TAPL funds set aside for administrative expenses that subsequently become available, may be used for program activities included in the current year work plan.
Department of Education, National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality, and Integrity (NACIQI).
Request for nominations for appointment to serve on the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI).
Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, is seeking nomination(s) for appointments to fill at least six upcoming vacancies on the NACIQI. One of the six must be a student who, at the time of the appointment, is attending an institution of higher education. The terms of service for these vacancies would begin October 1, 2025, and expire on September 30, 2031.
Nominations must be received no later than June 6, 2025.
You may submit nomination(s), including attachments, via email to:
For questions, please contact George Alan Smith, Designated Federal Official, U.S. Department of Education, Telephone: (202) 453-7757, Email:
The NACIQI is established under section 114 of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The NACIQI meets at least twice a year and advises the Secretary of Education with respect to: the establishment and enforcement of the standards of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2 of part H of Title IV, HEA; the recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations; the preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations; the eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV of the HEA, together with recommendations for improvements in such process; the relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions; and other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
NACIQI is composed of 18 members, of which: six members shall be appointed by the Secretary of Education; six members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, three of whom shall be appointed on the recommendation of the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives and three of whom shall be appointed on the recommendation of the minority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives; and six members shall be appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate, three of whom shall be appointed on the recommendation of the majority leader of the U.S. Senate and three of whom shall be appointed on the recommendation of the minority leader of the U.S. Senate. Per 20 U.S.C. 1011d, at least one member of the Committee must be a student who, at the time of appointment by the Secretary of Education, is attending an institution of higher education.
Per the authorizing legislation for NACIQI, the term of office of each member of the Committee shall be for six years, except for vacancies. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which the member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term. A vacancy on the Committee shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment was made not later than 90 days after the vacancy occurs. If a vacancy occurs in a position to be filled by the Secretary of Education, the Secretary shall publish a
(1) A cover letter addressed to the Secretary of Education as follows: Honorable Linda McMahon, Secretary of Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202. In the letter, please note your reason(s) for submitting the nomination; (2) A copy of the nominee's current resume/cv; and (3) Contact information for the nominee (name, address, contact phone number, and email address).
In addition, the cover letter must include a statement affirming that the nominee (if you are nominating someone other than yourself) has agreed to be nominated and is willing to serve on the NACIQI if appointed by the Secretary of Education.
For questions, please contact George Alan Smith, Designated Federal Official, U.S. Department of Education, Telephone: (202) 453-7757, Email:
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Department of Education (Department) withdraws the NIA for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for NHCTEP Grants.
The NIA published in the
Patti Beltram, Ed.D., U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A115, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-1370. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
On January 8, 2025, the Department published an NIA for the NHCTEP program in the
You may also access Department documents published in the
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, Department of Education.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Department of Education (Department) withdraws the NIA for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for NACTEP Grants.
The NIA published in the
Patti Beltram, Ed.D., U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A115, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-1370. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
On January 7, 2025, the Department published an NIA for the NACTEP program in the
You may also access Department documents published in the
Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of change in control.
The Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of a Change in Control Notice filed by Mexico Pacific Limited LLC (MPL) on March 6, 2025 (Notice), as supplemented on March 21, 2025 (Supplement). The Notice describes a change in MPL's upstream ownership. The Notice and Supplement were filed under the Natural Gas Act.
Protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention, as applicable, and written comments are to be filed as detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, May 22, 2025.
Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit filings electronically to ensure timely receipt.
Jennifer Wade or Peri Ulrey, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34) Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement, Office of Resource Sustainability, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-4749 or (202) 586-7893,
Kavita Vaidyanathan, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Energy Delivery and Resilience, Forrestal Building, Room 6D-033, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (240) 780-1691,
MPL states that, by means of a transaction that closed effective as of February 3, 2025 (First Transaction), and a second transaction that closed effective as of March 3, 2025 (Second Transaction), its upstream ownership structure has changed. MPL states that the purpose of these transactions was to secure additional sources of new capital as it positions the MPL Project for a final investment decision. According to MPL, prior to the First Transaction, MPL's upstream controlling member Quantum LNG Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and an affiliate of Quantum Energy Partners (Quantum), increased its controlling membership interests in MPL from approximately 38.2% to 90.16% as a result of making all capital contributions required to further support the development of the MPL Project from October 2021 through late 2024. MPL states that the ownership interests of all other prior members became diluted each time Quantum made a new contribution but did not, however, result in a change in control of MPL, since Quantum had acquired control of MPL as of September 30, 2021.
As relevant here, MPL states that, under the First Transaction, Kronos Polo, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, entered into an amended and restated limited liability agreement reflecting its acquisition of 100 percent ownership and majority control of MPL. MPL adds following that acquisition, under the agreement, MPL remained the DOE Authorization Holder.
Subsequently, under the Second Transaction, MPL's ownership changed again whereby Mexico Pacific Holdings, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, entered into a second amended and restated limited liability company agreement acquiring 100 percent controlling membership interest and voting control of MPL. According to MPL, Quantum and the former membership interest owners no longer own any equity in MPL but retain material non-equity economic interests in the MPL project. Under the agreement, MPL remains the export Authorization Holder.
Charts illustrating the ownership structure of MPL before and after the Transactions are attached to the Notice as Exhibit A and Supplement as Attachment. Additional details can be found in the Notice and Supplement posted on the DOE website at:
DOE will review the Notice and Supplement in accordance with its Procedures for Changes in Control Affecting Applications and Authorizations to Import or Export Natural Gas (CIC Procedures).
Interested persons will be provided 15 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods:
(1) Submitting the filing electronically at
(2) Mailing the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the
(3) Hand delivering the filing to the Office of Regulation, Analysis, and Engagement at the address listed in the
For administrative efficiency, DOE prefers filings to be filed electronically. All filings must include a reference to “Docket Nos. 18-70-LNG, et al.” or “Mexico Pacific Limited LLC Change in Control” in the title line.
The Notice, Supplement, and any filed protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and comments will be available electronically on the DOE website at
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Portsmouth. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Tuesday, June 17, 2025; 6-8 p.m. EDT.
The Ohio State University, Endeavor Center, 1862 Shyville Road, Room 165, Piketon, Ohio 45661.
Greg Simonton, Federal Coordinator, by Friday, June 13, 2025, Phone: (740) 897-3737 or Email:
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before July 7, 2025. If you anticipate any difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in the
Written comments may be sent to Mr. Mark Smith, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-3V), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202)-287-5151, or by email at
Mr. Mark Smith, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE-3V), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202)-287-5151 or by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
On August 18, 2023, Northern States Power Company filed an original license application for the Gile Flowage Storage Reservoir Project No. 15055. The project is located on the West Fork of the Montreal River in Iron County, Wisconsin.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on October 10, 2024, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) on the application to license the project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The application will be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to Nicholas Ettema by telephone at (312) 596-4447 or by email at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
The dam creates an impoundment that has a surface area of 21 acres at 1,024.6 feet NGVD 29. From the impoundment, water flows through the intake structure to an approximately 4,925-foot-long tunnel with a surge chamber, and then to a 93-foot-long penstock. The penstock conveys water to a 56.7-foot-long, 45-foot-wide powerhouse that contains a 12.6-megawatt Kaplan turbine-generator. Water is discharged from the turbine to an approximately 82.5-foot-long tailrace. From the impoundment, water also flows through the sluice gate and stoplog gate to a 120-foot-long excavated rock channel that discharges into the Moose River. The project creates an approximately 6,200-foot-long bypassed reach of the Moose River. The project also includes a 138.3-foot-long dike south of the project dam.
Project recreation facilities include: (1) a picnic area, an interpretive display,
Electricity generated at the project is transmitted to the electric grid via a 540-foot-long, 13.8-kilovolt (kV) generator lead line and a switchyard that includes a 13.8/115-kV step-up transformer approximately 450 feet southeast of the powerhouse.
The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of the powerhouse are 200 and 1,300 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The average annual energy production of the project from 2016 through 2022, was 51,350 megawatt-hours.
EONY proposes to remove approximately 15.9 acres of land from the project boundary, including land adjacent to the impoundment shoreline and bypassed reach. The proposed changes would decrease the amount of land and water enclosed by the project boundary from 184.3 to 168.4 acres.
EONY proposes to continue operating the project in a run-of-river mode and maintaining the same impoundment elevations as under the current license, including an elevation of 1,024.6 feet NGVD 29 during non-winter months and an elevation of 1,023.8 to 1,024.1 feet during winter months. EONY also proposes to: (1) release a year-round minimum bypassed reach flow of 80 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow, whichever is less, instead of 60 cfs under the current license; (2) implement an Impoundment Drawdown and Cofferdam Plan, Invasive Species Management Plan, and Bat and Eagle Protection Plan filed in the license application; (3) continue to maintain project recreation facilities and the interpretive display and trail through the historic Agers Mill Complex; (4) install directional signage at a non-project hand-carry boat take-out site along the Moose River; (5) continue to provide up to 20 whitewater flow releases per year between April 1 and October 1, with up to 4 of the 20 releases scheduled between June 1 and September 30; (6) continue generator ramping during whitewater release days as under the current license; (7) consult with the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (New York SHPO) on the need for any surveys or protection measures prior to implementing any land-disturbing activities in the project boundary; and (8) to protect previously unidentified cultural resources that are discovered during any construction, stop construction and consult with the New York SHPO to determine the need for any surveys or protection measures.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST,” “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members, and others access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
You may also register online at
o. The applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) a copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
p.
q. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organization, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On February 27, 2025, Northwest Pipeline, LLC (Northwest) filed an application in Docket Nos. CP25-89-000 and CP25-90-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to acquire, construct, and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Cowlitz County, Washington. The proposed project is known as the Kelso-Beaver Reliability Project (Project), and it would create 52,400 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of westbound capacity from Northwest's system to the State of Oregon-regulated North Mist Storage facility (North Mist Project) and 131,000 Dth/d of eastbound capacity from the North Mist Project to Northwest's system on a pipeline Northwest proposes to purchase from Portland General Electric Company, KB Pipeline Company, and B-R Pipeline, LLC.
On March 13, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing Federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a Federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
The Project would consist of the following facilities:
• one new KB Compressor Station in Cowlitz County, Washington, consisting of one 5,500-horsepower electric-motor driven compressor unit and appurtenances; and
• modification of the existing KB Meter Station and existing aboveground facilities in Cowlitz County, Washington.
On April 17, 2025, the Commission issued a “Notice of Scoping Period Requesting Comments on Environmental Issues for the Proposed Kelso-Beaver Reliability Project and Notice of Public Scoping Session” (Notice of Scoping). The Notice of Scoping was sent to affected landowners; Federal, State, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. To date, the Commission has received comments from one landowner, three trade groups, and three firms that are customers of Northwest Pipeline, LLC. The primary issues raised by the commenters are the safety of the Project with respect to the region's geologic hazards, and support
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organization, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
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:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organization, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On January 16, 2025, the Commission issued a “Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions to Intervene and Protests” (Notice) for the Pike Island Hydroelectric Project (P-15230). The Notice set a deadline of 60 days for filing motions to intervene and protests. Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.32(d)(2), Commission staff submitted the Notice to a local newspaper for publication. Subsequently, Commission staff was notified by the newspaper that the Notice was not published due to a system error. Therefore, the deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests is extended to 60 days from the issuance of this notice, or June 30, 2025. The January 16, 2025, Notice provides additional information on the project and on the process for filing motions to intervene and protests. It can be reviewed at:
Questions should be directed to Colleen Corballis, Project Coordinator, Midwest Branch, Division of Hydropower Licensing; telephone at (202) 502-8598; email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of receipt and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of new chemical submissions under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including information about the receipt of a Premanufacture notice (PMN), Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN), and an amendment to a previously submitted notice; test information; a biotechnology exemption application; an application for a test marketing exemption (TME); and a notice of commencement of manufacture (defined by statute to include import) (NOC) for a new chemical substance. This document also provides a periodic status report on the new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review. EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt of this information, as required by TSCA,
Comments must be received on or before June 6, 2025.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2025-0067 and the specific case number provided in this document for the chemical substance related to your comment, online at
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
EPA is publishing this document in the
Under TSCA, a chemical substance may be either an “existing” chemical substance or a “new” chemical substance, see
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN, or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the new chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture a new chemical substance, or manufacture or process a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical substances will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME.
Premanufacture notification procedures for review of certain new microbial products of biotechnology are established in 40 CFR part 725. These pertain to MCANs and biotechnology exemptions, including TSCA experimental release applications (TERAs), TMEs for microorganisms, and Tier I and Tier II exemptions.
This document provides notice of receipt and status reports for the covered period and certain submissions under TSCA section 5 and provides an opportunity to comment on this information. The Agency is providing information about the receipt of PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and an amendment to a previously submitted notice; test information; biotechnology exemption applications under 40 CFR part 725; TME applications; NOCs for new chemical substances; and a periodic status report on chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
1.
2.
The tables in this document provide the following information on the TSCA section 5 submissions received by EPA during this period and determined to be complete consistent with 40 CFR 720.70(a).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As used in each of the tables, the following explanations apply:
• (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter.
• (G) indicates that the information in the table is generic information because the specific information provided by the submitter was claimed as CBI.
EPA provides information on its website about cases reviewed under TSCA section 5, including the PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and exemption
Table 1 provides non-CBI information for the PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs received by EPA during this period that have passed an initial screening and determined to be complete consistent with 40 CFR 720.70(a).
Table 2 provides non-CBI information on the NOCs received by EPA during this period that have passed an initial screening and determined to be complete:
Table 3 provides non-CBI information on the test information that has been received by EPA during this time period:
Information about the TSCA section 5 PMNs, SNUNs, MCANs, and exemption applications received, including the date of receipt, the status of EPA's review, the final EPA determination, and the effective date of EPA's determination, is available online at:
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 Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 7, 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.
Commercial full-power and Class A television stations are required to complete FCC Form 2100, Schedule H within 30 days after the end of each calendar year and file the form with the Commission. The Commission places the form in the station's online public inspection file maintained on the Commission's database (
On July 10, 2019, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in MB Docket Nos. 18-202 and 17-105, FCC 19-67, In the Matter of Children's Television Programming Rules; Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, which modernizes the children's television programming rules in light of changes to the media landscape that have occurred since the rules were first adopted. Among other revisions, the Report and Order revises the children's television programming rules to expand the Core Programming hours to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; modify the safe harbor processing guidelines for determining compliance with the children's programming rules; require that broadcast stations air the substantial majority of their Core Programming on their primary program streams, but permit broadcast stations to air up to 13 hours per quarter of regularly scheduled weekly programming on a multicast stream; eliminate the additional processing guideline applicable to stations that multicast; and modify the rules governing preemption of Core Programming. In addition, the Report and Order revises the children's television programming reporting requirements by requiring that Children's Television Programming Reports (FCC Form 2100, Schedule H) be filed on an annual rather than quarterly basis, within 30 days after the end of the calendar year; eliminating the requirements that the reports include information describing the educational and informational purpose of each Core Program aired during the current reporting period and each Core Program that the licensee expects to air during the next reporting period; eliminating the requirement to identify the program guide publishers who were sent information regarding the licensee's Core Programs; and streamlining the form by eliminating certain fields. The Report and Order also eliminates the requirement to publicize the Children's Television Programming Reports. The Report and Order directs the Media Bureau to make modifications to FCC Form 2100, Schedule H as needed to conform the form with the revisions to the children's programming rules, including the changes to the processing guidelines and preemption policies.
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of special closed meeting.
The ASC will convene a Special Closed Meeting to discuss State Compliance Reviews pursuant to section 1104(b) of Title XI (12 U.S.C. 3333(b)).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
This notice announces the first Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) public meeting of 2025 to discuss the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services preliminary coding, Medicare benefit category, and Medicare payment determinations, if applicable, for new revisions to the HCPCS Level II code set for non-drug and non-biological items and services, as well as how to register for the meeting.
The HCPCS Level II public meeting will be a hybrid event held:
•
•
Sundus Ashar, (410) 786-0750,
On December 21, 2000, Congress enacted the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554). Section 531(b) of BIPA mandated that the Secretary establish procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new durable medical equipment (DME) under Medicare Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). In the November 23, 2001
In 2020, we implemented changes to our HCPCS Level II coding procedures, including the establishment of quarterly coding cycles for drugs and biological products and biannual coding cycles for non-drug and non-biological items and services.
In the December 28, 2021
The list of topics for discussion, which will become available in the upcoming weeks at
If all of the agenda items are not addressed on June 2, 2025, CMS will hold a virtual-only session on June 3, 2025 at 9 a.m. ET. We will proceed in the order of the HCPCS public meeting agenda, only discussing those that were not addressed, until complete. We will not go back and discuss any prior agenda items. Original registration will apply to the overflow date. The link to the live stream of the public meeting will be posted in the Guidelines for Participation in HCPCS Public Meetings document on the CMS website.
Every speaker must declare at the beginning of their presentation during the meeting, as well as in their written summary, whether they have any financial involvement with the applicant and manufacturer, if different, of the item that is the subject of the HCPCS Level II application, or with any competitors of that manufacturer with respect to the item. This includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to the speaker by the applicant, manufacturer, or any such competitors.
Each applicant that submitted a HCPCS Level II code application that will be discussed at the public meeting is permitted to designate a primary speaker. Fifteen minutes is the total time interval for a primary speaker per agenda item. Any unused time from the primary speaker will be forfeited and cannot be delegated to another speaker. Primary speakers must register as a speaker and submit any supporting PowerPoint presentation by the stated deadline. CMS will accept PowerPoint presentations (maximum of 10 slides in PowerPoint presentation format, not PDF) that are emailed to
Any individual related to the public meeting agenda item, including but not limited to an employee, competitor, insurer, public consumer, or other interested party, may register as a 5 minute speaker by the stated deadline. Depending on the availability of time, CMS may limit the number of 5-minute speakers; however, we will ensure an array of interested parties are represented if registered by the stated deadline. We will not accept any other written materials, outside of the written comments, from a 5-minute speaker (that is, 5-minutes speakers are not allowed to present a PowerPoint presentation).
All individuals who plan to attend the public meetings to listen and do not plan to speak may access the public meeting using the live stream link posted on the HCPCS Level II website. Alternatively, attendees can register online by the stated deadline and attend the public meeting in-person at CMS.
Individuals who require special assistance must register and request special assistance services by the stated deadline in the
The registration instructions for the HCPCS public meeting will be posted in the Guidelines for Participation in HCPCS Public Meetings document on the CMS website. All individuals who plan to speak (15 or 5 minutes) at the public meeting or attend the meeting in person must register by 5 p.m. ET on May 14, 2025. The following information must be provided when registering by the stated deadline:
• Name;
• Company name (if applicable);
• Email address;
• Topic item and application number (for speakers only);
• Whether the registrant will be attending in person or virtually;
• Whether the registrant is a foreign national (for in-person attendees only);
• Any special assistance requests;
• Whether the registrant is a primary speaker or a 5-minute speaker for an agenda item; and
• Whether the primary speaker will use a PowerPoint presentation.
All in-person attendees should monitor the website at
Vehicle screening is conducted and all persons in the vehicle must present a valid ID. Visitors may only enter from Security Boulevard, using the far-right entrance lane to the campus. Parking on campus is increasingly limited and visitors are not guaranteed a parking space with registration. Visitors are encouraged to consider alternate means of arrival, such as public transportation, taxi, or other ride-share arrangements. Visitors will be required to go through x-ray screening similar to screening at a United States airport, or alternate arrangements as instructed and permitted by security. A cafeteria is available at CMS.
The primary and 5-minute speaker(s) must email a brief, written summary (one paragraph) of their comments and conclusions. Written comments from anyone, including the primary and 5-minute speaker(s), will only be accepted when emailed to:
All participants should regularly check the CMS website for updates and final agenda information at
The HCPCS section of the CMS website also includes details regarding the public meeting process for new revisions to the HCPCS Level II code set, including guidelines for an effective presentation. The HCPCS section of the CMS website also contains a document titled “HCPCS Level II Coding Procedures (PDF),” which is a description of the HCPCS Level II coding process, including a detailed explanation of the procedures CMS uses to make HCPCS Level II coding determinations.
When CMS refers to a HCPCS code or HCPCS Level II coding application above, CMS may also be referring to circumstances when a HCPCS code has already been issued, but a Medicare benefit category and/or payment has not been determined. CMS is working diligently to address Medicare benefit category and payment determinations for new items and services that may be DME, prosthetic devices, orthotics and prosthetics, therapeutic shoes and inserts, surgical dressings, or splints, casts, and other devices used for reductions of fractures and dislocations under Medicare Part B.
This hybrid format ensures maximum accessibility while maintaining the integrity of the HCPCS public meeting process. However, we are exploring the possibility of moving towards in-person only public meetings in the future.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Mehmet Oz, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Chyana Woodyard, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse.
The 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
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.
Office of Financial Management, Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Office of Financial Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of the Interior, propose to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments. To ensure your comments are considered, we must receive your comments on or before July 7, 2025.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Joshua Kamp, Office of Financial Management, 1849 C St. NW, MS 2557 MIB, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Joshua Kamp, Office of Financial Management, 1849 C St. NW, MS 2557 MIB, Washington, DC 20240; or by email to
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
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 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. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined to review in its entirety a final initial determination (“ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”), finding no violation of section 337. The Commission requests written submissions from the parties on the issues under review and submissions from the parties, interested government agencies, and other interested persons on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding, under the schedule set forth below.
Benjamin S. Richards, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5453. 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 based on a complaint filed on behalf of Lenovo (United States) Inc. of Morrisville, North Carolina (“Lenovo”). 88 FR 88110 (Dec. 20, 2023). The complaint, as amended and supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic computing devices and components thereof by reason of infringement of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,760,189 (“the '189 patent”); claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,792,066 (“the '066 patent”); claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,687,354 (“the '354 patent”); and claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,952,203 (“the '203 patent”).
The ALJ held a claim construction hearing on May 16, 2024, and issued a claim construction order on July 15, 2024. Order No. 32 (July 15, 2024).
The following claims were terminated from the investigation at Lenovo's request: all asserted claims of the '189 patent; claims 6, 8-15, and 19-21 of the '066 patent; claims 2, 3, 8 and 10 of the '354 patent; and claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18 of the '203 patent.
The ALJ conducted an evidentiary hearing from September 16, 2024, through September 20, 2024. Lenovo and ASUS filed initial post-hearing briefs on October 4, 2024, and filed post-hearing reply briefs on October 18, 2024.
On February 7, 2025, the ALJ issued her final ID on violation of section 337. Lenovo and ASUS filed petitions for review of that ID on February 21, 2025, and filed replies to each others' petitions on March 3, 2025.
On April 9, 2025, the Commission extended the date by which it must determine whether to review the final ID to May 1, 2025.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the final ID, the parties' submissions to the ALJ, and the parties' petitions and responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the ID in its entirety.
In connection with its review, the Commission requests responses to the following questions. The parties are requested to brief their positions with reference to the applicable law and the existing evidentiary record.
1. Lenovo's petition for review of the ID states that “the UL BW field of a trigger frame references the frequencies that were allocated in the beacon frame for EDCA transmissions.” Lenovo Pet. at 12. How, if at all, is referencing a set of frequencies different from indicating them as required by claims 1 and 17 of the '203 patent?
2. The ID found that the enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) protocol is a contention-based protocol. ID at 67. Explain whether, in the context of EDCA, a set of resource blocks for a data transmission can be assigned to a device before that device has won a contention for resources.
3. Explain the temporal relationship between when a device receives an orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) trigger frame and when that device will contend for EDCA resources.
4. Concerning claims 1 and 17 of the '203 patent, the ID found that multiple resource assignment indications could be received and that the subsequent transmitting steps could therefore correspond to different resource assignment indications. ID at 38-39. Identify any evidence intrinsic to the '203 patent that supports that construction. Include in your answer any portion of the specification that teaches an embodiment that receives multiple resource assignment indications before performing the transmitting steps. Also include any portion of the specification foreclosing the use of multiple resource assignment indications before performing the transmitting steps.
5.
6. During prosecution of the '066 patent, after the examiner provided applicants with the Neves et al. (US PGPUB 2002/0032855 Al) reference, the examiner clarified: “Therefore, some sort of handshaking is taking place; however, the handshaking is not occurring during the claimed `receiving of a predetermined frame.' In other words, a pre-authentication/handshaking procedure occurs prior to the transmission of the predetermined frame from the access point.” JX-6 at 667-668. In response, the applicants distinguished the invention by stating that “the wireless receiver of new claim 27 does
7. Claim 1 of the '354 patent includes the limitation: “wherein the second wing of the inhibitor stopper engages the second notch to prevent the second hinge member from rotating when the first hinge member rotates from zero degrees to 180 degrees.” Identify all embodiments in the specification that disclose this limitation. Also identify any portions of the prosecution history that discuss the meaning of this limitation.
8. Identify any portion of the evidence intrinsic to the '354 patent that specifically addresses whether the limitation quoted above in question 11 requires the rotation of the second hinge member to be prevented in both clockwise and anti-clockwise directions or instead prevented in one direction or the other.
9. Figure 3C shows an exemplary embodiment of the invention of the '354 patent in which the housings of the invention are in an intermediate state between 0 degrees (closed) and 180 degrees (open). Do you agree that the lower hinge member depicted in Figure 3C is prevented from rotating anti-clockwise by the lower wing of the inhibitor stopper contacting the notch in the lower hinge member and the right side of the upper wing of the inhibitor stopper contacting the surface of the upper hinge member? Do you agree that the lower hinge member in Figure 3C is not prevented from clockwise rotation by the wings of the inhibitor stopper because the inhibitor stopper is free to rotate anti-clockwise as the lower hinge member rotates clockwise? If you disagree with either statement, explain why.
10. When opening a notebook PC, such as the one described in the '354 patent at 4:17-55, from 0 to 180 degrees, would the second hinge member move in both directions if the inhibitor stopper were absent?
11. The ID cited testimony for the proposition that “the wings and notches [of the accused product] only engage when closing the device, not when opening the device.” ID at 165 (citing Tr. (Singhose) at 315:17-316:9). Do you agree that the wings and notches of the accused product engage each other when closing the accused device but not when opening the accused device? Cite the evidence that supports your position.
The parties are invited to brief only the discrete issues requested above. The parties are not to brief other issues on review, which are adequately presented in the parties' existing filings.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the statute authorizes issuance of,
The statute requires the Commission to consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The public interest factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and cease and desist orders would have on: (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the U.S. Trade Representative, as delegated by the President, has 60 days to approve, disapprove, or take no action on the Commission's determination.
In its initial submission, Complainant is also requested to identify the remedy sought and to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. Complainant is further requested
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above pursuant to 19 CFR 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (Inv. No. 337-TA-1382) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party
The Commission vote for this determination took place on May 1, 2025.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
On November 4, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause (OSC) to Edmund Ayoub Jr., M.D., of Palm Springs, California (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 4. The OSC proposed the revocation of Registrant's Certificate of Registration No. FA0321036, alleging that Registrant's registration should be revoked because Registrant is “currently without authority to prescribe, administer, dispense, or otherwise handle controlled substances in the State of California, the state in which [he is] registered with DEA.”
The OSC notified Registrant of his right to file a written request for hearing, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default.
Further, “[i]n the event that a registrant . . . is deemed to be in default . . . DEA may then file a request for final agency action with the Administrator, along with a record to support its request. In such circumstances, the Administrator may enter a default final order pursuant to [21 CFR] 1316.67.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC are admitted. According to the OSC, on March 17, 2023, the Medical Board of California issued a Cease Practice Order that prohibited Registrant from practicing medicine in California. RFAAX 1, at 2. According to California online records, of which the Agency takes official notice,
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under 21 U.S.C. 823 “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
According to California statute, “dispense” means “to deliver a controlled substance to an ultimate user or research subject by or pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, including the prescribing, furnishing, packaging, labeling, or compounding necessary to prepare the substance for that delivery.” Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11010 (West 2024). Further, a “practitioner” means a person “licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research in [the] state.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California. As discussed above, a physician must be a licensed practitioner to dispense a controlled substance in California. Thus, because Registrant currently lacks authority to practice medicine in California and, therefore, is not currently authorized to handle controlled substances in California, Registrant is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Registrant's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FA0321036 issued to Edmund Ayoub Jr., M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Edmund Ayoub Jr., M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Edmund Ayoub Jr., M.D., for additional registration in California. This Order is effective June 6, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on March 13, 2025, by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
On October 31, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Margaret Dennis, D.M.D., of Jacksonville, FL (Registrant). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Registrant of the immediate suspension of her DEA Certificate of Registration, No. BD1443732, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Registrant's continued registration constitutes “ `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' ”
The OSC/ISO alleged that between at least January of 2013 until at least July of 2024, Registrant issued numerous prescriptions for controlled substances to at least four patients despite, among other things: (1) failing to establish a proper medical justification for prescribing; (2) prescribing outside the scope of her practice; and (3) failing to appropriately address red flags of abuse or diversion.
The OSC/ISO notified Registrant of her right to file with DEA a written request for a hearing and an answer, and that if she failed to file such a request, she would be deemed to have waived her right to a hearing and be in default. RFAAX 1, at 7-8 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). Here, Registrant did not request a hearing. RFAA, at 1.
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 the Supreme Court stated in
Here, the OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's “strict requirements regarding registration . . . and recordkeeping” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances.”
The OSC/ISO alleges that for over ten years, Registrant “issued multiple controlled substance prescriptions to patients without undertaking actions typical of medical professionals, such as conducting and documenting a complete medical history, properly assessing the needs of individuals for controlled substances, and monitoring patient medication compliance.” RFAAX 1, at 4. According to CSA regulations, a prescription for a controlled substance is proper only if “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a).
Moreover, Florida law requires a practitioner to, among other things: (1) prescribe controlled substances only after conducting a complete medical history and physical examination; (2) document the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of a controlled substance; (3) create a written treatment plan with goals and objectives; (4) discuss the risks and benefits of the use of controlled substances with the patient; (5) see the patient at regular intervals and conduct periodic reviews of the effectiveness of the treatment; (6) assess patient risk for aberrant drug-related behavior, continue to monitor that risk on an ongoing basis, and provided special attention to patients at risk for abusing their medication; and (7) maintain accurate, current, and complete records that are accessible and readily available for review. Fla. Stat. sec. 456.44.
Florida law also provides a list of acts that constitute grounds for disciplinary action against dentists and other dental practitioners, including, among others: “(p) [p]rescribing . . . any controlled substance, other than in the course of the professional practice of the dentist . . . without regard to his or her intent”; “(r) [p]rescribing, procuring, ordering, dispensing, administering, supplying, selling, or giving any drug which is a Schedule II amphetamine . . . “; “(x) [b]eing guilty of incompetence or negligence by . . . the undertaking of diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist is not qualified by training or experience . . . ”; and “(y) [p]racticing or offering to practice beyond the scope permitted by law or accepting and performing professional responsibilities which the licensee knows or has reason to know that she or he is not competent to perform.”
Finally, Florida law requires that medical records, among other things, must have “sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate why the course of treatment was undertaken” and must “contain sufficient information to identify the patient, support the diagnosis, justify the treatment and document the course and results of treatment accurately.” Fla. Admin. Code Ann. R. 64B8-9.003.
The Agency finds that, in light of Registrant's default, the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed admitted.
Registrant admits that between June 1, 2021, and July 1, 2024, Registrant issued to D.B. prescriptions for controlled substances including dextroamphetamine-amphetamine (a Schedule II stimulant), hydromorphone (a Schedule II opioid), and alprazolam (a Schedule IV benzodiazepine). RFAAX 1, at 4. Registrant admits that she failed to establish a proper medical justification for prescribing dextroamphetamine-amphetamine to D.B., specifically, because Registrant issued the prescriptions without any diagnostic workup, rationale, or treatment plan.
Registrant admits that she prescribed D.B. increasingly high daily dosages of hydromorphone, as high as 237 MME, without proper medical indication, rationale, or evidence of improvement in pain and function.
Registrant admits and the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the above-referenced controlled substance prescriptions issued to D.B. were issued outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.
Registrant admits that between December 9, 2019, and January 13, 2022, Registrant issued to D.G. prescriptions for controlled substances including oxycodone (a Schedule II opioid), morphine (a Schedule II opioid), and alprazolam.
Registrant admits that she failed to maintain adequate medical records for her treatment of D.G.; specifically, seven years of medical charts were missing from D.G.'s records.
Registrant admits and the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the above-referenced controlled substance prescriptions issued to D.G. were issued outside the usual course of
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that between October 11, 2018, and February 22, 2019, Registrant issued to M.G. prescriptions for controlled substances including oxycodone, tramadol (a Schedule IV opioid), morphine sulfate (a Schedule II opioid), methadone (a Schedule II opioid), and carisoprodol (a Schedule IV muscle relaxant).
Registrant also admits that she prescribed M.G. increasingly high daily dosages of multiple controlled substances without rationale supporting the medical necessity or evidence of improvement in pain and function.
Registrant admits and the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the above-referenced controlled substance prescriptions issued to M.G. were issued outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.
Registrant is deemed to have admitted that between December 19, 2019, and June 13, 2024, Registrant issued to I.R. prescriptions for controlled substances including oxycodone, methadone, diazepam (a Schedule IV benzodiazepine), and alprazolam.
Registrant also admits that she failed to maintain adequate medical records for the treatment of I.R., specifically, by lacking the documentation that appropriately accounted for the initiation of controlled substance prescriptions and their subsequent dosage increases over the years.
Registrant admits that she failed to document justification for prescribing opioids and benzodiazepines concurrently.
Registrant admits and the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the above-referenced controlled substance prescriptions issued to I.R. were issued outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.
DEA retained an independent medical expert to review, among other materials, information regarding all of the above-noted controlled substance prescriptions as well as Registrant's patient files for D.B., D.G., M.G., and I.R.
Pursuant to the CSA, “[a] registration . . . to . . . distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under . . . [21 U.S.C. 823] inconsistent with the public interest as determined by such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a “practitioner,” Congress directed the Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive.
According to Agency decisions, the Agency “may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [it] deems appropriate in determining whether” to revoke a registration.
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the factors, it “need not make explicit findings as to each one.”
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D);
As such, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the Registrant violated 21 CFR 1306.04(a), Fla. Stat. secs. 456.44, 466.028, and Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 64B8-9.003. After weighing Factors B and D, the Agency further finds that Registrant's continued registration is outside the public interest. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, the Agency finds that the Government established a
Here, the Government has met its
The issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on the circumstances presented by the individual registrant.
Here, Registrant did not request a hearing and did not otherwise avail herself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, there is no record evidence that Registrant takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the founded violations, meaning, among other things, that it is not reasonable to believe that Registrant's future controlled substance-related actions will comply with legal requirements. Accordingly, Registrant did not convince the Agency that she can be entrusted with a registration.
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of revocation. Given the foundational nature of Registrant's violations, a sanction less than revocation would send a message to the existing and prospective registrant community that compliance with the law is not a condition precedent to maintaining a registration.
In sum, Registrant has not offered any evidence on the record that rebuts the Government's case for revocation of her registration, and Registrant has not demonstrated that she can be entrusted with the responsibility of registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Respondent's registration.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BD1443732 issued to Margaret Dennis, D.M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Margaret Dennis, D.M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Margaret Dennis, D.M.D., for additional registration in Florida. This Order is effective June 6, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on May 1, 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 September 9, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Peter Dashkoff, M.D., of Yuma, Arizona (Respondent). OSC/ISO, at 1. The OSC/
Specifically, the Government alleges that on June 26, 2024, Respondent issued four
Respondent requested a hearing, which was held before DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Teresa Wallbaum, who on January 16, 2025, issued her Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the ALJ (RD). The RD recommended that Respondent's registration be suspended for six months. RD, at 20. Both the Government and Respondent filed timely Exceptions to the RD.
Having reviewed the entire record, the Agency adopts and hereby incorporates by reference the ALJ's credibility findings,
As already discussed, the OSC/ISO alleges that Respondent violated multiple provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in
The OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's “statutory and regulatory provisions . . . mandating . . . compliance with . . . prescription requirements” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed “to conquer drug abuse and to control the legitimate and illegitimate traffic in controlled substances,” and “to prevent the diversion of drugs from legitimate to illicit channels.”
According to the CSA's implementing regulations, a lawful prescription for controlled substances is one that is “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a);
In order to lawfully prescribe a controlled substance in Arizona, a person “must first . . . [o]btain and possess a current license or permit as a medical practitioner . . . .” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. sec. 36-2522(A)(1);
Respondent is a medical doctor in the state of Arizona. RD, at 2. On April 2024, Respondent entered into a first Interim Consent Agreement with the Arizona Medical Board (Board), which required Respondent to comply with certain terms in order to continue practicing medicine in the State of Arizona. GX 3;
Respondent signed the second Interim Consent Agreement on June 26, 2024,
The Agency finds substantial record evidence that after Respondent's state authority lapsed, Respondent issued four prescriptions for controlled substances: (1) a prescription for lorazepam (a schedule IV benzodiazepine), issued to Patient R.B. at 5:53 p.m.; (2) a prescription for morphine (a schedule II opioid), issued to Patient R.B. at 5:53 p.m.; (3) a prescription for morphine, issued to Patient D.H. at 5:53 p.m.; and (4) a prescription for lorazepam, issued to Patient B.T. at 6:23 p.m. GX 6, 11;
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that Respondent issued four prescriptions for controlled substances without possessing the requisite state authority to prescribe controlled substances in the State of Arizona.
Under Section 304 of the CSA, “[a] registration . . . to . . . distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under . . . [21 U.S.C. 823] inconsistent with the public interest as determined by such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a “practitioner,” Congress directed the Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
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);
The Agency finds that Factors B and D weigh in favor of revocation of Respondent's registration and that Respondent's 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
The Agency agrees with the ALJ that there is substantial record evidence that Respondent failed to unequivocally accept responsibility for his misconduct. RD, at 15. When given several opportunities to accept responsibility at the hearing, Respondent failed to precisely articulate what he did wrong.
Moreover, when the ALJ asked about his commitment to prevent future diversion of controlled substances, Respondent failed to offer concrete solutions, such as ensuring that he would transition his medical duties prior to losing his state authority. Tr. at 79-80;
Respondent's attempts at the hearing to minimize, justify, and excuse his misconduct detract from his acceptance of responsibility and show that he lacked an understanding of the gravity of his misconduct.
Regarding these matters, there is no record evidence that Respondent takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the founded violations. Accordingly, Respondent did not convince the Agency that he would comply with the legal requirements of the CSA in the future or that he can be entrusted with a registration.
In addition to unequivocally accepting responsibility, the Agency considers both specific and general deterrence when determining an appropriate sanction.
The Agency further agrees with the ALJ that the interests of general deterrence compel a similar result. RD, at 18. As the ALJ states, “this tribunal must craft a sanction that sends a message to all registrants that the Agency takes such conduct seriously.”
In his Post-Hearing Brief, Respondent argued, in part, that his misconduct was not egregious because it was not intentional. Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief, at 7 (citing
The Government argued in its Exceptions that “the overall egregiousness of Respondent's conduct” warrants a revocation. Government's Exception to the RD, at 3. Here, they argue, Respondent violated the CSA and committed an act of diversion when he unlawfully prescribed controlled substances without state authority.
In general, the Agency believes that prescribing controlled substances without state authority is an egregious act. However, the Agency is not required to find that a registrant's misconduct is egregious before revoking a registration where, as here, the registrant has failed to accept responsibility.
In sum, Respondent has not offered sufficient credible evidence on the record to rebut the Government's case for revocation, and Respondent has not demonstrated that he can be entrusted with the responsibility of registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent's registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR. 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FD 3660304 issued to Peter Dashkoff, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Peter Dashkoff, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Peter Dashkoff, M.D., for additional registration in the state of Arizona. This Order is effective June 6, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on May 1, 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 July 26, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA or Government) issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (OSC/ISO) to Mohan Kaza, M.D., of Troy, MI (Respondent). Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1. The OSC/ISO informed Respondent of the immediate suspension of his DEA Certificate of Registration, Control No. FK8011063, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d), alleging that Respondent's continued registration constitutes “ `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' ”
The OSC/ISO alleged that from January 17, 2024, through April 17, 2024, Respondent improperly issued Schedule II controlled substance prescriptions to two individuals who were acting in an undercover capacity, in violation of the Controlled Substances Act's (CSA's) implementing regulations and Michigan state law.
The OSC/ISO notified Respondent of his right to file with DEA a written request for hearing and an answer, and that if he failed to file such a request, he would be deemed to have waived his right to a hearing and be in default. RFAAX 1, at 6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). On August 26, 2024, Respondent filed a Request for Hearing and Request for Extension of Time to File Answer; Respondent's request was granted giving him until 2:00 p.m. on September 10, 2024, to file an Answer.
“A default, unless excused, shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the registrant's/applicant's right to a hearing and an admission of the factual allegations of the [OSC].” 21 CFR 1301.43(e);
As discussed above, the OSC/ISO alleges that Respondent violated provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and its implementing regulations. As the Supreme Court stated in
Here, the OSC/ISO's allegations concern the CSA's “strict requirements regarding registration . . . drug security, and recordkeeping” and, therefore, go to the heart of the CSA's “closed regulatory system” specifically designed
The OSC/ISO alleges that Respondent improperly issued controlled substance prescriptions to two patients who were acting in an undercover capacity. RFAAX 1, at 1. According to CSA regulations, a prescription for a controlled substance is proper only if “issued for a legitimate medical purpose by an individual practitioner acting in the usual course of his professional practice.” 21 CFR 1306.04(a).
As for Michigan state law, “a practitioner . . . shall not . . . prescribe . . . a controlled substance for other than legitimate and professionally recognized therapeutic or scientific purposes or outside the scope of practice of the practitioner.” Mich. Comp. Laws sec. 333.7401(1). Further, Michigan state law defines good faith in prescribing a controlled substance as prescribing “in the regular course of professional treatment to or for an individual who is under treatment by the practitioner for a pathology or condition other than that individual's physical or psychological dependence on or addition to a controlled substance.”
The Agency finds that, in light of Respondent's default, the factual allegations in the OSC/ISO are deemed to be admitted.
Respondent admits that on or about January 17, 2024, Respondent prescribed 15 mg of amphetamine aspartate (a Schedule II stimulant) to UC1 without conducting an adequate medical assessment or properly addressing red flags of diversion. RFAAX 1, at 3. Specifically, Respondent admits that Respondent issued the prescription to UC1 after UC1 stated that he/she had been acquiring controlled substance stimulants from acquaintances through illegitimate means.
Respondent admitted that on or about February 13, 2024, Respondent prescribed 20 mg of amphetamine dextroamphetamine (a Schedule II stimulant) to UC1 outside of the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.
Respondent admits that on or about March 20, 2024, Respondent increased the dosage of UC1's amphetamine aspartate prescription to 30 mg at UC1's request and without medical necessity.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the five controlled substances prescriptions that Respondent issued or dispensed to UC1 were issued outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. RFAAX 1, at 3-4.
Respondent admits that on or about March 20, 2024, Respondent issued a prescription for 15 mg of amphetamine dextroamphetamine to UC2 without conducting an adequate medical assessment or establishing a diagnosis to justify the use of controlled substances. RFAAX 1, at 4. Respondent further admits that when UC2 appeared to struggle with responses to his/her medical history, Respondent advised UC2 to look up responses on the internet in order to give the illusion of a proper examination and diagnosis, rendering the diagnosis illegitimate.
Respondent admits that on or about April 17, 2024, at the request of UC2, Respondent increased the quantity of the amphetamine dextroamphetamine 15 mg tablets from 30 tablets to 60 tablets without medical justification or necessity.
Accordingly, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that both of the controlled substances prescriptions that Respondent issued to UC2 were issued outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. RFAAX 1, at 3-5.
Pursuant to the CSA, “[a] registration . . . to . . . distribute[ ] or dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under . . . [21 U.S.C. 823] inconsistent with the public interest as determined by such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4). In the case of a “practitioner,” Congress directed the Attorney General to consider five factors in making the public interest determination. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(A-E).
(A) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.
(B) The [registrant's] experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.
(C) The [registrant's] conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.
(D) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.
(E) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.
The five factors are considered in the disjunctive.
According to Agency decisions, the Agency “may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [it] deems appropriate in determining whether” to revoke a registration.
Moreover, while the Agency is required to consider each of the factors, it “need not make explicit findings as to each one.”
In this matter, while all of the 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1) factors have been considered, the Agency finds that the Government's evidence in support of its
Evidence is considered under Public Interest Factors B and D when it reflects compliance or non-compliance with federal and local laws related to controlled substances and experience dispensing controlled substances. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1)(B) and (D);
As such, the Agency finds substantial record evidence that the Respondent violated 21 CFR 1306.04 and Mich. Comp. Laws secs. 333.7401(1) and 333.7405(1)(a). After weighing Factors B and D, the Agency further finds that Respondent's continued registration is outside the public interest. 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1). Accordingly, the Agency finds that the Government established a
Here, the Government has met its
The issue of trust is necessarily a fact-dependent determination based on the circumstances presented by the individual registrant.
Here, although Respondent initially requested a hearing, he ultimately withdrew his hearing request, and did not otherwise avail himself of the opportunity to refute the Government's case. As such, there is no record evidence that Respondent takes responsibility, let alone unequivocal responsibility, for the founded violations, meaning, among other things, that it is not reasonable to believe that Respondent's future controlled substance-related actions will comply with legal requirements. Accordingly, Respondent did not convince the Agency that he can be entrusted with a registration.
Further, the interests of specific and general deterrence weigh in favor of revocation. Given the foundational nature of Respondent's violations, a sanction less than revocation would send a message to the existing and prospective registrant community that compliance with the law is not a condition precedent to maintaining a registration.
In sum, Respondent has not offered any evidence on the record that rebuts the Government's case for revocation of his registration, and Respondent has not demonstrated that he can be entrusted with the responsibility of registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order the revocation of Respondent's registration.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. FK8011063 issued to Mohan Kaza, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(1), I hereby deny any pending applications of Mohan Kaza, M.D., to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Mohan Kaza, M.D., for additional registration in Michigan. This Order is effective June 6, 2025.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on April 24, 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
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “State Training Provider Eligibility Collection.” This comment request is part of continuing DOL's efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by July 7, 2025.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Harlan Harrell by telephone at 202-693-5127 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Investment, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-4209, Washington, DC 20210; by email:
Harlan Harrell by telephone 202-693-5127 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
DOL, as part of its continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure 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 can be properly assessed.
This ICR collects the required information for State Training Provider Eligibility Collection. At a minimum, the information to be collected enables the state to comply with section 122 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and its implementing regulations under 20 CFR part 680.
In June 2016, OMB approved the ICR under OMB Control Number 1205-0523. This ICR allows the DOL to collect information from states pertaining to Eligible Training Provider List and to retain that data. OMB granted approval for the ICR through October of 2022, and again through December of 2025. WIOA Section 122 authorizes this information collection.
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 it is approved by OMB under the PRA 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. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• 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,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of information collection.
NASA, 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 (PRA).
Comments are due by July 7, 2025.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to NASA PRA Clearance Officer, Stayce Hoult, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, JC0000, Washington, DC 20546, phone 256-714-8575, or email
This collection of information supports the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended, to enable NASA astronaut appearances before a variety of groups to inform the general public about the U.S. space program. Typically, presentations are made to high schools and universities, community organizations, businesses and associations, or military organizations. In order to reach as many people as possible, NASA offers three options to choose from in requesting an astronaut appearance:
(1) An in person astronaut appearance whereby the astronaut travels to the appearance location.
(2) A virtual appearance utilizing virtual telecommunications tools to connect an astronaut via video conference with your organization.
(3) A recorded greeting arranged in advance to be used during a specified event.
The NASA Astronaut Appearance Office (AAO) located at the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, Texas is responsible for vetting, processing, and coordinating logistics for Astronaut appearances. This information will be used by the NASA AAO and Legal and HR personnel in the vetting, coordinating, scheduling and authorization processes to work with requestors to facilitate the appearance logistics. Records of appearances, including the information associated with the requestor and points of contact are maintained by the AAO for a minimum of five (5) years.
Electronic.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record.
National Endowment for the Arts.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that four meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference or videoconference.
See the
National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.
Further information with reference to these meetings can be obtained from David Travis, Office of Guidelines & Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506;
The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chair of March 11, 2022, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 10.
The National Science Board (NSB) hereby gives notice of the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Wednesday, May 7, 2025, from 12:10 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Eastern.
The meetings will be held by videoconference through NSF headquarters, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314. The open session of the meeting will be webcast live on the NSB YouTube channel.
May 7, 2025:
Some of the sessions will be open and others will be closed to the public. See the full description below.
Members of the public are advised that the
The NSB Office contact is Christopher Blair,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is making a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for a proposed issuance of an exemption in response to a February 28, 2025 request, as supplemented by letters dated April 7, and April 29, 2025, for the proposed Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 (Kemmerer 1) facility. Specifically, TerraPower, LLC (TerraPower), on behalf of its wholly-owned subsidiary US SFR Owner, LLC (USO), requested an exemption that would modify a portion of the definition of construction applicable to the prohibition on construction of production and utilization facilities without an NRC license for the proposed Kemmerer 1. If granted, this exemption would allow the driving of piles, subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or in-place assembly, erection, fabrication or testing, which are for structures, systems, and components (SSCs) classified as non-safety-related with no special treatment (NST) the failure of which could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system that are located on the proposed Kemmerer 1 energy island prior to receipt of a construction permit (CP) and without a limited work authorization. The NRC staff is issuing a final Environmental Assessment (EA) and FONSI associated with the proposed exemption request.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on May 7, 2025.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0078 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mallecia Sutton, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0673; email:
By letter dated March 28, 2024, TerraPower, LLC (TerraPower), on behalf of its wholly-owned subsidiary
By letter dated September 9, 2024, TerraPower submitted, on behalf of USO, an exemption request for the proposed Kemmerer 1. The requested exemptions were from the definitions of construction in 10 CFR 50.10(a), “Definitions,” and 10 CFR 51.4, “Definitions,” and would have excluded all non-safety-related with no special treatment (NST) structures, systems, and components (SSCs) located on the energy island (EI) from the scope of construction as defined in these regulations. By letter dated February 28, 2025, TerraPower submitted, on behalf of USO, a new request that superseded the September 9, 2024 request and requested an exemption with a more limited scope. TerraPower, on behalf of USO, supplemented this request with letters dated April 7, and April 29, 2025. In particular, the supplement dated April 29, 2025, withdrew the requested exemption from 10 CFR 51.4.
As modified by the superseding exemption request and subsequent supplements, the NRC is considering issuance of an exemption that would modify the definition of construction in 10 CFR 50.10(a)(1)(iv) from “SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system” to “SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system, excluding Natrium EI SSCs classified as non-safety-related with no special treatment (NST).” This specific exemption would allow USO to proceed with the driving of piles, subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or the in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing of SSCs classified as NST the failure of which could cause the reactor to scram or actuation of a safety-related system that are located on the proposed energy island (EI) without a limited work authorization while the NRC staff continues its review of the Kemmerer 1 CP application. If the NRC determines that approval of the exemption request is appropriate, the exemption would be issued to USO for the proposed Kemmerer 1.
In accordance with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has prepared an EA that analyzes the environmental effects of the proposed action. Based on the results of the EA and in accordance with 10 CFR 51.31(a), the NRC has prepared a FONSI for the proposed exemption. Consistent with 10 CFR 51.33, “Draft finding of no significant impact; distribution,” the NRC staff did not prepare a draft finding of no significant impact in this instance.
The proposed action would modify the definition of construction in 10 CFR 50.10(a)(1)(iv) from “SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system” to “SSCs whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system, excluding Natrium EI SSCs classified as non-safety-related with no special treatment (NST).” This specific exemption would allow USO to proceed with the driving of piles, subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or the in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing of SSCs classified as NST the failure of which could cause the reactor to scram or actuation of a safety-related system that are located on the proposed EI without a limited work authorization while the NRC staff continues its review of the Kemmerer 1 CP application.
Separate from this EA, the NRC staff is evaluating the proposed action against the relevant exemption criteria in 10 CFR 50.12, “Specific exemptions.” The results of this review will be documented in a separate
Issuance of the exemption would allow USO to begin the driving of piles, subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or the in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing of SSCs classified as NST the failure of which could cause the reactor to scram or actuation of a safety-related system that are located on the proposed EI without a limited work authorization while the NRC staff continues its review of the Kemmerer 1 CP application. As that work falls under the definition of construction in 10 CFR 50.10(a), without this exemption, 10 CFR 50.10(c) would prohibit USO from performing that work under until the NRC staff issued it a CP or a limited work authorization, should that be appropriate.
TerraPower, on behalf of USO, has indicated that if this work is delayed until issuance of the CP, it would result in substantial schedule delays for the proposed Kemmerer 1. TerraPower, on behalf of USO, also stated that, although the exact costs of delayed operation of Kemmerer 1 would depend on a number of uncertain factors, they are expected to be substantial.
In February 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations issued DOE/EA-2264, “Final Environmental Assessment Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 Preliminary Activities Kemmerer, Lincoln County, Wyoming,”
• Earthwork activities, including site clearing and grubbing to remove the top layer of topsoil and organic material and
• Dewatering activities, including establishing temporary dewatering systems to maintain dry working conditions for preliminary activities.
• Excavation and backfill activities, including the importation and placement of common and structural backfill, general excavation of the site, general backfill, development of spoil and laydown areas, placement of common fill, and construction of stormwater management ponds.
• Supporting infrastructure activities, including construction of buildings, temporary utilities, plant roads and parking, walkways, and storm drainage. Preliminary activities include the erection of buildings on the EI. Section 2.1.4.4, “Buildings on the Energy Island,” of the DOE EA states “[t]hese activities would consist of excavation and backfill of the foundations, installation of mud mats, formwork, rebar and embeds, and placement of concrete. Embedded pipes and electrical conduit and grounding would be installed during foundation construction. Steel and superstructure would be installed after completion of the foundations.”
The DOE EA determined that the environmental impacts of these activities on ecological resources; cultural resources; hydrology; socioeconomics; geological resources; and infrastructure, traffic, and transportation are minor. Based on this conclusion, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact.
The NRC staff then considered the work that was not covered by the DOE EA. This work consists of the in-place assembly, erection, fabrication or testing of SSCs, apart from the buildings, classified as NST that are located within buildings on the proposed EI the failure of which could cause the reactor to scram or actuation of a safety-related system. As an initial matter, neither TerraPower nor USO are licensed to possess or use radiological materials. Since the proposed action does not involve operating the facility and there are no radiological materials on site, it would result in no significant changes in the types or amounts of radiological effluents that may be released offsite.
Further, the work authorized by this exemption would occur in the same area of the site as the work considered by the DOE EA. Thus, the environment in that area will have already been disturbed by the pre-construction work the DOE EA considered, which is not part of the NRC proposed action, and by the work requiring NRC authorization but that the DOE EA considered. Some of the work encompassed by the NRC proposed action is not considered by the DOE EA, but the staff finds is similar in nature to work considered by the DOE EA. To the extent that the nature of the work is similar to the work considered in the DOE EA, the NRC staff determined that the effects determination from the DOE EA would bound this work. With regard to the work not considered by the DOE EA which is dissimilar to work the DOE EA considered (
In conclusion, the NRC staff has determined that the impacts of the proposed exemption on the environment would be minor. Finally, the NRC staff notes that although the DOE EA sometimes describes what it analyzed using different words than the NRC typically uses, its analysis captured the resource areas that the NRC usually considers in its EAs. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiologic environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (
There are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources under the proposed action.
The NRC staff did not enter into consultation with any Federal agency or with the State of Wyoming regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The NRC and DOE have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) related to implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for reactor demonstration projects, including the proposed Kemmerer 1. Although the MOU lays out certain roles and responsibilities for NRC and DOE, it also acknowledges that circumstances may arise where both agencies would be better served by a different form of coordination and notes that it does not preclude such arrangements. In this instance, DOE has already consulted with relevant entities. As discussed in this notice, the NRC staff determined that the effects considered in the DOE EA bound the effects of this proposed action. The NRC staff independently reviewed the DOE's consultation of Federal and state agencies for the proposed action. Based on that review and the determination that the DOE EA bounds this proposed action, the NRC staff determined there was no need for additional consultation. Therefore, the NRC staff relied on the consultation activities conducted by DOE documented in its EA, which it
TerraPower, on behalf of USO, has requested an exemption that, if granted, would modify the definition of construction in 10 CFR 50.10(a)(1)(iv) to allow USO to proceed with the driving of piles, subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or the in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing of NST SSCs the failure of which could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system that are located on the proposed EI without a limited work authorization while the NRC staff continues its review of the Kemmerer 1 CP application. The proposed action would not have significant adverse radiological or non-radiological impacts. This FONSI incorporates by reference the EA in Section II of this notice. Based on the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is appointing a presiding officer to set a procedural schedule and conduct limited discovery for the purpose of determining disputed issues of fact related to the classification of the Copper Beech apartment complex as a dormitory. This document takes certain administrative steps.
Documents can be accessed electronically through the Commission's website at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
This complaint stems from a dispute between the Postal Service and Complainants regarding mail delivery at the Copper Beech apartment complex, which Complainants own. Complainants assert five causes of action in their Second Amended Complaint. Specifically, Count I alleges that the Postal Service unduly discriminated against them by treating Copper Beech differently, for mail delivery purposes, than other similarly situated buildings. Counts II and IV allege that the Postal Service violated its own regulations. Count III asserts that the Postal Service violated 39 U.S.C. 401(2) by establishing regulations that conflict with their duties under title 39. Count V alleges that the Postal Service violated 39 U.S.C. 3661(b) by making a nationwide change in the nature of postal services without first receiving an advisory opinion from the Commission.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3662(b), the Commission concludes that Complainants have raised sufficient issues of material law and fact as to Count I, portions of Count III, and Count V. The Commission shall hold Counts II and IV in abeyance pending a decision by the D.C. Circuit regarding Commission jurisdiction over 39 U.S.C. 401(2) claims. The Commission shall dismiss the portions of Count III that allege violations of 39 U.S.C. 403(a) and (b).
The Commission appoints a presiding officer to preside over the conduct of the proceedings, including but not limited to scheduling, discovery, potential hearings, and briefing in this matter. The Commission finds good cause to waive the appointment of an officer of the Commission designated to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding as required by 39 CFR 3022.30(c) because the violations alleged in the Complaint pertain to a specific subset of the general public, or otherwise solely to Complainants, who are represented by counsel.
1. The Commission finds that the Amended Complaint of Copper Beech Townhome Communities Twenty One, LLC and Copper Beech Townhome Communities Thirty Six, LLC, filed February 5, 2025, raises material issues of law and fact.
2. The United States Postal Service Motion to Dismiss the February 5, 2025, Amended Complaint, filed February 25, 2025, is denied except for the portions
3. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.106, the Commission appoints Joseph K. Press as presiding officer in this proceeding.
4. Counts II and IV—pertaining to whether the Postal Service has violated its own regulations—shall be held in abeyance pending a decision by the D.C. Circuit regarding Commission jurisdiction over 39 U.S.C. 401(2) claims.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order, or abstract thereof, in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). The Public Representative does not represent any individual person, entity or particular point of view, and, when Commission attorneys are appointed, no attorney-client relationship is established. Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant to IEX Rule 15.110(a) and (c), to establish a Supplemental Market Quality Program (“SMQ” or the “Program”). The Program is intended to increase displayed liquidity and promote order flow to the Exchange by offering a financial incentive for Members to enter displayed orders or quotes (
The Program is designed to incentivize the posting of displayed trading interest in securities that IEX determines have a relatively lower volume of displayed trading interest priced at the NBBO on the Exchange compared to other securities. By analyzing displayed order volume and time at the NBBO data, the Exchange has identified certain securities for which it seeks to improve these metrics (the “SMQ Securities”) through incentive payments.
IEX will publish the list of SMQ Securities on its website (on the Fee Schedule), and prior to the start of each month, the Exchange will reevaluate and, as applicable, update its list of SMQ Securities. Any updates to the list of SMQ Securities will be published on IEX's Fee Schedule at least one day prior to the start of the month. IEX believes that the incentives created by the SMQ are likely to increase quoting in these symbols, thereby providing improved trading conditions for all market participants through narrower spreads and increased depth of liquidity available at the NBBO in the SMQ Securities.
To qualify for the SMQ, a Member must enter displayed trading interest (
The following example illustrates how the SMQ will work:
Assume that in a particular month, IEX has designated 150 securities as SMQ Securities. There are 21 trading days in that month, and on eleven of those days Member A's Percent Time at NBBO is at least 40% for 100 of the SMQ securities. On the other ten trading days, Member A's Percent Time at NBBO is at least 40% for 50 of the SMQ securities. At the end of the month, IEX calculates the number of SMQ Securities which Member A has at least 40 Percent Time at NBBO to be 76
As proposed, the Percent Time at NBBO calculation will exclude days with system disruptions that last for more than 60 minutes and days with scheduled early closes when determining the numerator and the denominator. An Exchange system disruption may occur, for example, where a certain group of securities traded on the Exchange is unavailable for trading due to an Exchange system issue. Similarly, the Exchange may be able to perform certain functions with respect to accepting and processing orders, but may have a failure to another significant process, such as routing to other market centers, that would lead Members that rely on such process to avoid utilizing the Exchange until the Exchange's entire system was operational. The Exchange believes that these types of Exchange system
Additionally, as proposed, the Exchange will exclude from its calculations of Percent Time at NBBO for each SMQ Security any portion of regular trading hours when the SMQ Security is subject to a trading halt or Limit Up-Limit Down pause.
The Exchange will allow Members to aggregate their Percent Time at NBBO with other Members with which they are affiliated,
The SMQ will be open to all Members and will not impose any two-sided quotation obligations on any Member seeking to qualify for the SMQ. Accordingly, the SMQ is designed to attract liquidity from any firm that is willing to provide liquidity at the NBB or NBO in SMQ Securities. The Exchange is proposing to provide Members an opportunity to earn an SMQ Payment as a means of recognizing the value of market participants that consistently enter displayed trading interest at the NBBO in the SMQ Securities. Through the Program, the Exchange seeks to provide enhanced liquidity for all market participants through more displayed trading interest, narrower bid-ask spreads, and increased depth of liquidity in the SMQ Securities.
The Exchange notes that the proposed Supplemental Market Quality Program is similar to the Enhanced Market Quality Program offered by Nasdaq BX,
IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
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. IEX has concluded that, in the context of current regulatory requirements governing access fees and rebates, it is able to more effectively compete with other exchanges for order flow by offering Members an additional incentive for posting displayed liquidity on the Exchange in symbols that have a relatively lower volume of displayed orders priced at the NBBO on the Exchange compared to other securities. Based upon informal discussions with market participants, IEX believes that Members and other market participants may be more willing to send displayed trading interest to IEX if the proposed fee change is adopted.
Accordingly, IEX has designed the proposed change to further incentivize Members to send displayed quotes at the NBBO in lower displayed volume symbols. IEX believes that an increase in displayed liquidity and order flow to the Exchange will, in turn, improve the quality of the IEX market and increase its attractiveness to existing and prospective participants. In addition,
As noted in the Purpose section, the Exchange believes the proposed incentive payments in the Supplemental Market Quality Program will incentivize Members to direct additional displayed liquidity-providing orders to the Exchange in SMQ Securities, thereby promoting price discovery and market quality in the SMQ Securities and more generally on the Exchange, and, further, that the resulting increased displayed liquidity and narrower spreads will benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, supporting the quality of price discovery, enhancing quoting competition across all exchanges, and promoting market transparency.
As discussed 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. Within that context, the proposed incentive payments are designed to attract more displayed trading interest to the Exchange. The proposed SMQ is comparable to the MQ Tiers of MIAX PEARL and the Enhanced Market Quality Program of Nasdaq BX, and thus IEX does not believe that the proposal raises any new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission in the context of other exchanges' fees.
Finally, to the extent this proposed fee change is successful in incentivizing the entry and execution of displayed trading interest on IEX, such greater liquidity will benefit all market participants by increasing price discovery and price formation as well as market quality and execution opportunities.
IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if fee schedules at other venues are viewed as more favorable. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the degree to which IEX fees could impose any burden on competition is extremely limited and does not believe that such fees would burden competition between Members or competing venues. Moreover, as noted in the Statutory Basis section, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes raise any new or novel issues not already considered by the Commission.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, while different Members may qualify for different amounts of SMQ Payments, these payments are not based on the type of Member entering the displayed trading interest, but rather on the amount of displayed trading interest each Member submits to the Exchange. Further, the proposed fee changes are intended to incentivize market participants to bring increased order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes increase the maximum auction response processing time for non-FLEX SPX options to 1000 milliseconds (including the length of the auction response period) until December 31, 2025. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange currently offers a variety of auction mechanisms which provide price improvement opportunities for eligible orders. Particularly, the Exchange offers the following auction mechanisms: Complex Order Auction (“COA”),
In June 2023, in order to provide responses to these auctions with increased opportunities to participate in the auction, even during periods of high message traffic, and thus potentially provide customers with additional opportunities for price improvement, the Exchange adopted new functionality that applies across all of its auction mechanisms to increase the likelihood that timely submitted auction responses may participate in the applicable auction, even during periods of high message traffic.
The Exchange proposes to increase the permissible maximum length of this Exchange-determined time period with respect to S&P 500 Index options (“SPX options”).
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.
In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to a free and open market, as it will allow the Exchange's System to potentially process more, if not all, timely submitted auction responses for SPX options auctions, particularly in times of volatility and high message traffic. This may provide further opportunities for auctioned SPX option orders to receive price improvement, which ultimately benefits investors. In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will continue to appropriately balance providing investors with timely processing of their SPX options quote and order messages and providing investors who submit SPX orders that are auctioned with additional liquidity. Indeed, the proposed rule change may allow more investors additional opportunities to receive price improvement through an auction mechanism for their SPX orders. Additionally, because the proposed functionality may provide liquidity providers that submit auction responses with additional execution opportunities in auctions, the Exchange believes they may be further encouraged to submit more auction responses, which may contribute to a deeper, more liquid auction process that provides investors with additional price improvement opportunities for their SPX orders. The Exchange believes the proposal will continue to allow the Exchange to set each SPX auction response period or exposure time to an amount of time that provides Trading Permit Holders submitting responses with sufficient time to respond to, compete for, and provide price improvement for orders, but also continues to provide auctioned orders with improved execution opportunities and minimal impact on market and execution risk.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will result in increased execution opportunities for liquidity providers that submit auction responses and enhance the potential for price improvement for SPX orders submitted to each mechanism to the benefit of investors and public interest. The proposed rule change will permit the Exchange, with respect to SPX options, to set a longer time period in which the System may process auction responses the System receives before the end of an auction response or exposure period (as identified by each auction response message's NIC timestamp). The Exchange believes the proposed increase in maximum time will increase the possibility that timely submitted auction responses are processed by the Exchange and have an opportunity for execution in the applicable auction mechanism, even if there is a deep pending message queue. The Exchange believes the proposed maximum amount of additional time for processing will permit the Exchange to respond to times of high message traffic. Given recent volatility in the market, the Exchange has experienced significant increases in SPX volumes and message traffic, given those options may assist investors in achieving broad market protection in times of volatility. As a result, the Exchange has observed deeper pending message queues, resulting in an increased number of auction responses that were received and timestamped before the conclusion of the auction or exposure period but not processed as part of the execution at the conclusion of an auction. Based on these observations, the Exchange believes the proposed maximum time for SPX options will significantly increase the number of timely received auction responses that may execute against an auction order.
While the proposed increase is significant, the Exchange notes that the combined maximum length of the auction response or exposure period plus the auction response processing period is the same length as the longest maximum permissible auction response or exposure period for the applicable auctions.
Additionally, the Exchange understands some Trading Permit Holders choose to submit auction responses towards the end of an auction response period to better ensure the response is at a price that the market participant is willing to trade given the market at the time the auction response period concludes. This is particularly true during times of higher volatility, as have recently occurred, which times also result in higher message traffic and thus makes it more likely these auction responses will not participate in the auction. As such, extending the auction response period in each auction would not itself prevent auction responses from continuing to miss the auction notwithstanding being timely submitted. Therefore, the Exchange believes extending the auction response processing time is preferable to extending the auction response or exposure period, which the Exchange believes would not prevent auction responses from continuing to miss the auction notwithstanding being timely submitted.
The Exchange believes the proposed increase in maximum auction response processing time for SPX options will provide an adequate amount of time to provide pending auction responses with execution opportunities in times of high message traffic and will continue to have a de minimis impact on other message traffic. Even in times of high message traffic, auction responses continue to represent a small percentage of volume on the Exchange. Auction responses account for a small fraction of message traffic submitted to the Exchange. The Exchange believes the processing of such a small amount of message traffic, even after the conclusion of an auction response period, would therefore continue to have de minimis, if any, impact on the processing of non-auction response messages waiting in the queue, even if that processing occurs over a longer timeframe. The Exchange also notes that all messages are currently processed one at a time by the System. Therefore, the System still needs to “process” all pending auction responses, regardless of whether that processing involves canceling the pending auction response because it wasn't processed in time to participate in the auction or actually processing the response to participate in the auction. Either way, the non-auction response messages will still have to wait for processing of any pending responses ahead of it, regardless of the length of the auction response processing time. Further, updates to prices in the market will still be processed in the same order, and thus executions of the responses at the end of the buffer will not trade through the market at that time. The Exchange notes the proposed rule change makes no changes to how the auction response processing functionality will work (or how any auctions work). Additionally, all message traffic (including auction responses) will continue to be processed in time-priority. Therefore, the Exchange believes any impact of processing additional auction responses for inclusion in an auction rather than cancelling those responses will have minimal impact on message traffic behind them.
The Exchange continues to believe in the vast majority of cases, the additional time needed after the conclusion of an auction response period, if any, to process all pending auction responses will be shorter than the proposed maximum. This is a further benefit of being able to increase the length of the auction response processing time rather than the length of an auction response period. Unlike an auction response period, which must run in its entirety, the auction response processing is adaptable. For example, if the System is “caught up” and processes all auction responses received prior to the completion of a 100 millisecond auction response period within 50 milliseconds after the end of the auction period, the total processing time would be 150 milliseconds. The System only uses the portion of the auction response processing time it needs to process responses with timestamps prior to the end of the auction period (and uses no part of that time if unnecessary to do so). To the extent the Exchange determines a lesser amount of time would be sufficient for SPX options, the Exchange could implement an additional amount of time for processing auction responses that is less than the combined time of 1,000 milliseconds, which time would be announced with reasonable advance notice to market participants via Exchange Notice.
The markets have experienced high volatility and market volatility in recent weeks, which has resulted in increased market traffic, particularly in SPX. The Exchange has observed during these higher market traffic times an increase in the number of auction responses not being able to participate in auctions, notwithstanding being timely submitted within the auction response period. The Exchange believes permitting an increased auction response processing time would better provide market participants with additional opportunities for price improvements with very little, if any, impact to non-auction response message traffic, thereby removing impediments to a free and open market and ultimately protecting and benefiting investors. Additionally, because the proposed rule change may provide liquidity providers that submit auction responses with additional execution opportunities in auctions, the Exchange believes they
Given the current maximum auction response processing time, investors may miss out on opportunities to receive price improvement through the Exchange's auction mechanisms, even if such responses were timely submitted but not processed due to the System being otherwise occupied processing messages in queue ahead of it. The Exchange therefore believes its proposal will make it more likely that the System processes timely submitted auction responses and includes them in applicable auctions during periods of high message traffic, thus providing them with more opportunities to execute against auctioned orders.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the proposed rule change would apply equally to all Trading Permit Holders that submit auction responses in SPX options. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to limit the proposed rule change to SPX options to address significantly higher message traffic within that class, particularly in times of volatility given they may assist investors in achieving broad market protection in such times. Additionally, as noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed increase in the maximum auction response processing time will have little to no impact on non-auction response message traffic and continues to be designed to prevent trade-throughs given all messages, including market price updates, will continue to be processed in time priority. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as the proposed change affects how the System processes auction responses that may only participate in auctions that occur on the Exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed rule change may become operative immediately upon filing to address to the “market volatility in recent weeks, which has resulted in increased message traffic, particularly in SPX options.” During those periods the Exchange observed “an increase in the number of auction responses not being able to participate in auctions for SPX orders.” The Exchange requests waiver of the operative delay to permit it “to increase the auction response processing time as soon as possible to address this higher market traffic, which will benefit investors as the System will potentially process more, if not all, timely submitted auction responses, thereby provide further opportunities for auctioned orders to receive price improvement.” Further, the Exchange states that “the sunset period will permit the Exchange to evaluate the length of the auction response period as it considers other changes to improve performance of the SPX options matching engine.” For those reasons, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of this proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
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.
Ares Capital Corporation, Ares Strategic Income Fund, Ares Capital Management LLC, CION Ares Diversified Credit Fund, Ares Private Markets Fund, Ares Core Infrastructure Fund, Ares Dynamic Credit Allocation Fund, Inc., CION Ares Management LLC, Ares Capital Management II LLC, Ivy Hill Asset Management L.P., Senior Direct Lending Program, LLC, and certain of their affiliated entities as described in Appendix A to the application.
The application was filed on July 12, 2023, and amended on February 7, 2024, August 30, 2024, February 20, 2025, April 4, 2025, April 17, 2025 and April 30, 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, Deepak T. Pai, 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' sixth amended application, filed April 30, 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.
By letter dated March 24, 2025, Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC (“CAT LLC”) on behalf of BOX Exchange LLC, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), Investors Exchange LLC, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc., MEMX LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, MIAX Emerald, LLC, MIAX PEARL, LLC, MIAX Sapphire, LLC, Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, Nasdaq PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE American LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE Chicago, Inc. and NYSE National, Inc. (collectively, the “Participants”) to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (“CAT NMS Plan”),
Section 36 of the Exchange Act grants the Commission the authority, with certain limitations, to “conditionally or unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction . . . from any provision or provisions of [the Exchange Act] or of any rule or regulation thereunder, to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, and is consistent with the protection of investors.”
For the reasons set forth below, this Order grants the Participants' request for a temporary exemption from Section 6.8(b) and Section 3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan as set forth in the March 24, 2025 Exemption Request, subject to certain conditions.
The CAT NMS Plan sets forth certain requirements regarding the granularity of timestamps accepted by the CAT system. Specifically, Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan states “[e]ach Participant shall, and through its Compliance Rule shall require its Industry Members to, report information required by SEC Rule 613 and this Agreement to the Central Repository in milliseconds,” but that “[t]o the extent that any Participant's order handling or execution systems utilize timestamps in increments finer than the minimum required in this Agreement, such Participant shall utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository so that all Reportable Events reported to the Central Repository can be adequately sequenced.”
Section 6.8(c) of the CAT NMS Plan imposes further requirements on Participants regarding analysis of timestamp granularity. Specifically, Section 6.8(c) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Chief Compliance Officer to, “[i]n conjunction with Participants' and other appropriate Industry Member advisory groups,” “annually evaluate and make a recommendation to the Operating Committee as to whether industry standards have evolved such that: . . . (ii) the required time stamp in Section 6.8(b) should be in finer increments.”
On April 8, 2020, the Commission granted the Participants conditional exemptive relief, for five years (until April 8, 2025) and subject to certain conditions, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act and Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act, relating to the granularity of timestamps specified in Section 6.8(b) and Section 3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan.
In the March 24, 2025 Exemption Request, CAT LLC, on behalf of the Participants, requests that the Commission temporarily exempt the Participants from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan that Participants reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository utilize timestamps finer than nanoseconds to the extent that the Participant's order handling or execution systems utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds. In addition, the Participants request that the Commission temporarily exempt the Participants from the requirement in Section 6.8(b) of the CAT NMS Plan for each Participant, through its Compliance Rule, to require that, to the extent that its Industry Members utilize timestamps in increments finer than nanoseconds in their order handling or execution systems, such Industry Members utilize such finer increment when reporting CAT Data to the Central Repository. Lastly, the Participants request that the Commission temporarily exempt the Participants from the requirement in Section 3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan for the Central Repository to be able to accept timestamps on order events handled electronically to the finest level of granularity captured by CAT Reporters. CAT LLC states that the relief granted by the April 2020 Exemptive Relief Order expires on April 8, 2025, and CAT LLC believes that this exemptive relief should be extended for an additional five-year period from the date that the Commission grants the exemptive relief.
Consistent with the April 2020 Exemptive Relief Order, CAT LLC specifies three conditions to the exemption.
The Participants state that they continue to believe that the cost of providing the ability to utilize timestamps in the CAT in a finer granularity than nanoseconds outweighs the benefits.
In addition, the Participants state that CAT Reportable Events can be adequately sequenced in the CAT without requiring timestamps in a finer granularity than nanoseconds, and that the requested relief would serve to preserve the reliability and accuracy of the data reported to the Central Repository.
The Commission has carefully considered the information provided by the Participants in support of the Participants' exemption request from Section 6.8(b) and Section 3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan with respect to timestamp granularity, as well as a comment letter received in support of the Participants' exemption request.
The Commission has previously stated that regulators need sufficiently granular timestamps to sequence events across orders and within order lifecycles, and that a lack of uniform and granular timestamps can limit the ability of regulators to sequence events accurately and link data with information from other data sources.
The proposed approach described in the March 24, 2025 Exemption Request would require both Participants and Industry Members to truncate timestamps in increments more granular than nanoseconds to nanoseconds for submission to the CAT, and the Central Repository will be required to accept timestamps on order events handled electronically to a nanosecond granularity. Based on the foregoing, the Commission believes that, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange Act, this exemption is appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors, and that pursuant to Rule 608(e), this exemption is consistent with the public interest, the protection of investors, the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the removal of impediments to, and the perfection of a national market system to exempt the SROs from Section 6.8(b) and Section 3 of Appendix D of the CAT NMS Plan with respect to timestamp granularity for a period of five years.
Accordingly,
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to update its Fee Schedule to provide a discount on fees assessed to qualifying academic purchasers for purchases ad hoc historical U.S. Equity Short Volume and Trades Reports. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update its Fee Schedule to provide a discount on fees assessed to qualifying academic purchasers for purchases ad hoc historical U.S. Equity Short Volume and Trades Reports (“Short Volume Reports”).
By way of background, the Short Volume Report is an end-of-day report that summarizes certain equity trading activity on the Exchange, including trade date,
Cboe LiveVol, LLC (“LiveVol”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc., makes the Short Volume Report available for purchase to Users on the LiveVol DataShop website (
The Exchange proposes to provide a pricing incentive program in which qualifying academic purchasers may purchase the historical reports for the greater fee of (i) a 50% discount off of their total purchase of historical Short Volume Reports or (ii) $500. For example, if a qualifying academic purchaser purchases a month and a half of data, for a total cost of $750 before the discount (for what would be a discounted price of $375), they will be charged the greater fee of $500.
The Exchange notes that other exchanges currently offer academic discounts for similar data feeds.
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.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes will further broaden the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS. The Exchange believes the dissemination of historical short volume data via historical Short Volume Reports benefits investors through increased transparency and may promote better informed trading, as well as research and studies of the equities industry. Nevertheless, the Exchange notes that such data is not necessary for trading and as noted above, is entirely optional. Moreover, several other exchanges offer a similar data product which offer the same type of data content through similar reports.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered equities exchanges that trade equities. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 14% of the equity market share.
The Exchange believes that the discount for qualifying academic purchasers for the historical Short Volume Reports is reasonable because academic institutions are not able to monetize access to the data as they do not trade on the data set. The Exchange believes the proposed discount will allow for more academic institutions to purchase the historical Short Volume Reports, and, as a result, promote research and studies of the equities industry to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed discount is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all academic institutions that submit an application and meet the accredited academic institution and academic use criteria. As stated above, qualified academic purchasers will subscribe to the data set for educational use and purposes and are not permitted to use the data for commercial or monetizing purposes, nor can they qualify if they are funded by an industry participant. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposed discount is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it maintains equal treatment for all industry participants or other subscribers that use the data for vocational, commercial or other for-profit purposes.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment in which the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, including the adoption of similar discounts to those fees, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes (including discounts and rebates) in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As discussed above, the Exchange's historical Short Volume Reports offering is subject to direct competition from several other options exchanges that offer similar data products. Moreover, purchase of historical Short Volume Reports is optional. It is designed to help investors understand underlying market trends to improve the quality of investment decisions, but is not necessary to execute a trade.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change will apply to all qualifying academic purchasers uniformly. While the proposed fee reduction applies only to qualifying academic purchasers, academic institutions' research and publications as a result of access to historical market data benefits all market participants. The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as other options exchanges currently offer similar historical data to academic institutions at a discounted price.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) of the Act, under sections 6(c) and 23(c) of the Act for an exemption from rule 23c-3 under the Act, and for an order pursuant to section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies to issue multiple classes of shares and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees and early withdrawal charges.
Virtus Global Credit Opportunities Fund and Virtus Investment Advisers, LLC.
The application was filed on March 7, 2025, and amended on April 14, 2025 and April 30, 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:
Trace W. Rakestraw, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' application, dated April 30, 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 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to update its Fee Schedule to provide a discount on fees assessed to qualifying academic purchasers for purchases ad hoc historical U.S. Equity Short Volume and Trades Reports. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update its Fee Schedule to provide a discount on fees assessed to qualifying academic purchasers for purchases ad hoc historical U.S. Equity Short Volume and Trades Reports (“Short Volume Reports”).
By way of background, the Short Volume Report is an end-of-day report that summarizes certain equity trading activity on the Exchange, including trade date,
Cboe LiveVol, LLC (“LiveVol”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc., makes the Short Volume Report available for purchase to Users on the LiveVol DataShop website (
The Exchange proposes to provide a pricing incentive program in which qualifying academic purchasers may purchase the historical reports for the greater fee of (i) a 50% discount off of their total purchase of historical Short Volume Reports or (ii) $500. For example, if a qualifying academic purchaser purchases a month and a half of data, for a total cost of $750 before the discount (for what would be a discounted price of $375), they will be charged the greater fee of $500.
The Exchange notes that other exchanges currently offer academic discounts for similar data feeds.
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.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes will further broaden the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS. The Exchange believes the dissemination of historical short volume data via historical Short Volume Reports benefits investors through increased transparency and may promote better informed trading, as well as research and studies of the equities industry. Nevertheless, the Exchange notes that such data is not necessary for trading and as noted above, is entirely optional. Moreover, several other exchanges offer a similar data product which offer the same type of data content through similar reports.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered equities exchanges that trade equities. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 14% of the equity market share.
The Exchange believes that the discount for qualifying academic purchasers for the historical Short Volume Reports is reasonable because academic institutions are not able to monetize access to the data as they do not trade on the data set. The Exchange believes the proposed discount will allow for more academic institutions to purchase the historical Short Volume Reports, and, as a result, promote research and studies of the equities industry to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed discount is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all academic institutions that submit an application and meet the accredited academic institution and academic use criteria. As stated above, qualified academic purchasers will subscribe to the data set for educational use and purposes and are not permitted to use the data for commercial or monetizing purposes, nor can they qualify if they are funded by an industry participant. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposed discount is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it maintains equal treatment for all industry participants or other subscribers that use the data for vocational, commercial or other for-profit purposes.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment in which the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, including the adoption of similar discounts to those fees, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes (including discounts and rebates) in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As discussed above, the Exchange's historical Short Volume Reports offering is subject to direct competition from several other options exchanges that offer similar data products. Moreover, purchase of historical Short Volume Reports is optional. It is designed to help investors understand underlying market trends to improve the quality of investment decisions, but is not necessary to execute a trade.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change will apply to all qualifying academic purchasers uniformly. While the proposed fee reduction applies only to qualifying academic purchasers, academic institutions' research and publications as a result of access to historical market data benefits all market participants. The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as other options exchanges currently offer similar historical data to academic institutions at a discounted price.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to update its Fee Schedule to provide a discount on fees assessed to qualifying academic purchasers for purchases ad hoc historical U.S. Equity Short Volume and Trades Reports. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update its Fee Schedule to provide a discount on fees assessed to qualifying academic purchasers for purchases ad hoc historical U.S. Equity Short Volume and Trades Reports (“Short Volume Reports”).
By way of background, the Short Volume Report is an end-of-day report that summarizes certain equity trading activity on the Exchange, including trade date,
Cboe LiveVol, LLC (“LiveVol”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Exchange's parent company, Cboe Global Markets, Inc., makes the Short Volume Report available for purchase to Users on the LiveVol DataShop website (
The Exchange proposes to provide a pricing incentive program in which qualifying academic purchasers may purchase the historical reports for the greater fee of (i) a 50% discount off of their total purchase of historical Short Volume Reports or (ii) $500. For example, if a qualifying academic purchaser purchases a month and a half of data, for a total cost of $750 before the discount (for what would be a discounted price of $375), they will be charged the greater fee of $500.
The Exchange notes that other exchanges currently offer academic discounts for similar data feeds.
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.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes will further broaden the availability of U.S. equity market data to investors consistent with the principles of Regulation NMS. The Exchange believes the dissemination of historical short volume data via historical Short Volume Reports benefits investors through increased transparency and may promote better informed trading, as well as research and studies of the equities industry. Nevertheless, the Exchange notes that such data is not necessary for trading and as noted above, is entirely optional. Moreover, several other exchanges offer a similar data product which offer the same type of data content through similar reports.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered equities exchanges that trade equities. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 14% of the equity market share.
The Exchange believes that the discount for qualifying academic purchasers for the historical Short Volume Reports is reasonable because academic institutions are not able to monetize access to the data as they do not trade on the data set. The Exchange believes the proposed discount will allow for more academic institutions to purchase the historical Short Volume Reports, and, as a result, promote research and studies of the equities industry to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed discount is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all academic institutions that submit an application and meet the accredited academic institution and academic use criteria. As stated above, qualified academic purchasers will subscribe to the data set for educational use and purposes and are not permitted to use the data for commercial or monetizing purposes, nor can they qualify if they are funded by an industry participant. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposed discount is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it maintains equal treatment for all industry participants or other subscribers that use the data for vocational, commercial or other for-profit purposes.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment in which the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, including the adoption of similar discounts to those fees, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes (including discounts and rebates) in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. As discussed above, the Exchange's historical Short Volume Reports offering is subject to direct competition from several other options exchanges that offer similar data products. Moreover, purchase of historical Short Volume Reports is optional. It is designed to help investors understand underlying market trends to improve the quality of investment decisions, but is not necessary to execute a trade.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change will apply to all qualifying academic purchasers uniformly. While the proposed fee reduction applies only to qualifying academic purchasers, academic institutions' research and publications as a result of access to historical market data benefits all market participants. The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as other options exchanges currently offer similar historical data to academic institutions at a discounted price.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
This proposed rule change would make modifications to OCC's Recovery and Orderly Wind-Down Plan (“RWD Plan” or “Plan”) in an effort to achieve compliance with the Commission's recently adopted content requirements
In addition to the proposed modifications that OCC believes are necessary to comply with the recently adopted content requirements for RWPs of CCAs, OCC is also including proposed modifications to its RWD Plan that reflect changes identified during OCC's annual review process. The proposed changes related to the Commission's adoption of content requirements for RWPs and the proposed changes identified during OCC's annual review process are differentiated throughout this filing and described in further detail below.
The proposed changes to OCC's RWD Plan are contained in confidential Exhibit 5 [sic] to SR-OCC-2025-005. Material proposed to be added is marked by underlining and material proposed to be deleted is marked with strikethrough text to File No. SR-OCC-2025-005. All terms with initial capitalization that are not otherwise defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
As the sole clearing agency for standardized equity options listed on national securities exchanges registered
OCC's existing RWD Plan describes OCC's ability to continue to provide its critical services in the event of severe financial and/or operational stress. It also describes OCC's approach to a wind-down in the unlikely event that it experiences a severe stress that causes it to exhaust its available tools and resources. In addition to the RWD Plan, OCC also maintains a separate document, the “RWD Plan Supporting Information,” that provides background and context for parties that are reviewing the RWD Plan or utilizing it as part of an actual recovery or wind-down. The RWD Plan Supporting Information does not constitute a stated policy, practice, or interpretation of OCC and is, by its nature, prone to change.
Recently, the Commission adopted new requirements applicable to CCAs (the “SEC RWD Rule”) that supplement existing Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii), and establish specific elements required in RWPs. The SEC RWD Rule is found in 17 CFR 240.17ad-26 (“Rule 17Ad-26”) and helps to ensure that a CCA's planning for recovery and orderly wind-down is effective and can promote financial stability in periods of market stress. The SEC RWD Rule requires, among other things, that RWPs:
(i) Identify and describe their core payment, clearing, and settlement services and address how the CCA would continue to provide such core services in the event of a recovery and during an orderly wind-down, including the (a) identification of the staffing roles necessary to support such core services, and (b) analysis of how such staffing roles necessary to support such core services would continue in the event of a recovery and during an orderly wind-down.
(ii) Identify and describe any service providers for core services, specifying which core services each service provider supports, and (ii) address how the CCA would ensure that service providers for core services would continue to perform in the event of a recovery and during an orderly wind-down, including consideration of its written agreements with such service providers and whether the obligations under those written agreements are subject to alteration or termination as a result of initiation of the recovery and orderly wind-down plan.
(iii) Identify and describe scenarios that may potentially prevent the CCA from being able to provide its core services identified in Rule 17Ad-26(a)(1) as a going concern, including (a) uncovered credit losses, (b) uncovered liquidity shortfalls, and (c) general business losses.
(iv) Identify and describe (a) criteria that could trigger the CCA's implementation of the recovery and orderly wind-down plans and (b) the process that the CCA uses to monitor and determine whether the criteria have been met, including the governance arrangements applicable to such process.
(v) Identify and describe the rules, policies, procedures and any other tools or resources on which the CCA could rely in a recovery or orderly wind-down, and address how the rules, policies, procedures and any other tools or resources identified would ensure timely implementation of the RWP.
(vi) Require the covered clearing agency to inform the Commission as soon as practicable when the CCA is considering implementing a recovery or orderly wind-down.
(vii) Include procedures for testing the CCA's ability to implement the RWPs at least every 12 months, including by (a) requiring the CCA's participants and, when practicable, other stakeholders to participate in the testing of its plans; (b) requiring that such testing would be in addition to testing pursuant to paragraph (e)(13) of 17 CFR 240.17ad-22; (c) providing for reporting the results of the testing to the CCA's board of directors and senior management; and (d) specifying the procedures for, as appropriate, amending the plans to address the results of such testing.
(viii) Include procedures requiring review and approval of the plans by the board of directors of the CCA at least every 12 months or following material changes to the CCA's operations that would significantly affect the viability or execution of the plans, with such review informed, as appropriate, by the CCA's testing of the plans.
OCC believes that its current RWD Plan incorporates several of the content requirements above. OCC's RWD Plan already identifies its critical services provided to market participants and considers the impact that any interruption to a particular service may have on OCC's participants. In addition, OCC's RWD Plan identifies four hypothetical stress scenarios that could threaten OCC's viability as a going concern and provides a description for how OCC would respond in each scenario. OCC's RWD Plan describes the criterion that could trigger the implementation of a recovery or wind-down and identifies its enhanced risk management and recovery tools upon which OCC relies in times of extreme stress. Furthermore, OCC already maintains written procedures for testing the implementation of the Plan and review of the Plan by the Board.
However, to implement a compliant approach with those requirements for which OCC believes changes will be necessary, OCC is proposing to revise its RWD Plan such that the proposed changes: (i) address how OCC would continue to provide its core services in the event of a recovery and during a wind-down through the identification of staffing roles necessary to support OCC's core services and an analysis of how such staffing roles would continue in the event of a recovery or during a wind-down; (ii) identify a subset of OCC's service providers that are necessary to ensure the continued delivery of core services throughout a recovery or wind-down and address the continued performance of such service providers in the event of recovery or during a wind-down; (iii) describe OCC's process used to monitor the criteria that could trigger implementation of a recovery or wind-down; (iv) describe OCC's responsibility to notify the Commission when OCC is considering the implementation of a
The purpose of this proposed rule change by OCC is to modify its RWD Plan to implement changes that are designed to comply with the content requirements in the SEC RWD Rule.
In addition to the proposed changes that OCC believes are necessary to comply with the SEC RWD Rule, OCC also proposes a series of changes to the RWD Plan that were identified during OCC's annual review process. While the proposed changes to OCC's RWD Plan are described in further detail below, thematically, they consist of the following:
i.
• Revisions to Chapter 3 of the RWD Plan to address how OCC would continue to provide its core services in the event of a recovery or wind-down by identifying OCC's key staffing roles necessary to support such core services in the event of a recovery or wind-down.
• Revisions to Chapter 3 of the RWD Plan to include the identified subset of OCC's service providers that are necessary to ensure the continued delivery of OCC's core services in the event of a recovery or wind-down. These revisions include relocating a portion of this information from the RWD Supporting Information into the RWD Plan.
• Revisions to Chapter 4 of the RWD Plan to describe OCC's process for monitoring the criteria that could trigger OCC's implementation of the RWD Plan.
• Revisions to Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of the RWD Plan to provide specific requirements for OCC to inform the Commission as soon as practicable when OCC is considering implementing a recovery or a wind-down.
• Revisions to Chapter 5 of the RWD Plan to include an analysis of how OCC's key staffing roles would continue in the event of a recovery or wind-down.
• Revisions to Chapter 6 of the RWD Plan to clarify OCC's process for testing the RWD Plan, including the involvement of other stakeholders participating in the test, and the roles and responsibilities for reviewing the testing results.
• General revisions to the RWD Plan to achieve compliance with the SEC RWD Rule include: (i) replacing the term “critical” with “core” when referencing OCC's “core services,” (ii) updating sections throughout Chapter 2 and 3 that address OCC's interconnectedness with third-parties to incorporate descriptions for OCC's identified subset of service providers for core services, and (iii) replacing reference to OCC's list of “Tier 1 Vendors” or “vendors” with OCC's list of “service providers for core services” since OCC has modified its existing Tier 1 Vendor list to align with the requirements in the SEC RWD Rule as it relates to service providers for core services.
ii.
• Revisions to Chapter 2 of the RWD Plan to update the role descriptions of OCC's Management to align with OCC's existing organizational structure, and to provide clarity around OCC's Bank Credit Facility.
• Revisions to Chapter 3 of the RWD Plan to update OCC's support functions and department ratings to align with OCC's existing organizational structure.
• Revisions to Chapter 4 of the RWD Plan to incorporate updated information based on recent changes to OCC's Capital Management Policy, approved by the Commission in SR-OCC-2024-012,
• Revisions to Chapter 7 of the RWD Plan to provide additional clarification and granularity on OCC's detailed stress scenarios.
• General revisions to the RWD Plan identified during OCC's annual review process include:
replacing the term “Executive Chairman” with “Chairman,” and “Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel” with “General Counsel and Corporate Secretary” to align with OCC's existing organizational structure;
updating the description of “liquidity loss” under OCC's recovery trigger to align with OCC's current business practices;
updating OCC's internal list of critical support functions to remove “External Relations” as an identified critical support function to reflect OCC's current organizational structure;
eliminating outdated information such as the previous location of OCC's facility that no longer exists;
updating the name of OCC's working group to reflect the combination of two pre-existing working groups;
updating the name of OCC's procedures to reflect current titling;
updating the title of Scenario 4 referenced in Section 1.3 and 4.4.4 from “General Business and Operational Risk” to “Default and General Business Risk” to remain consistent with the existing title in Section 7.1.4;
updating all referenced data points to reflect current information including: (a) the number of personnel in each identified critical support function described in Chapter 3, (b) the maximum number of reductions in personnel that each support function can absorb without compromising
formatting and grammatical changes, such as capitalizing defined terms, deleting unnecessary or redundant language, updating section numbering as necessary, and conforming references to relevant SEC Rules.
A summary description of the proposed changes to the RWD Plan to achieve compliance with the SEC RWD Rule is provided in Section 1. A separate summary description of the proposed changes to the RWD Plan identified during OCC's annual review process is provided in Section 2.
Chapter 3 of the RWD Plan identifies OCC's (i) “Critical Services,” as (i) clearing and settlement services and (ii) pricing and valuation services, which if discontinued, could have a systemic impact on the financial system. Chapter 3 of the RWD Plan also identifies OCC's “Critical Support Functions,” as functions within OCC that must continue in some capacity for OCC to be able to continue providing its Critical Services. Throughout OCC's RWD Plan and specifically detailed in Chapter 3, OCC's proposed changes would replace the term “Critical Services” with “Core Services” as it relates to OCC's core payment, clearance, and settlement services. OCC believes this proposed change would align with the SEC RWD Rule
The SEC RWD Rule requires that OCC's RWD Plan identify staffing roles necessary to support OCC's core services and provide an analysis of how such staffing roles would continue in the event of a recovery or wind-down.
The SEC RWD Rule requires OCC's RWD Plan to identify and describe any service provider for core services, specify which core services each service provider supports, and address how OCC would ensure that such service provider for core services would continue to perform in the event of a recovery or during a wind-down.
To more closely align with the SEC RWD Rule
OCC believes that relocating the “Key Agreements to be Maintained” section from Chapter 5, which focuses solely on wind-downs, into Chapter 3 that outlines OCC's service provider for core services, more closely aligns with the contents in the SEC RWD Rule that requires OCC to ensure services provided for core services would continue to perform in the event of a recovery or during a wind-down.
Chapter 4 of the RWD Plan constitutes OCC's Recovery Plan. The purpose of the Recovery Plan is to provide succinct information about OCC's Enhanced Risk Management and Recovery Tools, as defined in the RWD Plan, and to demonstrate the ways in which OCC's risk management tools, Enhanced Risk Management and Recovery Tools, as well as other available resources, can be applied in stylized hypothetical scenarios considering extreme stress events that could be sufficient to threaten OCC's viability as a going concern.
The SEC RWD Rule requires that the RWD Plan identify and describe the process that OCC uses to monitor and determine whether the criteria have been met.
Chapter 4 of the RWD Plan describes that the General Counsel and Corporate Secretary is responsible for notifying regulators, including the Commission, of the occurrence of a Recovery Trigger Event. The SEC RWD Rule requires that OCC inform the Commission as soon as practicable when OCC is considering implementing a recovery or orderly wind-down.
Chapter 5 of the RWD Plan constitutes OCC's wind-down plan, which establishes the objectives for a resolution process where OCC seeks to continuously deliver its core services, even though its viability as a going concern is threatened, and to provide a menu of actions that OCC's Management, Board and Stockholder Exchanges can consider to effectuate this resolution process. Chapter 5 of the Plan also provides a discussion on the maximum number of reductions in OCC staff that each support function could absorb without compromising OCC's ability to provide its core services during a liquidation. The SEC RWD Rule requires that RWP's provide an analysis of how key staffing roles necessary to support OCC's core services would continue in the event of a recovery or wind-down.
Similar to OCC's proposed changes in Chapter 4 regarding OCC's notification requirements to the Commission during a recovery, OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 5 under the Exhibit titled “WDP Trigger Event” also clarify OCC's responsibility to inform the Commission as soon as practicable when OCC is considering implementing a wind-down. Specifically, OCC's proposed changes provide, in part, that as soon as practicable when the Board is considering the decision to enact a wind-down, OCC must immediately inform OCC's regulators. OCC believes this proposed change aligns with the requirements in the SEC RWD Rule as it relates to informing the Commission when a CCA is considering implementing a recovery or orderly wind-down.
Chapter 6 of OCC's RWD Plan details the governance of OCC's RWD Plan, including the governance structure for approval of the Plan and maintenance of the Plan on an on-going basis. The SEC RWD Rule requires that RWPs include procedures for testing the CCA's ability to implement the RWPs at least every 12 months, including by (a) requiring the CCA's participants and, when practicable, other stakeholders to participate in the testing of its plans; (b) requiring that such testing would be in addition to testing pursuant to paragraph (e)(13) of 17 CFR 240.17ad-22; (c) providing for reporting the results of the testing to the CCA's board of directors and senior management; and (d) specifying the procedures for, as appropriate, amending the plans to address the results of such testing.
The SEC RWD Rule also requires that RWPs include procedures requiring review and approval of the plans by the board of directors at least every 12 months or following material changes to the CCA's operations that would significantly affect the viability or execution of the plans, with such review informed, as appropriate, by the CCA's testing of the plans.
Chapter 2 of the RWD Plan addresses, in part, OCC's interconnections, both financial and operational, with various third-parties. To align with the identified subset of OCC's service providers for core services described in Chapter 3, OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 2 identify “escrow banks” and “liquidation agents” in the bulleted list and in the sub-sections under the section titled “External Interconnectedness” and provide descriptions for these interconnections. Specifically, OCC's proposed changes add a new section titled “Interconnections with Escrow Banks” and provide that OCC has financial and operational interconnections with escrow banks, and that OCC's Escrow Deposit Program allows a customer of an OCC Clearing Member to use cash deposited with the Escrow Bank as supporting collateral backing Escrow Deposits. OCC's proposed changes provide that each customer must enter into a Tri-Party Agreement with the Bank and OCC in order to use cash. As it relates to interconnections with liquidation agents, OCC's proposed changes add a new section titled “Interconnections with Liquidation Agents” and provide that OCC has financial and operational interconnections with liquidation agents
As it relates to interconnections discussed in Chapter 3, OCC's proposed changes to the section titled “Shared Critical External Interconnections” identify escrow banks and liquidation agents as critical external interconnections that OCC relies upon to conduct its core services. Although Clearing Members and exchanges are critical external interconnections for OCC, OCC does not view such a membership relationship or exchange relationship to mean that they are service providers to OCC. Therefore, OCC's proposed changes eliminate reference that exchanges are necessary for OCC to maintain the provision of its core services. Additionally, OCC's proposed changes eliminate reference that Clearing Members are necessary to ensure the provision of OCC's core services. Within this provision, OCC's proposed changes include escrow banks as a necessary category to ensure the provision of OCC's core services. OCC's proposed changes also eliminate the provision “but each OCC interconnection with a particular Clearing Member, settlement bank, or custodian bank relationship is not necessarily critical to OCC's provision of Critical Services, given the number of institutions within each category upon which OCC relies” as this language is not consistent with OCC's service providers for core services list and the SEC RWD Rule requiring the identification of such service providers.
Under Section 1.7, “WDP Trigger Event,” OCC proposes a minor edit to update an incorrect statement. OCC's proposed change provides that OCC has identified a single trigger event based on a determination that recovery efforts have “not” been, or are unlikely to be, successful in returning OCC to viability as a going concern that—if occurring during OCC's recovery efforts—would signal initiation of the WDP. OCC's proposed addition of the word “not” in this sentence promotes clarity and consistency with the explanation of OCC's Trigger Event. OCC also proposes a minor formatting change which includes the relocation of the header “Exhibit 1-2: WDP Trigger Event” from below the WDP Trigger description box to above the description box. This change is intended solely to promote clarity for the reader.
Chapter 2 of the RWD Plan provides a detailed description of OCC's business and the necessary context for the discussion and analysis of OCC's core services in Chapter 3, as well as the context for the discussion and analysis of OCC's resolution process in Chapter 5. OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 2 identified during OCC's annual review process modify the section on OCC's Management structure to reflect OCC's existing organizational structure. For example, OCC's proposed changes update the role descriptions of OCC's Management based on current information at OCC, including oversight responsibility of a specific role and the organizational reporting structure for that position. To include a complete and accurate overview of OCC's current Management Committee members, OCC's proposed changes relocate the “Chief External Relations Officer” description and add the “Chief Clearing and Settlement Services Officer” description to Exhibit 2-3. OCC's proposed changes provide that the Chief Clearing and Settlement Services Officer is responsible for the oversight of the Business Operations department, which includes Collateral Services, Market Operations, Corporate Actions, and Participant Services and Solutions. OCC's proposed changes relocate the description of the “Chief External Relations Officer” to reflect OCC's current organizational structure that no longer requires the Chief External Relations Officer to report to the Executive Chairman. In addition, because OCC's Corporate Communications support function was moved from the External Relations Department into the Human Resources Department, OCC's proposed changes update the description of the “Chief External Relations Officer” to remove the language that provides the Chief External Relations Officer is also responsible for the oversight of the Corporate Communications department, which is responsible for developing and delivering all external communication for OCC and key internal communication to OCC employees. Under the “Governance Structure” section in Chapter 2, OCC's proposed changes clarify that OCC's Board is responsible for review of disciplinary hearings in addition to appeals. This proposed change was included to reflect the current responsibility of OCC's Board. In the section of Chapter 2 titled “Facilities,” OCC's proposed changes eliminate the Jersey City Business Center as a referenced facility that houses OCC's personnel, since that location is no longer in existence. OCC's proposed changes also update specific language in the section titled “Service Level Agreement” to provide that Service Level Agreements (“SLAs”) record a common understanding about services, priorities, responsibilities, data protection, guarantees, and warranties between OCC and “certain” vendors, rather than “the” vendors. This proposed change is aimed to limit ambiguity with reference to vendors impacted by SLAs. To remain consistent with OCC's transition to a non-executive chairman governance structure, OCC's proposed changes eliminate certain provisions under the “Management Structure” section of Chapter 2. Specifically, OCC's proposed changes eliminate the provisions that state “OCC's Executive Chairman serves as the Chairman of OCC's Board. The Executive Chairman is responsible for certain aspects of the OCC's business.” These proposed changes align with OCC's existing governance structure which does not maintain an executive chairman position.
OCC's proposed changes to the “Bank Credit Facility” section in Chapter 2 aim to eliminate the risk of potential inaccuracy within the Plan by removing the specific reference to numerical data points that are currently outdated and have the possibility to change in the future. Specifically, OCC's proposed changes eliminate the reference that the largest commitment under the Bank Credit Facility by any single bank affiliated with a Clearing Member is typically less than $150 million or 7.5% of total Bank Credit Facility
Finally, OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 2 also include minor formatting and grammatical changes, such as changing “the” to “a”, eliminating unnecessary words, and capitalizing defined terms such as “Repo Facility” and “Clearing Member.” Such changes are proposed solely for internal consistency and grammatical accuracy and would not define new terms or make any changes to the meaning of the language in Chapter 2.
OCC's primary changes to Chapter 3 that were identified during OCC's annual review process include proposed updates to OCC's support functions and department ratings to align with OCC's existing organizational structure. For example, OCC's proposed changes reflect that OCC's Exams and Litigation support function, which was previously under the Legal Department, was modified such that the Exams support function was moved from the Legal Department and into the Compliance Department. OCC's proposed changes also reflect that OCC's Business Continuity support function was relocated from the Security Services Department into the Business Operations Department. Additionally, OCC's proposed changes reflect that the Corporate Communications support function was moved from the External Relations Department into the Human Resources Department. OCC's proposed changes update the names of the support functions and departments to align with OCC's current organizational structure and add new support functions or eliminate those support functions no longer in existence. Overall, OCC's proposed changes to Exhibit 3-3 reflect updates to align with OCC's existing organizational structure based on changes that occurred from an administrative perspective to OCC's departments. Furthermore, to incorporate those updates in department structure to Exhibit 3-3, OCC's proposed changes also include related updates to the department ratings based on relocation or renaming of the support function or department.
Based on changes within OCC's department structure, OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 3 also specify that the External Relations Department is no longer identified as a Critical Support Function, because the Corporate Communications team has been moved from the External Relationship Department into the Human Resources Department. Based on this change, OCC's proposed changes provide that the External Relations Department is no longer deemed a “Critical Support Function.” To reflect this, OCC's proposed changes update the title of Exhibit 3-3 to remove the term “Critical” in the heading. Prior to Exhibit 3-3, OCC's proposed changes in Section 3.4 provide that “all but one support function are critical to the provision of OCC's Core Services identified above.” OCC's proposed changes also specify that eleven of the twelve identified support functions are necessary to deliver OCC's core services, and the External Relations Department is not included in those twelve.
Lastly, general proposed changes to Chapter 3 that were identified during OCC's annual review process include (i) updating the number of personnel employed under each Critical Support Function in Exhibit 3-4 and the description of IT Systems to reflect current data, (ii) removing the bullet point list of Critical Support Functions listed above Exhibit 3-3 to eliminate redundancy of information because this list is already provided earlier in Chapter 3, (iii) removing the word “subpart” in the description of Exhibit 3-2 description to reflect accurate information, (iv) updating the name of OCC's “Agreement Review Policy” to “Material Agreements Policy” to reflect the current name of the Policy, and (v) editing text for grammatical or formatting purposes. The grammatical and formatting changes are proposed solely for internal consistency and grammatical accuracy and would not define new terms or make any changes to the meaning of the language in Chapter 3.
OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 4 of the RWD Plan identified during OCC's annual review process include updates to the Plan based on changes approved by the Commission to OCC's Capital Management Policy in SR-OCC-2024-012.
OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 4 of the Plan also update the section titled “Inventory of Enhanced Risk Management Tools” to provide information on how OCC's enhanced risk management tools, specifically Excess LNAFBE and EDCP Unvested Balance, would be utilized in the event of a non-default or operational loss. Currently, this section only describes how OCC's enhanced risk management tools would be utilized in the event of a default loss. OCC uses a different methodology in the event of a non-default loss, so OCC's proposed changes clarify how Excess LNAFBE and EDCP Unvested Balance would be used in the event of a non-default loss vs. a default loss. Specifically, OCC's proposed changes provide that in the event of an operational loss, OCC would first contribute Excess LNAFBE, and if capital remains below defined levels, will next contribute the EDCP Unvested Balance. OCC's proposed changes provide that after use of the Excess LNAFBE and EDCP Unvested Balance, OCC would next charge an Operational Loss Fee in equal share to each Clearing Member. OCC's proposed changes provide that in the event of a deficiency due to default, OCC would utilize its Minimum Corporate Contribution and Excess LNAFBE in advance of charging a loss or deficiency proportionately to the Clearing Fund deposits of non-defaulting Clearing Members. OCC's Plan explains that after use of the Minimum Corporate Contribution and Excess LNAFBE, OCC would next pay for a loss out of the Clearing Fund and the EDCP Unvested Balance charged on a proportionate basis against the sum of the EDCP Unvested Balance and all
OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 4 include updates to the section titled “Clearing Fee Change.” Under the sub-section titled “Implementation, Time Frame and Key Risks,” OCC proposes to edit the first paragraph to remain consistent with OCC's existing Capital Management Policy.
OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 4 also include updates to the section titled “Minimum Clearing Fund Cash Contribution” and the section titled “Borrowing Against Clearing Fund.” OCC's proposed changes to the “Minimum Clearing Fund Cash Contribution” section, to more closely align with Rule 1002(a)(i),
Exhibit 4-1 in OCC's RWD Plan illustrates the alignment of OCC's Recovery Tools to the risk exposures identified in the CPMI-IOSCO 2014 Recovery Report. The exhibit currently depicts OCC's enhanced risk management and recovery tools, and the risk exposures identified in the event of a default loss. OCC's proposed changes to the section in Chapter 4 titled “Minimum Corporate Contribution, Excess LNAFBE, and EDCP Unvested Balance” clarify how OCC's enhanced risk management tools, specifically Excess LNAFBE and EDCP Unvested Balance, would be utilized in the event of a non-default loss, in addition to a default loss. Therefore, OCC's proposed changes update Exhibit 4-1 to align the tools with the associated risk exposure in the event of a non-default loss. To reflect this, OCC's proposed changes add a check mark under legal risk, general business risk and operational risk. Additional proposed changes to Exhibit 4-1 include replacing the general reference of OCC's “Replenishment Plan” as an enhanced risk management and recovery tool with a more specific reference to OCC's “Operational Loss Fee.” OCC's Replenishment Plan includes the use of excess LNAFBE, EDCP Unvested Balance and Operational Loss Fee. Because OCC breaks down the Replenishment Plan into separate categories for Excess LNAFBE and EDCP Unvested Balance in the existing table, to remain consistent with this approach, OCC's proposed changes replace “Replenishment Plan” with “Operational Loss Fee.”
OCC's proposed changes provide additional clarification in the section in Chapter 4 titled “Credit Risk Due to Bank or Commodities or Securities Clearing Organization Failure.” OCC's proposed changes include reference to a Repo Bank Facility, in addition to a Bank Credit Facility, as another available resource to OCC when utilizing its authority to borrow against the Clearing Fund. OCC's proposed changes to this section also provide that to address counterparty credit risk, OCC will utilize its authority to borrow against the Clearing Fund (by transferring cash or pledging the borrowed collateral to the Bank Credit Facility or the Repo Facilities) in order to make settlements for the day. OCC's proposed changes include the additional information “by transferring cash” to provide a more complete and accurate description of OCC's ability to borrow against the Clearing Fund. OCC's proposed changes to this section aim to clarify that the Bank Credit Facility is not the only means of borrowing against the Clearing Fund, rather OCC can borrow the cash or the government securities in the Clearing Fund, and the government securities can be converted to cash by either the Bank Credit Facility or the Repo Facilities.
OCC's proposed changes to the section in Chapter 4 titled “Recovery Trigger Events,” which are also reflected in Exhibit 1-1, modify the description of “liquidity loss” under OCC's recovery triggers to limit ambiguity in the description. OCC's existing description of “liquidity loss” provides that it is a significant depletion of liquidity resources such that OCC may not be able to address foreseeable liquidity shortfalls to avoid unwinding, revoking, or delaying the same-day settlement of payment obligations. OCC's proposed changes to this description eliminate the term “may” and describe “liquidity loss” to be a significant depletion of liquidity resources such that OCC “forecasts that current available liquidity resources will” not be able to address foreseeable liquidity shortfalls to avoid unwinding, revoking, or delaying the same-day settlement of payment obligations. This proposed change is intended to promote clarity by using a more quantitative measure in determining the result of how OCC constitutes a liquidity loss.
OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 4 also update the title of Scenario 4 from “General Business and Operational Risks” to “Default and General Business Risks” to remain consistent with the
Additional proposed changes to Chapter 4 identified during OCC's annual review process include: (i) updating inaccurate references to OCC's procedures by removing the reference to “Bank On-boarding and Off-boarding Procedure” and replacing it with reference to “Settlement Bank Failure Procedure” as shown in the “Borrowing Against the Clearing Fund” section; (ii) updating the section titled “Assessment Powers for the Pre-Funded Clearing Fund” and “Assessment Powers Beyond the Pre-Funded Clearing Fund” to reflect accurate information within OCC's procedures as it relates to implementation, time frame and key risks. Specifically, OCC's proposed changes in these sections provide that Market Risk and Default Management would calculate the proportional assessment amounts, and Legal would prepare a notice of Clearing Fund Assessments and a public notice which is distributed to Member Services to be posted. Currently, these sections provide that Market and Default Management prepares a draft Notice of Clearing Fund Assessments and a public notice for review by Legal; and that following the review, Legal notifies Member Services that the Notice of Clearing Fund Assessments and public notice may be posted.
Finally, OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 4 include grammatical and other non-substantive edits to language to provide clarity and consistency throughout the document.
OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 5 of the RWD Plan identified during OCC's annual review process include updates to the exhibit titled “Summary of Targeted Reductions in Force” to modify the number of full-time employees, and the number of those employees to be retained and released, to reflect current data. OCC's proposed changes also update the comments within each summary of each support function to reflect current roles and responsibilities of the support function to be retained. OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 5 also update outdated information in the sectioned titled “Termination of Stock Loan Programs.” OCC's proposed changes provide that given the nature of the cessation of OCC's Stock Loan Programs and the potential for temporary disruption to Stock Loan participants, it is imperative that the termination of the programs is timely and appropriately communicated to the regulators and to Clearing Members. OCC's proposed changes eliminate the inaccurate reference to an increase in the size of OCC's Clearing Fund.
Minor, non-substantive updates to Chapter 5 identified during the annual review process include updating grammatical and formatting language. Specifically, within the section titled “Merger Transaction,” OCC's proposed changes replace “the” with “a” to reflect that for purposes of the WDP, a “Merger Transaction” means a merger or consolidation of OCC with another entity, with OCC as a surviving entity. This change provides clarity that OCC may not be the sole surviving entity in this situation.
OCC's proposed changes to Chapter 7 of the RWD Plan identified during OCC's annual review process include modifications to OCC's four detailed hypothetical scenarios to: (i) update referenced numbers throughout all detailed scenarios to reflect current data, and (ii) provide more granular information as it relates assumptions and details within the scenarios to make each scenario more realistic.
As described in each hypothetical stress scenario 1 through 4, OCC's existing Plan provides that due to the extremity of the scenario and potential for negative market wide effects, the Business Continuity team is contacted to advise the Crisis Management Coordinator to determine if further actions are required with the CMT Plan. OCC's proposed changes to stress scenarios 1 through 4 add the language “including a decision for regulatory notification” to this provision to provide an example of what specific further action would be taken within the scenarios. Other proposed changes within each stress scenario include (i) updating “CMT Leader” to “Crisis Management Coordinator” to reflect the accurate name of the title of the role at OCC, (ii) deleting information that OCC believes is no longer relevant in the scenario, (iii) relocating existing information within the scenario to promote clarity in timeline, and (iv) including clarifying language to reduce ambiguity in scenario assumptions. A more detailed description of the proposed changes to the scenarios are described below.
In hypothetical stress scenario 1, OCC proposes to update the scenario such that the first draw after the Clearing Member default would be a borrowing from the Clearing Fund, rather than a proportionate charge to the Clearing Fund and unvested EDCP Balance. OCC believes this proposed modification represents a more realistic approach to how OCC would address the hypothetical scenario. Because OCC
Under day 2 of scenario 1, OCC's proposed changes eliminate two provisions that OCC believes are no longer applicable in the event of a realistic scenario. Specifically, OCC's proposed changes eliminate the provision that states “All non-defaulting Clearing Members satisfy their assessment obligations by 8A.M. Central Time, restoring Clearing Fund to $13.3 billion of which $9.3 billion is in cash.” OCC's proposed changes also eliminate the provision that provides “Accordingly, after the $5.3 billion replenishment on Day 2, OCC's remaining replenishment power for the cooling-off period is $18.1 billion.” OCC also proposes to relocate information from day 1 to day 2 to reflect the proposed change regarding the initial draw as a borrowing, rather than a proportionate charge, from the Clearing Fund. Specifically, OCC's proposed changes relocate from day 1 to day 2 the provision that states “As a result of the Clearing Fund being used during the Default Management Process, a 15-day rolling cooling-off period in accordance with Rule 1006(h)(B) commences; during this time, Clearing Members are not liable for more than 200% of their individual total Clearing Fund contributions required as of the cooling-off period trigger event.” OCC also proposes to incorporate new information to provide additional clarity in the scenario, including the provision that states “OCC determines the previous $8.3 billion outstanding borrowing to be an actual loss to the Clearing Fund.” Throughout days 3 through 18 of scenario 1, OCC's proposed changes update the referenced numbers within the scenario to reflect current data and eliminate various provisions that OCC believes are no longer relevant to the scenario. Because OCC's proposed changes establish the initial draw to be a borrowing from the Clearing Fund on day 1, and the charge to commence on day 2, as a result, the 15-day cooling off period would also start on day 2. Therefore, OCC's proposed changes extend the scenario to last 22 days, instead of 21 days, because a cooling off period can extend up to 20 days from the initial charge to the Clearing Fund.
In hypothetical stress scenario 2, OCC's proposed changes provide that (1) OCC receives an “all clear” message from NSCC, and (2) other services that Bank A provides to OCC are not impacted. These proposed changes provide additional information to promote clarity within the scenario. OCC's proposed changes also provide language within the assumption that “more than” 25 Clearing Members settle through Bank A. This proposed change provides flexibility on the number of Clearing Members in the scenario. Currently, OCC's Plan provides that Clearing members are able to receive wire funds to back up settlement banks. To clarify that OCC assumes the normal flow of business such that settlement banks are operating normally related to debit/credit functionality, OCC proposes to update this sentence to provide that Clearing Members are able to “send and” receive wire funds to “and from” back up settlement banks. These proposed changes are intended to capture the assumption that functionality between the settlement bank and Clearing Member is operating without issue. Furthermore, OCC's proposed changes to Scenario 2 provide clarity around the notification process. On day 1 of scenario 2, OCC's proposed changes specify that Collateral Services, rather than a general reference to OCC, becomes aware of the disruption through internal monitoring of settlement instructions and external notification. OCC's proposed changes also provide that Collateral Services informs Financial Risk Management (“FRM”) and Treasury that Bank A is experiencing an operational disruption. OCC's proposed changes eliminate the provision that notification is provided specifically to Market Risk Default Management when unable to meet the 10:00 a.m. Central Time operational settlement time. The purpose of this proposed change is to expand the notification to several groups within the department, not just Market Risk Default Management. OCC's proposed changes also provide that at 10:00 a.m., rather than 10:45 a.m., Bank A informs OCC that there is no ETA on a resolution and that this could be a prolonged outage. OCC's proposed changes also provide that formal notification is provided to FRM when Bank A is unable to meet the 10:00 a.m. Central Time operational settlement time, and then notification is provided to the Default Management email distribution list. Because OCC's proposed changes add a specific provision on formal notification to FRM and the Default Management Group, OCC's proposed changes eliminate the reference that MRDM “escalates the incident to the FRM Default Management Email Group.” To add clarity and promote a more realistic approach to the scenario, OCC's proposed changes provide that the ED, MRDM or delegate recommends to the Office of the CEO (“OCEO”) to have members enact alternative settlement procedures and extend settlement via Rule 505 “based on the information provided by Bank A as well as the large number of first that settle at Bank A.” To add additional detail, additionally OCC's proposed changes provide that “alternative settlement processing is highly manual and time consuming.” Finally, OCC's proposed changes to scenario 2 add clarifying information that provides “due to the large number of Clearing Members settling through Bank A and the extensive manual payment instructions that go along with enacting alternative settlement, the OCEO authorizes extension of settlement until the close of Fedwire.” Although this outcome has always been
In hypothetical stress scenario 3, OCC's proposed changes promote clarity within the scenario to provide for a more realistic approach. Under the “Enhanced Risk Management and Recovery Tools” section of scenario 3, OCC's existing Plan describes that depending upon the issue, OCC and DTC Management collaborate on selecting the appropriate enhanced risk management and/or recovery tool. For additional context in this bullet point, OCC proposes to add the provision that provides “This may include using OCC's Clearing Fund under Rule 1006.” This proposed change is intended to promote additional clarity for the reader and provide context in an example of what may be an appropriate tool in this situation. OCC's proposed changes in scenario 3 also relocate information to earlier in the scenario, including the provision that provides “DTC confirms they are experiencing an outage and are working on the problem.” Additionally, OCC's proposed changes also relocate the provision that states “DTC has no ETA on resolution and does not expect to be resolved by the end of the processing day” to earlier in the scenario to also promote a more realistic approach to the scenario. OCC proposes deleting “As the end of the day is nearing” from this relocated text because it is relocated to earlier in the scenario. OCC's existing Plan provides that Collateral Servies notifies EquiLend that new and in-flight stock loan trades may not be cleared. OCC proposes to replace the text “that new and in-flight stock loan trades may not be cleared” with “on the status of transactions with DTC” to promote clarity within the scenario.
OCC's proposed changes add new information in the scenario that provides if Clearing Members question OCC about the validity of existing collateral, Business Operations will communicate that Clearing Members' existing collateral, that has been accepted by DTC, is still recognized by OCC as reflected in OCC's clearing system. OCC replaces “Member Services/Collateral Services” and “Member Services” with “Business Operations” to reflect the current responsibility of the department. OCC proposes to incorporate this change to provide clarity that in a realistic scenario, OCC would not proactively reach out to Clearing Members validating the existence of their collateral. However, only if Clearing Members contact OCC and question the validity of their collateral, then OCC would provide a response. To account for this change, OCC's proposed changes also remove the language within the scenario that provides “they also communicate that Clearing Members' existing collateral that has been accepted by DTC is still recognized by OCC as reflected in OCC's clearing system.” OCC's proposed changes include a provision within scenario 3 that provides OCC is unable to enter Stock Loan Re-Purchase Adjustments as those adjustments are entered directly into the DTC system, and that Business Operations works with DTC to communicate the adjustments, and DTC makes the appropriate updates internally. This additional information supports a more realistic scenario approach. Finally, OCC's proposed changes remove information that OCC believes is no longer relevant to the scenario, including the provision that provides “Market Operations notifies DTC and NSCC that OCC's processing must begin and kicks off finalization by 9 p.m. Central Time as an ETA for DTC back online has not been received.”
In hypothetical stress scenario 4, OCC's proposed changes to the scenario, at a high-level, aim to make the scenario more realistic by including more detail including the total size of default to be $145 million. OCC's proposed changes provide that after receiving a recommendation to borrow $145 million from an Executive Director in Default Management and approval to borrow the cash from the Clearing Fund from OCEO, Treasury transfers $145 million in cash from the OCC Clearing Fund account at the Federal Reserve Bank to BMO. OCC's proposed changes provide that funds are deposited into an OCC liquidating settlement account in the name of the defaulting clearing member to pay start of day settlements. In addition to updating the relevant numbers in the scenario to account for accurate data, OCC's proposed changes incorporate additional detail into the scenario. OCC's proposed changes update an existing provision to provide “OCC returns the $70 million to the Clearing Fund account at the Federal Reserve Bank.” Later in the scenario, OCC's existing Plan provides that the auction winning bidder takes possession of the defaulting Clearing Member's position. OCC proposes to include additional information in this provision by adding “and $75 million is returned to Clearing Fund account at the Federal Reserve Bank to fully repay the borrowing. Lastly, OCC proposes to add the provision that OCC files a $60 million insurance claim less a $10 million retention to cover $50 million of the $90 million loss, and meanwhile, OCC exercises the $75 million working capital line of credit as needed for liquidity purposes. The remaining proposed revisions to stress scenario 4 provide additional granularity within the scenario to promote clarification and provide a more realistic approach to the scenario. The additional granularity is proposed solely to give the reader more detail and context without making any changes to the scenario or tools that OCC would apply in Scenario 4. Finally, OCC's proposed changes remove information that OCC believes is no longer relevant to the scenario.
OCC's proposed changes throughout the RWD Plan replace the term “Executive Chairman” with “Chairman” and “Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel” with “General Counsel” to align with changes to OCC's existing organizational structure and descriptions of roles. OCC's proposed changes also update the name of OCC's Working Group from the “Recovery and Wind-Down Working Group” or “RWD Plan Working Group” to the “Default and Recovery Working Group” to reflect the combination of two prior working groups: the Recovery and Wind-Down Working Group (also referred to as the RWD Plan Working Group) and the Default Management Working Group.
OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act
For these reasons, OCC believes the proposed changes to its RWD Plan are reasonably designed to protect investors and the public interest, in accordance with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii)
Lastly, OCC believes the proposed changes identified during its annual review process are also consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii).
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed changes are in the public interest, would be consistent with the requirements of the Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not impact or impose a burden on competition.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-OCC-2025-005 and should be submitted on or before May 28, 2025.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of
The Exchange proposes to amend IEX Rule 11.190(b)(20) to modify its Post Only order type so that it would only execute upon entry if it would receive price improvement (as measured against the less aggressive of the order's limit price or the contra-side Protected Quotation) of at least $0.01. IEX makes this proposal to further encourage the posting of displayed liquidity on the Exchange.
IEX's Post Only parameter instruction will post a displayable, non-routable order priced at or above $1.00 per share.
IEX proposes to replace the Sum of Fees calculation with an alternative approach to assessing whether to match an incoming Post Only order with a resting contra-side order notwithstanding the Member's
To determine at the time of the potential execution whether the value of such execution when removing liquidity equals or exceeds the value of such execution if the order instead posted to the IEX Order Book and subsequently provided liquidity, the Exchange uses the highest possible rebate paid and highest possible fee charged for such executions on the Exchange.
IEX believes that providing greater determinism in when a Post Only order will remove liquidity on entry will enhance the utility of such orders to Members. Specifically, Post Only orders are used by Members seeking to add displayed liquidity on the Exchange in order to receive a rebate, unless the economics of the order taking liquidity on entry is preferable from a fee perspective. IEX believes its proposal to replace the current Sum of Fees approach with an approach that requires an incoming order to receive price improvement of at least $0.01 for it to remove liquidity on entry will cause more Post Only orders to not remove liquidity on entry and instead add displayed liquidity to the Order Book, which would further incentivize the use of Post Only orders by Members who are seeking to add displayed liquidity to the Exchange.
Therefore, IEX proposes to replace its Sum of Fees calculation with an explicit and higher minimum price improvement requirement, such that an incoming Post Only order will only remove contra-side liquidity if the order would receive price improvement (as measured against the less aggressive of the order's limit price or the contra-side Protected Quotation) of at least $0.01. The following examples illustrate how the System will determine whether to execute a Post Only order on entry:
• Market for security XYZ is $10.10 × $10.20.
• IEX has a displayed offer to sell 100 shares of XYZ for $10.20 (“Order A”).
• IEX receives a Post Only order to buy 100 shares of XYZ with a limit price of $10.22 (“Order B”).
• The System determines that the contra-side Protected Quotation of $10.20 is less aggressive than Order B's limit price of $10.22.
• The System uses the less aggressive price to determine how much price improvement Order B would receive if it removed liquidity on entry; in this case, if Order B removed Order A at $10.20, Order B would receive $0.00 of price improvement. Because $0.00 is less than $0.01, the System will not allow Order B to execute, and it will book at $10.19 (pursuant to IEX's display price sliding rules).
• Market for security XYZ is $10.10 × $10.20.
• IEX has a non-displayed Midpoint Peg offer to sell 100 shares of XYZ for $10.15 (“Order A”).
• IEX receives a Post Only order to buy 100 shares of XYZ with a limit price of $10.22 (“Order B”).
• The System determines that the contra-side Protected Quotation of $10.20 is less aggressive than Order B's limit price of $10.22.
• The System uses the less aggressive price to determine how much price improvement Order B would receive if it removed liquidity on entry; in this case, if Order B removed Order A at $10.15, Order B would receive $0.05 of price improvement. Because $0.05 is greater than $0.01, the System will allow Order B to execute on entry.
As described above, a Post Only order currently can execute on entry if it receives $0.005 of price improvement (
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed changes by Trader Alert at least ten days in advance of such implementation date and within 90 days of effectiveness of this proposed rule change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange further believes that the proposed change would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and protect investors and the public interest because allowing a Post Only order to remove liquidity on entry only when it would receive price improvement (as measured against the less aggressive of the order's limit price or the contra-side Protected Quotation) of at least $0.01 would promote higher-quality executions and greater determinism for Members submitting Post Only orders, thereby encouraging increased order flow to the Exchange and enhanced trading opportunities for all market participants. Finally, the Exchange notes that considering the economic benefit of an execution is not a novel concept and believes that this proposed change would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system by providing Members with greater price improvement and greater certainty as to when an incoming Post Only order would execute on entry, as well as by promoting competition among equity exchanges.
In addition, as noted in the Purpose section, IEX's proposal to replace its Sum of Fees calculation with a more deterministic price improvement requirement is identical to functionality already available on both NYSE Arca and Nasdaq.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the proposal is designed to enhance IEX's competitiveness with other markets by further incentivizing the posting of displayed liquidity on the Exchange. As noted above, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would generally align order handling on IEX with trading functionality on other equity exchanges and thus would promote competition among exchanges by offering member organizations similar functionality and order handling options to those available on other exchanges. The Exchange also believes that, to the extent the proposed change would increase opportunities for the posting of displayed orders to IEX's Order Book, the proposed change would promote competition by making the Exchange a more attractive venue for order flow and enhance market quality for all market participants. Moreover, competing exchanges have and can continue to adopt the same functionality contained in this proposal, subject to the SEC rule change process, as discussed in the Purpose and section.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All Members are eligible to submit Post Only orders. Moreover, the proposal would provide potential benefits to all Members, as discussed in the Statutory Basis section, to the extent that allowing Post Only
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 12, 2025, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
ICC is registered with the Commission as a clearing agency for the purpose of clearing CDS contracts.
ICC proposes changes to both the RPSRP and the RMMD to better document its risk management methodology and processes.
The RPSRP contains details related to parameters considered in calculating the integrated spread response (“ISR”). The ISR is a risk model component that captures the credit spread and recovery rate fluctuations and is computed by creating profit/loss distributions from a set of jointly simulated hypothetical credit spread and recovery rate scenarios.
Currently, risk management MADs are updated at different times depending on whether the risk management MADs are for indexes or single names. The index RF level risk management MADs are automatically updated daily in the risk management system.
ICC's proposal would change the RPSRP to automatically update the single-name RF level risk management MADs daily rather than at least monthly.
ICC proposes automatic daily updates for single name RF level risk management MADs because these risk factors benefit from daily updates.
The Proposed Rule Change would also add more detail to the RPSRP's and RMMD's discussion of anti-procyclicality (“APC”) parameters related to the ISR. Procyclicality, in part, refers to the potential for an increase in margin or guaranty fund requirements during periods of economic stress to exacerbate financial distress. ICC has adopted APC parameters to help mitigate procyclicality in the ISR.
ICC proposes to add text to Section 1.7.3 of the RPSRP related to the APC parameter for the ISR. Specifically, ICC proposes adding calibration details describing how the APC measure accounts for asynchronous hedging risk through use of asynchronous scenarios. Asynchronous scenarios correspond to the dislocation of the underlying CDS index versus CDS index option hedges in the event of a liquidation auction.
ICC also proposes changes to Section VII.5.3 of the RMMD, similar to the changes to the RPSRP described above, to address independent validation report recommendations.
ICC's proposal would also revise Section VII.5.3 of the RMMD to make changes to how it determines the underlying price dislocation factors used in asynchronous scenarios for index options. Currently, the underlying price dislocation factors for asynchronous scenarios in the index option context are set to a specific value in the RMMD. The Proposed Rule Change would determine these underlying price dislocation factors by considering a ratio between peak price decreases or increases. ICC proposes these changes to potentially improve the accuracy of the underlying price dislocation factors by using a potentially shifting estimate, rather than a static number.
ICC proposes changes to Section III.2 of the RMMD to make the CDS index and CDS single name MaxLoss boundary condition more stable and conservative.
With respect to CDS index positions, ICC currently considers (i) the loss responses of a portfolio's CDS index positions alone and (ii) the loss responses of a portfolio's CDS index positions and CDS index option positions combined. The Proposed Rule Change would eliminate the components of the MaxLoss boundary conditions that consider the loss responses of a portfolio's CDS index positions alone. Instead, ICC would consider the loss responses of a portfolio's CDS index positions and CDS index option positions combined, as associated with extreme price moves.
With respect to single name positions, when determining the MaxLoss boundary condition, there is no CDS single-name option for ICC to consider.
Finally, the Proposed Rule Change would also make minor corrections, clarifications, and additions to the RPSRP and RMMD. Currently, Section 1.7.1 of the RPSRP indicates that ICC estimates and reviews the univariate single name ISR parameters and their assumptions at least on a monthly basis. ICC proposes to remove the reference to single names so that this provision indicates that ICC estimates and reviews the univariate ISR parameters and their assumptions at least monthly. Given that ICC's reviews encompass both single name and index ISR parameters, it is unnecessary to specify single names here.
Section 1.7.1 of the RPSRP also currently indicates that, on a monthly basis, ICC's Risk department presents to, and reviews with, the ICC Risk Working Group the performed analysis (meaning the estimation and review of the univariate ISR parameters and their assumptions), and any proposed parameter updates. ICC's proposal would add language indicating that ICC's Risk department presents any “additional” proposed parameter updates, rather than just any proposed parameter updates, to the ICC Risk Working Group. ICC proposes this change to clarify that ICC's Risk department presents to and reviews with the ICC Risk Working Group not only the automatic parameter updates described in the RPSRP, but also any proposed parameter updates beyond the automatic parameter updates.
ICC's proposal would also create a revision history in the RMMD and adjust the revision history in the RPSRP. The addition of a revision history in the RMMD and the edits to the RPSRP revision history would capture the proposed changes described above.
Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act requires the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the organization.
The description of a proposed rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission finding,
After carefully considering the Proposed Rule Change, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Under Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, ICC's rules, among other things, must be “designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and . . . assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible . . . .”
ICC proposes several changes that mitigate procyclicality. The Proposed Rule Change would automatically update the risk management mean absolute deviation parameters for CDS single name risk factors daily rather than monthly. These automatic daily updates allow ICC to timely capture significant MAD changes and minimize the cumulative effect of MAD changes between two parameter updates, thereby reducing the level of procyclicality.
ICC's proposal would also enhance calibration details and documentation related to the anti-procyclical condition measure for CDS index options. Specifically, ICC proposes to add details and descriptions regarding how ICC addresses asynchronous and synchronous scenarios in its APC measures. ICC also proposes adjusting how it determines underlying price dislocation factors used in asynchronous scenarios for index options to consider a ratio between peak price decreases and increases rather than using a specific value. By more completely addressing these asynchronous and synchronous scenarios—particularly the asynchronous scenarios—and adjusting the method of determining underlying price dislocation factors, ICC strengthens its APC parameters.
The Proposed Rule Change would also update the calculation of the risk factor level MaxLoss. Specifically, ICC would make the CDS index and CDS single name MaxLoss boundary condition more stable and conservative by adjusting these conditions to consider sub-portfolio loss responses associated with extreme price moves and, in some cases, eliminating the need to consider index-only portfolio loss responses. These changes make the MaxLoss boundary conditions more conservative because they potentially may lead to larger losses for sub-portfolios.
Reducing the level of procyclicality helps to ensure that ICC collects initial margin sufficient to cover its credit exposures to its Clearing Participants without adding financial stress. This supports Clearing Participants' ability to satisfy margin requirements, and therefore ICC's ability to continue operating as a central counterparty with the financial resources necessary to promptly and accurately clear and settle CDS transactions and safeguard securities and funds. Thus, these proposed changes are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
ICC also proposes changes to correct, clarify, and add to the RPSRP and RMMD. ICC's proposal would clarify that the ICC Risk department's estimates and reviews of univariate ISR parameters and their assumptions encompass both single name and index ISR parameters. The Proposed Rule Change would also add language indicating that the ICC Risk Department presents to and reviews with the ICC Risk Working Group not only the automatic parameter updates described in the RPSRP but also any proposed parameter updates beyond the automatic parameter updates. These proposed changes clarify what ICC personnel are presenting and reviewing in certain situations, helping to ensure that all relevant information is presented and reviewed as required. This helps to ensure that individuals and groups at ICC are appropriately informed, which enhances their ability to make decisions that allow ICC to promptly and accurately clear and settle CDS transactions and safeguard securities and funds.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i) requires ICC to “establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to . . . cover, if the covered clearing agency provides central counterparty services, its credit exposures to its participants by establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum considers, and produces margin levels commensurate with, the risks and particular attributes of each relevant product, portfolio, and market . . . .”
Among other things, in establishing policies and procedures for margin, a covered clearing agency generally should consider whether its margin model, to the extent practicable and prudent, limits the need for destabilizing, procyclical changes.
Accordingly, the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(i).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that Source Capital Credit Opportunities V, L.P., 3060 Peachtree Road, Suite 1830, Atlanta, GA 30305, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (the “Act”), in connection with the financing of a small business concern, has sought an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and 13 CFR 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Code of Federal Regulations. Source Capital Credit Opportunities V, L.P. is seeking a prior written exemption from US Small Business Administration (“SBA”) for a proposed financing to Property Rate LLC, 1855 W Katella Avenue #100, Orange, CA 92867.
The financing is brought within the purview of 13 CFR 107.730(a) of the Regulations because Property Rate LLC is an Associate of Source Capital Credit Opportunities V, L.P. because Associate Source Capital Credit Opportunities IV, L.P. owns a greater than ten percent interest in Property Rate LLC, therefore this transaction is considered
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on this transaction within fifteen days of the date of this publication to the Associate Administrator, Office of Investment and Innovation, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW, Washington, DC 20416.
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State under the Foreign Missions Act, 22 U.S.C. 4301 et seq (“the Act”), and delegated pursuant to Department of State Delegation of Authority No. 214 of September 20, 1994, I hereby designate all engagements with representatives of and visits to state, local, and municipal governments, educational institutions, and research facilities, including national laboratories and agricultural facilities, in the United States and its territories involving members of the Cuban bilateral mission to the United States as a benefit as defined in 22 U.S.C. 4302(a)(1).
Section 204(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 4304(b)) provides that the Secretary of State may require a foreign mission to obtain benefits from or through the Secretary on such terms and conditions as the Secretary may approve. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State under Section 204(b) of the Act and delegated pursuant to Department of State Delegation of Authority No. 214 of September 20, 1994, I hereby determine it is reasonably necessary to achieve one or more of the purposes set forth in section 204(b) of the Act to require all Cuban bilateral mission members in the United States, including its representatives temporarily working in the United States, to submit prior notification to the Office of Foreign Missions of all engagements with representatives of or visits to:
1. State, local, and municipal governments in the United States and its territories;
2. Educational institutions in the United States and its territories; and,
3. Research facilities, including national laboratories and agricultural facilities, in the United States and its territories.
This benefit is subject to any modified or additional terms and conditions as may be approved by the Director or Deputy Director of the Office of Foreign Missions.
The Department of State has renewed the Charter for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD).
For further information about the Commission, please contact Sarah E. Arkin, the Commission's Designated Federal Officer and Executive Director, at 202-472-8198; email:
The Commission was originally established under Section 604 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, as amended, and under Section 8 of Reorganization Plan Number 2 of 1977. It was permanently reauthorized pursuant to Section 5604 of the National Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2022 (Pub. L. 117-81), which amended Section 1134 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and
The Charter was renewed on April 21, 2025.
9:00 a.m. CT on May 8, 2025.
Putnam County Convention Center, Cookeville, Tennessee.
Open.
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on May 8 at the Putnam County Convention Center, 6000 Tennessee Avenue, Cookeville, Tennessee. The meeting will be called to order at 9:00 a.m. CT to consider the agenda items listed below.
On May 7, at the Putnam Country Convention Center, the public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a Board-hosted public listening session which begins at 2:00 p.m. CT and will last until 4:00 p.m. Preregistration is required to address the Board.
For more information: Please contact Melissa Greene, TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of limitation on claims for judicial review.
The FHWA, on behalf of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), is issuing this notice to announce actions taken by FDOT and other Federal agencies that are final agency actions. These actions relate to the proposed State Road (SR) 934/NE 79th Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study (Financial Management Number 449007-1). The project involves the replacement of four prestressed concrete slab bridges to address the structural deficiencies and to maintain emergency evacuation capabilities. The project also involves improvements to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and signalization; replacement and optimization of traffic signals; roadway repaving and striping; drainage improvements; and signage.
By this notice, the FHWA, on behalf of FDOT, is advising the public of final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A claim seeking judicial review of the Federal Agency actions on the listed highway project will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before October 6, 2025. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than 150 days for filing such claim, then that shorter time period still applies.
The Type 2 Categorical Exclusion and additional project documents can be viewed and downloaded from the project website at:
Katasha Cornwell, Interim Director, Office of Environmental Management, FDOT; telephone (850) 414-5260; email:
Effective December 14, 2016, and as subsequently renewed on May 26, 2022, the FHWA assigned, and the FDOT assumed, environmental responsibilities for this project pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327. Notice is hereby given that FDOT and other Federal agencies have taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1) by issuing licenses, permits, or approvals for the proposed improvement highway project. The actions by FDOT and other Federal agencies on the project, and the laws under which such actions were taken are described in the Type 2 Categorical Exclusion approved on April 10, 2025, and in other project records for the listed project. The Type 2 Categorical Exclusion and other documents for the listed project are available by contacting FDOT at the address provided above.
The project subject to this notice is:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regarding two projects: the Ontario International Airport Connector Project, Cities of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario, San Bernardino County, California; and the Draw One Bridge Replacement Project in Boston, Suffolk County and Cambridge, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The purpose of this notice is to publicly announce FTA's environmental decisions on the subject projects, and to activate the limitation on any claims that may challenge these final environmental actions.
A claim seeking judicial review of FTA actions announced herein for the listed public transportation projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before October 6, 2025.
Kathryn Loster, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 360-2322, or Saadat Khan, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Policy and Programs, (202) 366-9647. FTA is located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Notice is hereby given that FTA has taken final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l) by issuing certain approvals for the public transportation projects listed below. The actions on the projects, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued in connection with the project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and in other documents in the FTA environmental project files for the projects. Interested parties may contact either the project sponsor or the relevant FTA Regional Office for more information. Contact information for FTA's Regional Offices may be found at
This notice applies to all FTA decisions on the listed projects as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including, but not limited to, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4375), Section 4(f) requirements (49 U.S.C. 303), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108), Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801
1.
2.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, PHMSA invites public comments on PHMSA's intent to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew two information collection requests that are scheduled to expire this year. PHMSA has reviewed each information collection and considers them vital to maintaining pipeline safety. As such, PHMSA will request renewal from OMB, without change, for the information collections.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 7, 2025.
Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
Angela Hill by telephone at 202-366-1246 or by email at
Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 1320.8(d), requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies the opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests before they are submitted to OMB for approval. This notice identifies two information collection requests that PHMSA will submit to OMB for renewal and requests comment from interested parties.
The following information is provided for each information collection request: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection.
PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for these information collection activities. PHMSA requests comments on the following information:
Operators must also develop written rupture identification procedures to evaluate and identify whether a notification of potential rupture is an actual rupture event or non-rupture event as soon as practicable. These procedures must, at a minimum, specify the sources of information, operational factors, and other criteria that operator personnel use to evaluate a notification of potential rupture. Operators are also required to maintain certain records if they experience certain circumstances involving their rupture-mitigation valve operations.
Operators must notify PHMSA if a rupture-mitigation valve cannot be made operational within 14 days of installation. Operators must also notify PHMSA if a valve cannot be repaired or replaced within 12 months.
An operator may seek exemption from certain regulatory requirements by notifying PHMSA in certain instances. An operator may plan to leave a rupture-mitigation valve open for more than 30 minutes following a rupture identification if the operator demonstrates to PHMSA, that closing a rupture mitigation valve, or alternative equivalent technology, would be detrimental to public safety. Likewise, for hazardous liquid pipeline segments in a non-high consequence area (HCA) or a non-HCA could-affect segment, an operator may request exemption from certain requirements if it can demonstrate to PHMSA that installing an otherwise-required rupture-mitigation valve, or alternative equivalent technology, would be economically, technically, or operationally infeasible.
(a) The need for the renewal and revision of these collections of information for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5316, Application for Group or Pooled Trust Ruling.
Written comments should be received on or before July 7, 2025 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the form should be directed to Jason Schoonmaker, (801) 620-2128, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
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.
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of reporting requirements.
By this Notice the Department of the Treasury is informing the public that it is conducting a mandatory survey of foreign-residents' holdings of U.S. securities, including selected money market instruments, as of June 30, 2025. This mandatory survey is conducted under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act. This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, this survey. Additional copies of the reporting forms SHLA (2025) and instructions may be printed from the internet at:
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the FCC or Commission) proposes rules to strengthen wireless 911 location accuracy rules and to put more actionable location information in the hands of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and first responders.
Comments are due on or before June 6, 2025, and reply comments are due on or before July 7, 2025.
You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Thomas Eng, Engineer, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0019,
This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998),
The Commission will treat this proceeding as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
In the
In 2015, the Commission adopted comprehensive location accuracy rules requiring CMRS (Commercial Mobile Radio Service) providers to provide either (1) coordinate-based (horizontal and vertical) location information or (2) dispatchable location information, with wireless 911 calls.
To advance the goal of putting more actionable information in the hands of PSAPs and first responders, we seek comment on a number of different proposals. Specifically, in the
•
•
○ We propose to require that validation of a vertical location technology in the industry test bed must demonstrate compliance of that technology with accuracy standards in each morphology. Thus, CMRS providers would not be allowed to base compliance certifications on aggregating or averaging test bed results across morphologies based on live call data or other factors.
○ We propose to provide non-nationwide CMRS providers and major public safety organizations (National Emergency Number Association (NENA), Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO), and National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA)) with expanded access to test bed data and results on request. We further propose to allow NENA, APCO, and NASNA to challenge the validation of particular technologies in the test bed.
•
•
•
•
•
•
In the
The Commission established two alternative ways for CMRS providers to provide this information to PSAPs. The first was to deploy technology that would provide “dispatchable location” with wireless 911 calls, which the Commission defined as “[a] location delivered to the PSAP by the CMRS provider with a 911 call that consists of the street address of the calling party, plus additional information such as suite, apartment or similar information necessary to adequately identify the location of the calling party.”
The second alternative was to deploy z-axis technology that met a Commission-approved accuracy metric. However, the Commission deferred adoption of a z-axis metric pending further testing, directing the nationwide CMRS providers to conduct testing in the industry test bed and submit a proposed z-axis accuracy metric to the Commission for approval by August 2018.
In the companion
In the July 2020
CTIA and APCO filed petitions for reconsideration of the
Following release of the
On November 21, 2024, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau entered into a consent decree with DISH Wireless L.L.C. (DISH) with respect to its obligation to deploy vertical location technology for wireless 911 calls in each of the top 25 CMAs where it launched 5G Voice over New Radio (VoNR) service.
In the
Since the Commission adopted the z-axis location accuracy standard in 2019, wireless location technologies continue to progress. The speed and accuracy of E911 location have improved significantly through integration of device-based hybrid (DBH) location technologies into most mobile handsets. DBH uses “a combination of technologies and sensors—including satellite GPS [Global Positioning System] and crowd-sourced Wi-Fi measurements—that can supplement wireless providers' existing 9-1-1 network and device-assisted information to produce a higher-accuracy location, particularly indoors.” Both Google and Apple have developed DBH applications optimized for emergency calls: Google's Android Emergency Location Service (ELS) supports 911 location in most Android devices,
In another significant development, a NENA working group has drafted consensus requirements and guidelines for operationalizing z-axis information in the PSAP to support the display of 3D location data for E911 and Next Generation 911.
1. To provide a technical and regulatory background for 3D 9-1-1 locations.
2. To establish uniform language in reference to z-axis within the 9-1-1 community for terms “altitude,” “height,” and “elevation” (as they are currently used interchangeably across specifications).
3. To provide practical guidance for operationalizing 3D location, such as how the Automatic Location Identification (ALI) should be configured and provisioning of 3D GIS datasets (including Digital Elevation Models [DEM] and 3D structures).
4. To provide requirements for future standards development for 3D location, such as how uncertainty should be conveyed for certain civic address elements.
5. To provide baseline requirements for implementations and enhancements.
As part of our overarching 911 agenda, and in light of increasing standardization, we seek to strengthen our wireless location accuracy rules to provide PSAPs and first responders with actionable information in the live 911 call environment.
Under the current rules, CMRS providers providing coordinate-based location information to PSAPs with wireless 911 calls must deliver the z-axis component in Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE).
When the Commission mandated use of HAE in the
Since the
Given the availability of HAE-to-AGL translation tools, we propose to require CMRS providers to convert HAE values for individual 911 calls to AGL and to deliver both the HAE and the AGL values to the PSAP. We also propose to require CMRS providers to provide floor level information in addition to z-axis location information, if floor level information is available to them. This proposal is consistent with the existing requirement for providing z-axis information in HAE, which also requires provision of floor level information “[w]here available to the CMRS provider.”
AGL may be obtained by subtracting the terrain height at any horizontal (x/y) location from the corresponding HAE value, provided that both terrain height and HAE are expressed with respect to the same reference frame.
We believe it is reasonable to require CMRS providers to provide AGL as part of the information delivered to PSAPs. In a 2020
We seek comment on the requisite level of Digital Terrain Model (DTM) resolution necessary to accurately convert from HAE to AGL, the means of achieving such resolution, and the associated costs. We also seek comment on how to ensure that AGL measurements provided to PSAPs meet the same or comparable confidence and uncertainty thresholds as the underlying HAE measurements from which they are derived. Because HAE conversion to AGL requires reliable terrain data and an accurate horizontal location fix, it may yield a different uncertainty value than HAE. Would conversion from HAE to AGL introduce any errors in the accuracy of the z-axis information that could impact emergency response and, if so, to what degree?
With respect to timing, we propose to require nationwide CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology to deliver z-axis information in AGL within 12 months after the effective date of final rules, and we propose to require non-nationwide CMRS providers to deliver AGL within 24 months. As noted in the discussion above, technical feasibility appears well established, and therefore it appears deployment of this feature within a year of the effective date of our final rules should be reasonable. Based on the available information, we believe that the ability to convert HAE to AGL exists today, that PSAPs can readily receive the data and, as noted by previous commenters, that it would be reasonable to require CMRS providers to
In the
We also seek comment on the role that third-party vendors play in providing floor level information to PSAPs. As noted above, some third-party vendors are providing precise location information directly to PSAPs, with some claiming to provide AGL and floor level as well as HAE.
In the
Since the establishment of the test bed, it has been used to test the capabilities of horizontal and vertical location technologies used by CMRS providers. The first testing of vertical location technology in the test bed occurred in Stage Z, conducted in 2018, which provided information that contributed to the Commission's adoption of the ±3-meter accuracy metric.
The Stage Zb test results provided the basis for the June 2022 certifications by the three nationwide CMRS providers that as of April 3, 2022, they had achieved compliance with the ±3-meter location accuracy standard as required by the Commission's rules and the 2021
The purpose of the test bed program is to provide a reliable mechanism for validating the performance of indoor location technologies without the need for each provider to conduct indoor testing in all locations where a technology is actually deployed, which would be impractical and highly burdensome.
As noted above, the nationwide CMRS providers based their compliance certifications on the Stage Zb test results submitted by CTIA. These test results were derived from “aggregated and anonymized” data “to generate z-axis performance metrics for the DBH technology solutions deployed in each of the nationwide wireless providers' networks, consistent with ATIS standards and reporting under the Commission's live 9-1-1 call data rules.” According to CTIA, “[t]he results of Stage Zb validate that ELS's and HELO's DBH z-axis location technology solutions together achieve the FCC's ±3-meter accuracy metric for at least 80 percent of wireless 9-1-1 calls.”
In relying on the Stage Zb test data to support their compliance certifications, the nationwide carriers, following the ATIS standards, averaged test results across morphologies based on the percentage of live calls that originated in each morphology.
To address these issues, we propose to modify our rules to require that validation of a technology in the industry test bed must demonstrate compliance of that technology with the 3-meter metric in each morphology. Thus, we would no longer allow CMRS providers to base compliance certifications on aggregating or averaging test bed results across morphologies. By eliminating averaging across morphologies, we would provide greater certainty that vertical location technologies that have been tested in the test bed will provide the requisite accuracy level when used with 911 calls in each of the four morphologies. We also propose to exclude the use of live call data in the validation of vertical location technologies. Live call data does not demonstrate performance, either on a per-technology or a per-morphology basis. In addition, live call data does not distinguish between indoor and outdoor calls, and thus does not provide a basis for determining compliance with indoor vertical location requirements.
We seek comment on these proposals. Should the number or percentage of total 911 test calls required for validation of a technology be the same for each morphology? For example, should the number or percentage be lower for a morphology that has fewer tall buildings, such as rural or suburban, while maintaining the same level of confidence (
We propose to apply these requirements for testing and validation of technologies in the test bed to all testing of new technologies in the test bed once the rules become effective. In addition, we propose that by 24 months after the effective date of the final rules, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy on a nationwide basis either dispatchable location or z-axis technology that has been validated in accordance with the new test bed and validation requirements. We propose that non-nationwide CMRS providers would have an additional 12 months to meet these requirements by deploying either dispatchable location or z-axis technology throughout their network footprint. If we modify testing and validation procedures as proposed, we anticipate that some z-axis technologies that were previously validated in the test bed may have to be re-tested under the new requirements, including the requirement that validation of a technology in the test bed must demonstrate compliance of that technology with the 3-meter metric in each morphology. CMRS providers may also need time to determine how to deploy technologies or combinations of technologies in a way that complies with the revised rules. Are the timeframes we propose for this appropriate? If not, what would be appropriate timeframes to allow for re-testing, certification, and deployment? Is additional testing and standardization necessary to determine whether any revisions to our accuracy benchmarks are required due to these new requirements? If so, how much time is needed to complete such additional testing or modifications to standards? We seek comment on the potential costs of any re-testing. Do most deployed and validated z-axis technologies already meet this proposed per-morphology standard? Should we establish interim milestones as well as final compliance deadlines?
In the
We seek to promote greater transparency and accountability in the test process by creating a standard process for sharing test bed data and procedures with stakeholders. Specifically, we propose that upon request from a non-nationwide CMRS provider, NENA, APCO, or NASNA, the test bed administrator must provide the requesting party the same data available
We seek comment on these proposals. Should these entities be required to pay fees to obtain access to test data and, if so, are guidelines or conditions needed to eliminate unnecessary costs? Is 30 days an appropriate limit on the time for responding to a request? We also seek comment on whether the test bed administrator should be required to negotiate a standardized agreement with requesting non-nationwide CMRS providers and public safety entities that would provide for access to test bed information on a timely basis and on reasonable terms. In that connection, we seek comment on what would constitute reasonable terms for such an agreement. We also seek comment on narrowing the scope of confidentiality over the test bed validation process and the extent to which the test bed administrator, CMRS providers, technology providers, or others should be able to claim confidentiality with respect to test results or test bed procedures. Given the critical public importance of providing accurate location with 911 calls, should we create a presumption that test bed reports are to be made public? How can the Commission's rules help the test bed strike a balance between protecting and safeguarding non-public information (
The current rules provide a means for PSAPs to resolve real-world performance issues after a tested location technology has been deployed by a CMRS provider. However, our rules do not provide a mechanism for stakeholders to challenge the validation of a technology in the test bed before it is deployed. We propose to amend the rules to provide for greater transparency in the test bed, including a process for challenging the validation of location technologies in the test bed. Specifically, we propose that APCO, NENA, or NASNA may submit to the Commission a challenge to the validation of a particular technology under the test bed provisions in the rules.
Throughout this proceeding, the Commission has recognized the importance of dispatchable location to public safety, and has sought to encourage the development of dispatchable location solutions that would reliably identify the precise location of in-building wireless 911 callers. In the
In the
We seek comment on the degree to which the current dispatchable location requirements for CMRS providers have, or have not, been effective in facilitating the development of dispatchable location solutions. According to live call data reported by the nationwide CMRS providers for 2023 and part of 2024, CMRS providers are delivering some live wireless 911 calls with dispatchable location.
We also seek comment on how to increase the availability and use of dispatchable location for wireless 911 calls. The live call data reported by the nationwide CMRS providers indicate that dispatchable location calls represent only about 0.9%; of total wireless 911 calls.
We invite commenters to identify incentives for CMRS providers to expedite their efforts to find solutions for generating and conveying dispatchable location for higher percentages of wireless 911 calls. What is the current state of deployment of in-building infrastructure that is or could be programmed with street address and floor level information? Regarding access points, we seek comment on the accuracy of programming access points with street address and floor level. What percentage of wireless traffic is offloaded from CMRS networks to indoor infrastructure, such as Wi-Fi and femtocells, and what percentage of wireless 911 calls on CMRS networks present as Wi-Fi calls? Are there circumstances where the Wi-Fi network could provide dispatchable location information that is more precise and reliable than the location information provided for the call over the cellular network? Do CMRS providers currently use or plan to use location information from indoor infrastructure in combination with geodetic (x/y/z) coordinates? What are the timelines for planned use of in-building infrastructure to provide dispatchable location? In that connection, we seek comment on how combining location technologies and device sensors can supplement CMRS providers' existing 911 network and device-assisted information for generating dispatchable location.
We also seek to refresh the record on the current and future feasibility of leveraging the specific technologies that the
In light of these developments, we seek comment on the current technical feasibility of CMRS providers using Voice over Wi-Fi (also referred to as VoWi-Fi or Wi-Fi calling) to deliver wireless 911 calls with accurate and reliable dispatchable location. What Wi-Fi 911 calls, if any, do CMRS providers currently deliver to PSAPs with dispatchable location? How is the caller's location validated at the time of the call, particularly if it is not the same as the caller's registered location? Do CMRS providers corroborate Voice over Wi-Fi calls with geodetic information before transmitting to PSAPs? Do CMRS providers transmit geodetic information with such wireless 911 calls and, if so, do they convey confidence and uncertainty data?
We invite CMRS providers, Apple, and Google to provide a status update on their efforts to improve wireless 911 location accuracy using DBH. As noted above, live call data reports in the six ATIS test cities reflect that DBH is used for 80% of wireless 911 calls. We seek comment on whether there have been developments in DBH since 2022 that might impact the regulatory proposals in the
We propose to modify our live call data reporting rules to require CMRS providers to report the specific technologies they use to provide dispatchable location with live 911 wireless calls and to report these data for each morphology. The reporting template for live call data currently requires providers to identify whether they provide dispatchable location with live 911 calls, but it does not require them to identify the specific technology (or combination of technologies) used to
Our current rules provide that PSAPs may seek Commission enforcement of location accuracy requirements within their geographic service area, “but only so long as they have implemented policies that are designed to obtain all location information made available by CMRS providers when initiating and delivering 911 calls to the PSAP.”
While the existing rules provide a mechanism for PSAPs and CMRS providers to resolve 911 location performance issues at the local level, we believe transparency and accountability would be enhanced by establishing a centralized clearinghouse for PSAPs to notify CMRS providers of complaints. The Commission established such a mechanism in the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding, requiring CMRS providers to establish and maintain an online portal for public safety to provide notice of interference complaints.
We seek to refresh the record on improving the accuracy of horizontal location accuracy information for wireless 911 calls. In January 2015, the Commission adopted horizontal location accuracy standards for 911 as part of the
• Within 2 years: 40 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
• Within 3 years: 50 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
• Within 5 years: 70 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
• Within 6 years: 80 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
The rules allow non-nationwide CMRS providers (regional, small, and rural carriers) to extend the five- and six-year deadlines based on the timing of Voice over Long Term Evolution (VoLTE) deployment in their networks.
The record in this proceeding underscores the importance of accurate and reliable horizontal location information for first responders and in particular the effect that inaccurate horizontal location can have on the accuracy of vertical location information. NENA has commented that vertical location accuracy and floor level estimations would benefit greatly from increased accuracy in the horizontal plane and that the Commission's existing rules for horizontal uncertainty “could easily place the caller on the right floor but in a building across the street.” Similarly, the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) has pointed out that “[w]hile a ± 50-meter horizontal metric may provide enough information for a PSAP to provide a dispatchable address, it can also lead to responders arriving at an incorrect building location.” And the Texas 9-1-1 Entities have stated that “the horizontal and vertical information must work together in order for public safety entities to be able to convert x-, y-, and z-axis information to the floor level of the correct building.”
It has been a decade since the Commission's horizontal location accuracy rules were adopted, and location technologies have advanced considerably since 2015. We seek comment on what progress has been made since 2015 to develop and deploy
What specific technologies are available to provide improved horizontal location accuracy? T-Mobile has noted the potential of DBH technology for providing more accurate horizontal location information. CTIA similarly has noted that device-based solutions such as Google's ELS and Apple's HELO “continue to emerge, and . . . earlier achieved more granular horizontal location for wireless 9-1-1 calls, particularly indoors.” What are the capabilities of DBH solutions such as ELS and HELO for improving horizontal location accuracy, and how widely available are these technologies? Are there other technologies besides DBH that could be used for improving horizontal location accuracy, either alone or in combination with DBH? Does the use of non-U.S. satellite signals (
If it is technically feasible to strengthen the horizontal location accuracy requirements, what changes do commenters recommend? Is a smaller radius than 50 meters feasible and, if so, what specific radius do commenters support? What percentage of wireless calls should be required to meet this level of accuracy and within what time frame? What testing and validation in the test bed should be required to demonstrate compliance with any new horizontal location accuracy requirements? Would the current testing and validation processes in the test bed need to be modified accordingly and, if so, how? Should there be separate requirements for non-nationwide providers and, if so, what should these requirements be? We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of any suggested changes to the existing horizontal location accuracy requirements. In addition, we seek comment on whether there are any other engineering or other issues that the Commission should consider with regard to improving horizontal location accuracy.
We seek to refresh the record on improving location accuracy for mobile texts. The Commission's 2014
In the 2019
In the 2019 order, the Commission reasoned that “as a practical matter, covered text providers are unlikely to be capable of providing dispatchable location for most 911 texts, and . . . the quality of `best-available' location information provided with 911 texts may vary.”
We seek comment on what progress has been made since 2019 to develop and deploy technological solutions for delivering location with texts to 911. What percentage of 911 texts currently include location information? Does the percentage vary between SMS texts and IP-based texts such as real-time text (RTT)? What specific types of location information are covered text providers delivering to comply with the Commission's rules (
We seek comment on whether location technology for text-to-911 has progressed to the point that the Commission could reasonably require either dispatchable location or coordinate-based location for 911 texts at accuracy levels comparable to the accuracy required for 911 voice calls. If we determine that such a requirement would be appropriate, when should carriers be required to comply and how should the requirement be enforced? We also seek comment on whether we should continue to distinguish between SMS texts and more advanced IP-based text services. As noted above, CMRS providers argued in the Kari's Law and RAY BAUM'S Act proceeding that requiring dispatchable location capabilities for SMS would require major retrofitting of legacy SMS networks.
As part of our focus on ensuring that our wireless location accuracy rules keep pace with technology, we seek comment on whether certain of our legacy wireless location accuracy rules have become outdated and should be eliminated. Specifically, we believe that many of our original E911 Phase II location rules are no longer necessary because they have been superseded by the comprehensive location accuracy rules that the Commission adopted in 2015. We also propose to eliminate certain obsolete information collection requirements associated with our wireless location accuracy rules, and we invite commenters to identify any other requirements in § 9.10 of the rules that could be eliminated.
The E911 Phase II rules were adopted and revised in a series of Commission orders dating from 1996 to 2010.
In 2014, the Commission initiated a comprehensive overhaul of its wireless location accuracy rules. The Commission noted that consumers were “increasingly replacing traditional landline telephony with wireless phones, and a majority of wireless calls are now made indoors,” making it imperative for PSAPs “to have the ability to accurately identify the location of wireless 911 callers regardless of whether the caller is located indoors or outdoors.”
In the
The Phase II rules are primarily codified in § 9.10(h) of the Commission's rules.
• Section 9.10(e) of the rules requires licensees to “provide to the designated Public Safety Answering Point Phase II enhanced 911 service,
• Section 9.10(f) provides that licensees who employ a network-based location technology shall provide Phase II 911 enhanced service over a phased timeline subject to certain coverage area or population requirements or PSAP request.
• Section 9.10(g) provides that licensees who employ a handset-based location technology may phase in deployment of Phase II enhanced 911 service subject to certain requirements.
• Section 9.10(l) requires licensees to “report to the Commission their plans for implementing Phase II enhanced 911 service” by November 9, 2000, and to “update these plans within thirty days of the adoption of any change.”
Would eliminating any of these rules create regulatory gaps? Are there any aspects of the Phase II rules that we should retain, or retain with modifications? For example, should we retain the latency (time to first fix) requirements?
We seek comment on whether deletion of the Phase II rules would have any adverse effects on PSAPs or other 911 authorities or cause these entities to incur any costs. We do not believe that eliminating the Phase II rules would require any additional action on the part of PSAPs or require PSAPs to incur any additional costs. We note that most 911 systems continue to use Phase I and Phase II classifications in their processing of calls, and that the vast majority of wireless calls to PSAPs arrive as either WPH1 or WPH2 classes of service.
In conjunction with the above proposals, we propose to modify the section heading for the location accuracy rules adopted in the
Finally, we propose to eliminate certain obsolete information collection requirements from 47 CFR 9.10(i). Specifically, we propose to delete § 9.10(i)(4)(i) and (ii), which required CMRS providers to submit initial implementation plans and two progress reports regarding their implementation of the 2015 location accuracy rules.
We tentatively conclude that the regulatory revisions proposed above would make our rules easier “for the average person or business to understand” and reduce “the risk of costs of non-compliance.”
Any solution for strengthening wireless 911 location accuracy for voice calls and texts, no matter how effective, must withstand the test of feasibility and functionality relative to cost. We therefore seek comment on whether the implementation of our proposals for calls and texts can improve upon the speeds at which emergency personnel and services relying on the 911 system can reach the caller, with a resulting improvement in the health and safety of the caller and preservation of property, and the magnitude of this presumed benefit.
In the
When assessing the benefits of adopting a 3-meter metric, in the
In the
We seek information on how the proposed measures would increase this benefit established from the
• Validation of a vertical location technology in the industry test bed must demonstrate compliance of that technology in each morphology and may not be based on CMRS provider live call data. Thus, CMRS providers may not rely on test bed results that have been aggregated or averaged across morphologies or that have been weighted on the basis of live call data;
• Upon receipt of a request from a non-nationwide CMRS provider or certain public safety associations (
○ test bed data and results by wireless location technology provider, morphology, and technology, as well as other relevant information (such as information on the test bed process, including any significant changes to the test bed process);
• NENA, APCO, or NASNA may file with the Commission a challenge to the validation of a particular technology in the test bed.
We seek comment on the costs associated with provider compliance under this strengthened framework of rules. In particular, we seek comment on the costs associated with CMRS provider compliance as discussed previously.
In addition, we seek comment on the costs associated with requiring CMRS providers to provide more detailed information on dispatchable location technologies in their live call data reports. We also seek comment on whether we should require CMRS providers to provide data not only for each category of location technology used in live call reports (
In the absence of a detailed record on costs for the proposed revisions to our rules, we provide estimates below based on previous estimate calculations in the record, and ask commenters to provide information to improve these estimates as necessary. To be conservative in our approach, we seek to provide upper-bound estimates, so that actual costs will be at or below these levels. The December 2023 Voice Telephone Services Report lists 53 “mobile telephony” providers in total, so we assume that 53 providers will incur the cost.
We estimate that all of the cost of an HAE to AGL conversion will be labor. To the best of our understanding, the conversion under all methodologies is a purely mathematical procedure with proper elevation data. We believe that free or open-source elevation data are available, so a provider would not need to incur significant costs to acquire the data.
For our proposals strengthening the testing and compliance framework and improving live call reporting and enforcement, we anticipate costs to be primarily labor. These measures would involve changes to the procedures and new releases of associated data, but not substantial changes to the equipment involved. Instead, attorneys and engineers would have to work to adhere to the new compliance framework, and web designers would have to create the location accuracy complaint portal. We anticipate three forty-hour workweeks will be an upper bound to the time to implement required changes based on the Commission's prior estimates for similar requirements.
First-year costs of this item's proposals total to approximately $10.9 million from the initial conversion from HAE to AGL and changing the compliance framework ($1.7 million + $9.2 million). We do not anticipate additional ongoing costs from the HAE to AGL conversion once it is implemented because regular maintenance to a provider's z-axis systems is expected regardless of whether AGL is implemented or not. There may also be additional annual costs with respect to the new compliance framework, live call reporting, and enforcement, but they are also likely to be less than the initial year as work shifts to maintenance of the new framework. Thus, we find treating the first-year costs as an upper bound for all subsequent annual costs to be reasonable. That said, we judge that both the initial and ongoing cost upper bounds will be lower than the billions of dollars of annual benefits from improved emergency response, but seek comment on the reasonableness of these judgments and the associated estimates.
We seek comment on timelines and minimizing burdens on CMRS providers. The rules we propose to adopt include steps that we believe will help minimize the impact on CMRS providers, including non-nationwide CMRS providers.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the
The goal of this proceeding is to strengthen the Commission's wireless location accuracy rules to put more actionable 911 call location information in the hands of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and first responders. This will help ensure that all Americans using mobile phones—whether calling from urban or rural areas, from indoors or outdoors—have technology that is functionally capable of providing accurate location information to allow users to receive the necessary assistance in times of an emergency. In the
Commission action in the
In the
We also propose to strengthen our wireless location accuracy testing process with proposed rules to improve the test bed validation process and to require more transparency with respect to test bed results. Specifically, we propose to modify our rules to require that testing and validation of vertical location technologies in the industry
Improvements to live call data reporting include a proposal to require live call data reports to include information on the specific technologies CMRS providers used to provide dispatchable location. To strengthen the Commission's enforcement of its wireless location accuracy rules, we seek comment on requiring CMRS providers to develop a centralized, online complaint portal that PSAPs could use to report location accuracy problems to CMRS providers before seeking FCC enforcement. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on improving horizontal (x,y) location accuracy for wireless 911 calls. The Commission also seeks to refresh the record on improving location accuracy for mobile texts to 911, and requests comment on the current status of technology solutions for the delivery of location information for texts to 911. Finally, we seek comment on whether our existing Phase II location accuracy rules have become outdated and should be eliminated, and we propose to eliminate certain other obsolete or superseded 911 location accuracy rules in 47 CFR 9.10. We also request comment on the benefits and costs associated with our proposals.
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332; the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”
According to Commission data as December 2021, there were approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small businesses won licenses.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.
Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these licenses, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 4,211 active
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules for the specific WCS frequency bands.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small business status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming small business won two licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower 700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and three winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all five auctioned licenses.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for TRS Providers. All Other Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on Commission data there are 14 certified internet-based TRS providers and two analog forms of TRS providers. The Commission however does not compile financial information for these providers. Nevertheless, based on available information, the Commission estimates that most providers in this industry are small entities.
The proposed rules in the
Next we turn to our discussion of compliance costs for reporting and other proposals in the
The $10.9 million total cost to the 53 CMRS providers as a group consists of the estimated breakout that follows. The HAE to AGL conversion is estimated to be approximately $1.7 million, which includes the approximate costs of labor for data scientists ($224,752), software engineers ($783,891), and network engineers ($675,686). To strengthen the compliance framework the estimated total cost of approximately $9.2 million by all CMRS providers encompasses labor costs for attorneys ($4,825,968), industrial engineers ($2,426,658), and web designers ($2,019,618). The Commission seeks comment on costs including but not limited to our estimates, assumptions, calculations, and costs we did not consider and/or include that are relevant to the costs for small and other CMRS providers to implement the proposals in this proceeding. The Commission anticipates that the initial and ongoing cost upper bounds that we have estimated will be less than the $97 billion annual benefit of the improved emergency response we cite in the
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
Applying the proposed requirements will promote 911 service and emergency response to the benefit of all small or other governmental jurisdictions, businesses, equipment manufacturers, and business associations by providing greater confidence in 911 location accuracy and providing more actionable information to PSAPs. To accommodate the unique circumstances facing small entities, including non-nationwide CMRS providers, the rules we propose to adopt include the steps and alterative discussed below that we believe will help minimize the impact on such entities.
The Commission also considers and seeks comment on whether we should establish benchmarks or timelines for providing dispatchable location with wireless 911 calls. In addition, we seek comment on the current technical feasibility of CMRS providers using Voice over Wi-Fi (also referred to as VoWi-Fi or Wi-Fi calling) to deliver wireless 911 calls with accurate and reliable dispatchable location. We considered alternatives involving location database information, and seek comment on whether and to what extent CMRS providers and parties other than wireless carriers that are involved in the 911 call flow should support the provision of dispatchable location.
None.
Accordingly,
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Internet, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in this document, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 9 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615 note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721, and 1471, and Section 902 of Title IX, Division FF, Pub. L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, unless otherwise noted.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(i)
(2)
(ii) * * *
(H) CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must do so consistent with the following z-axis accuracy metric: Within 3 meters above or below (plus or minus 3 meters) the handset for 80% of wireless E911 calls made from the z-axis capable device. CMRS providers must deliver z-axis information in Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE). Where available to the CMRS provider, floor level information must be provided in addition to z-axis location information. CMRS providers also must deliver z-axis information in the format identified in paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(H)(
(
(
(N) By [DATE TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy on a nationwide basis either dispatchable location or z-axis technology that has been validated in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (i)(3)(i)(E) of this section. By [DATE THIRTY-SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE], non-nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy throughout their network footprint either dispatchable location or z-axis technology that has been validated in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (i)(3)(i)(E) of this section.
(iii) * * *
(D) A CMRS provider certifying its compliance with the benchmark dates specified in paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(N) of this section may not rely on test bed results that have been aggregated or averaged across morphologies or that have been weighted on the basis of live call data.
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) For purposes of complying with the benchmark dates specified in paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(N) of this section, validation of a technology in the test bed must demonstrate compliance of that technology in each morphology and may not be based on CMRS provider live call data.
(F) Upon request from a non-nationwide CMRS provider, the National Emergency Number Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International, Inc., or the National Association of State 911 Administrators, the test bed administrator shall:
(
(
(G) The National Emergency Number Association, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International, Inc., or the National Association of State 911 Administrators may submit to the Commission a challenge to the validation of a particular technology under the test bed provisions described in this paragraph (i)(3)(i). Challenges must be limited to whether the process for validating a particular technology has met the requirements of this paragraph (i)(3)(i) and must be made prior to sixty (60) days after the CMRS provider's certification of compliance pursuant to paragraph (i)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) * * *
(A) CMRS providers subject to this section shall identify and collect information regarding the location technology or technologies used for each 911 call in the reporting area during the calling period, including the location technology or technologies used for each 911 call providing dispatchable location with the call (
(C) CMRS providers subject to this section shall also provide quarterly live call data on a more granular basis that allows evaluation of the performance of individual location technologies, including dispatchable location technologies, within different
(
(
(
(5)
(b) The CPB Board shall cease indirect funding to NPR and PBS, including by ensuring that licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS. To effectuate this directive, the CPB Board shall, before June 30, 2025, revise the 2025 Television Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria and the 2025 Radio Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria to prohibit direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS. To the extent permitted by the 2024 Television Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, the 2024 Radio Community Service Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria, and applicable law, the CPB Board shall also prohibit parties subject to these provisions from funding NPR or PBS after the date of this order. In addition, the CPB Board shall take all other necessary steps to minimize or eliminate its indirect funding of NPR and PBS.
(b) After taking the actions specified in subsection (a) of this section, the heads of all agencies shall identify any remaining grants, contracts,
(c) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall determine whether “the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio (or any successor organization)” are complying with the statutory mandate that “no person shall be subjected to discrimination in employment . . . on the grounds of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.” 47 U.S.C. 397(15), 398(b). In the event of a finding of noncompliance, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall take appropriate corrective action.
(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 Commission shall function as follows:
(A) the Attorney General;
(B) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; and
(C) the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy.
(A) An Advisory Board of Religious Leaders shall be designated by the President and shall consist of not more than 15 members. The Advisory Board of Religious Leaders shall be a subcomponent of the Commission and report to the Chairman of the Commission;
(B) An Advisory Board of Lay Leaders from religious congregations shall be designated by the President and shall consist of not more than 15 members. The Advisory Board of Lay Leaders shall be a subcomponent of the Commission and report to the Chairman of the Commission; and
(C) An Advisory Board of Legal Experts shall be designated by the President and shall consist of the Attorney General, or the Attorney General's designee, and not more than 10 attorneys. The Advisory Board
(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.