Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Foreign Assets Control Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Direct final rule.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA” or “Agency”) is publishing this direct final rule (DFR) to modify regulations to provide for a clarification in the Annual Charges assessed for Leverage between SBIC licenses and Accrual SBIC licenses.
Effective on January 20, 2026, without further action, unless significant adverse comment is received no later than January 5, 2026. If significant adverse comment is received, SBA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the
You may submit comments, identified by RIN: 3245-AI28, by any of the following methods:
•
•
SBA will post all comments on
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found
SBA's small business investment company (“SBIC”) program is designed to enhance small business access to capital by stimulating and supplementing “the flow of private equity capital and long-term loan funds which small-business concerns need for the sound financing of their business operations and for their growth, expansion, and modernization, and which are not available in adequate supply.” Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 661,
On July 18, 2023, SBA issued a final rule (88 FR 46012) implementing a new and distinct type of Debenture (“Accrual Debenture”) designed to align with the cash flows of long-term, equity-oriented funds (“Accrual SBICs”). The issuance of Accrual Debentures is currently limited only to those SBICs approved as an Accrual SBIC and/or a Reinvestor SBIC. To be eligible for an Accrual SBIC license, an SBIC applicant must, among other things, demonstrate an investment strategy that is equity oriented. There are currently three types of Debentures available for investment funds that have received an SBIC license: a “Standard” Debenture, a “Discount” Debenture and an “Accrual” Debenture, each of which have different and distinct terms and conditions.
As required by the Act and pursuant to 13 CFR 107.1130(d), in addition to a three percent (3%) Leverage fee (split between a Leverage commitment and a Leverage draw) SBICs are also required to pay an additional charge (“Annual Charge”) that is payable on the same terms and conditions as interest applicable to such Debentures.
SBA is clarifying that SBICs issuing a standard Debenture or Discount Debenture and SBICs issuing an Accrual Debenture may be subject to separate Annual Charges within the permitted Annual Charge ceiling and floor as published in the existing regulations and subject to publication in the Federal Credit Supplement for each fiscal year. The Annual Charge for SBA Leverage (as defined in the Act) has been broken out by the type of instrument utilized (
SBA publishes the Annual Charges on its website for each federal fiscal year of leverage commitments obligated to SBICs based on the type of Debenture issued. The Annual Charge is calculated on an annual basis to keep the SBIC program budget neutral and are subject to a ceiling not to exceed 1.38 percent per annum and a floor set pursuant to section 303(b) of the Act and 13 CFR 107.1130(d)(1).
SBA is modifying 13 CFR 107.1130(d) to further clarify that SBICs issuing Accrual Debentures may be subject to an Annual Charge that may differ from SBICs issuing standard Debentures or Discount Debentures in order to keep the SBIC program budget neutral. SBA notes this will be consistent with the calculations performed and are included in the annual Federal Credit Supplement.
In general, SBA publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a final rule in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. 553. The Administrative Procedure Act provides an exception to this standard rulemaking process, however, where an agency finds good cause to adopt a rule without prior public participation. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The good cause requirement is satisfied when prior public participation is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
SBA is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because public participation is unnecessary. SBA has determined this rulemaking as non-controversial as it provides clarification on the Annual Charge applicable to different Debenture types which have differing terms and conditions.
This rule will be effective on the date shown in the
As such, this rule is being implemented as a direct final rule.
This regulation identifies the fees and other charges associated with SBA-guaranteed Leverage. Paragraph (d) of 13 CFR 107.1130 identifies the Annual Charge (as defined in 13 CFR 107.50) applicable to SBICs with outstanding Debentures. SBA is modifying paragraph (d) of 13 CFR 107.1130 to clarify that SBA may calculate Annual Charges based on the type of Debentures issued (
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. The modification to section 13 CFR 107.1130 is not a material change to existing regulations and is only being clarified in this rulemaking to expressly state Annual Charge calculations are assessed individually between Accrual Debentures and other Debentures as has been SBA's historical practice. Further, less than 4% of currently licensed SBICs are Accrual Debenture SBICs, accordingly, the direct final rule would not have a significant effect on the overall number of active licensed SBICs and would not have an annual effect on the U.S. economy of more than $100 million nor have an adverse effect on the U.S. economy in any material way. The direct final rule also will not have a material effect on employment levels, competition, productivity, innovation, public health, safety, the environment, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities. Lastly, as this direct final rule is a clarification of existing obligations in accordance with historical practices, it does not create new obligations, rescind existing rights, or establish novel policy directions.
This direct final rule is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action meets applicable standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. The action does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect.
This direct final rule does not have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132. It would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in the Executive Order. As such it does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Additionally, the rule will not require new compliance activities or reporting by state, local, or tribal governments.
SBA has determined that this direct final rule does not affect any existing collection of information and does not propose any new collection of information.
Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, also known as the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative agencies to consider the effect of their actions on small entities, small nonprofit enterprises, and small local governments. Pursuant to the RFA, when an agency issues a rulemaking, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis which describes the impact of the rule on small entities. However, the RFA requires such analysis only where notice and comment rulemaking is required. As discussed above, SBA has found good cause that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, SBA is not required to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis and is publishing this rule as a direct final rule without advance notice and public comment. The narrow applicability and clarifying nature of the amendments ensure that no substantial number of small entities will experience a material impact from this rule.
Investment companies, Loan programs-business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, SBA amends 13 CFR part 107 as follows:
15 U.S.C. 662, 681-687, 687b-h, 687k-m.
(d) * * *
(1)
(i) For Leverage issued pursuant to Leverage commitments approved on or after October 1, 2026, the Annual Charge, established and published, shall not be less than 0.30 percent per annum.
(ii) For Leverage issued pursuant to Leverage commitments approved on or after October 1, 2027, the Annual Charge, established and published annually, shall not be less than 0.35 percent per annum.
(iii) For Leverage issued pursuant to Leverage commitments approved on or after October 1, 2028, the Annual Charge, established and published annually, shall not be less than 0.40 percent per annum.
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Notification of enforcement discretion.
Under the U.S. Department of Transportation's (Department or DOT) refund regulations in 14 CFR parts 260 and 399, a flight that is given a different flight number than was assigned when the consumer purchased the ticket is considered a new flight and the original flight is considered a cancelled flight for which the consumer is eligible for a refund. This document announces that the Department is exercising its discretion to not enforce the requirements in 14 CFR 260.6, 260.9 and 14 CFR 399.80(l) regarding refunds and other consumer protections for a cancelled flight when a flight is renumbered so long as the passenger is rebooked on the flight under the new number and the flight is operated without any “significant change or delay” as defined in 14 CFR 260.2 and 14 CFR 399.80(l). The Department is taking this interim step of pausing enforcement of its refund requirements under these specific limited circumstances while it engages in a new rulemaking to consider whether to modify the definition of cancelled flight through rulemaking.
As of December 5, 2025, the Department is pausing until June 30, 2026 the enforcement of airline refunds requirements regarding cancelled flights under 14 CFR parts 260 and 399 for flights that are operated under a different flight number than was held out to consumers at the time of ticket purchases so long as the flights impose no significant change or delay to consumers' itineraries.
This notification of enforcement discretion may be viewed online at
Clereece Kroha or Blane Workie, Office of Aviation Consumer Protection, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342 (phone), 202-366-7152 (fax),
On April 26, 2024, DOT published in the
On May 16, 2024, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (Act) was signed into law. Section 503 of the Act, which is codified in 49 U.S.C. 42305, requires airlines to notify consumers affected by flight cancellations of their rights to a refund and to provide refunds to passengers on any cancelled flight if the passengers choose not to fly on an alternative flight or accept any compensation offered by the carrier in lieu of a refund. The statute does not define what constitutes a “cancelled flight.”
On April 3, 2025, the Department issued a Request for Information titled Ensuring Lawful Regulation; Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Regulatory Reform RFI). Among other things, the Regulatory Reform RFI sought public input to assist the Department in identifying existing regulations that can be modified or repealed, consistent with law, to ensure that DOT achieves meaningful burden reduction while continuing to meet statutory obligations and assure the safety of the U.S. transportation system.
Recently, the Department has received communications from a U.S. airline advocating for a revision to the current definition of a cancelled flight as established by the prior administration, arguing that the definition is not required by statute, does not reflect the realities of airline operations, and is overly broad. The airline contends that flight number changes are often necessary for logistical reasons and have no material impact on consumers. The airline explains that there are two primary reasons for its flight number changes—a switch between mainline and regional service and a switch between two regional operators. The airline emphasizes that a flight number change should not automatically be classified as a flight cancellation that triggers eligibility for a refund.
The Department has initiated a new rulemaking titled “Airline Refunds and Other Consumer Protections III” (Refund III) that will, among other things, address the definition of a flight cancellation that would entitle consumers to ticket refunds.
The earliest date that DOT expects to decide on whether to move forward with a final rule on Refund III to change the definition of a canceled flight is June 30, 2026. DOT has announced a target date of February2026 for issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking on Refund III. A typical comment period for an NPRM is 60 days. DOT intends to carefully consider all comments received (including late comments to the extent practicable) before issuing a final rule, if appropriate. This notice of enforcement discretion does not affect the enforcement of the ticket refund or notification requirements beyond the definition of canceled flight involving renumbered flights. It also does not affect any other rights of consumers provided in other DOT rulemakings
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(n).
This rule is being published by the Office of the Federal Register to correct an editorial or technical error that appeared in the most recent annual revision of the Code of Federal Regulations.
In Title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 745 to 799, revised as of January 1, 2025, in supplement 1 to part 774, after 1B999, reinstate the following text to read as follows:
Semi-fabricated forms (whether or not coated, plated, drilled or punched):
a. Wrought or worked materials fabricated by rolling, drawing, extruding, forging, impact extruding, pressing, graining, atomizing, and grinding,
b. Cast material produced by casting in sand, die, metal, plaster or other types of molds, including high pressure castings, sintered forms, and forms made by powder metallurgy.
The object of the control should not be defeated by the export of non-listed forms alleged to be finished products but representing in reality crude forms or semi-fabricated forms.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Charleston Parade of Boats on December 13, 2025, to provide for the safety and security of certain navigable waterways of Charleston Harbor during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Captain of the Port Charleston Zone identifies the regulated area for this event in Charleston Harbor, SC. During the enforcement periods, no person or vessel may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the designated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.704 will be enforced for the location identified in Item 10 of Table 1 to § 100.704 from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m. on December 13, 2025.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Thomas Welker, Sector Charleston Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3180 ext. 3339, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.704, Table 1 to § 100.704, Item 10, for the Charleston Parade of Boats from 5 p.m. until 9 p.m. on December 13, 2025. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Captain of the Port Charleston, § 100.704, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Charleston Parade of Boats which encompasses portions of the Charleston Harbor including Anchorage A, Shutes Folly, Bennis Reach, Horse Reach, Hog Island Reach, Town Creek Lower Reach, and Ashley River. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.704(c), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any official patrol vessel.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ or Texas), dated March 20, 2014, and July 20, 2021, as satisfying applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR). Additionally, the EPA is approving portions of the 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP submission and portions of the 2010 Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP submission that relate to reasonable progress requirements for the first planning period from 2007 through 2018. The EPA is taking these actions pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the Act.
This final rule is effective on January 5, 2026.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2025-0197. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Michael Feldman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air and Radiation Division, SO
On March 31, 2009, Texas submitted a revision to its SIP to address regional haze for the first planning period
As detailed in our May 2025 Proposed Rule, the EPA is approving the portions of the Texas 2009 Plan addressing the following requirements which were previously disapproved:
• Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(1)(ii), regarding Texas's consideration of the four statutory factors in establishing its reasonable progress goals for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend National Parks;
• Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding Texas's calculation of the emission reductions needed to achieve the uniform rates of progress for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend National Parks;
• Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii), regarding Texas's calculation of natural visibility conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend National Parks;
• Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), regarding Texas's calculation of the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend National Parks;
• Section 51.308(d)(3)(i), regarding consultation requirements with other states where emissions from Texas are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located in another state or states;
• Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii), regarding Texas securing its share of reductions necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals at impacted Class I areas in other states;
• Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii), regarding Texas's documentation of its technical basis for which it is relying on to determine its apportionment of emission reductions necessary for those Class I areas in other states for which it affects; and
• Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding Texas's emission limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goals.
Similarly, we are also approving the portion of Oklahoma's first planning period SIP addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
On March 20, 2014, Texas submitted its five-year progress report as a SIP revision (2014 Plan) to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). The May 2025 Proposed Rule provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, summarized Texas's 2014 Plan, and explained the rationale for our proposed approval.
On July 20, 2021, the TCEQ submitted a revision to its SIP (2021 Plan) to address the State's regional haze obligations for the second planning period, which runs through 2028, in accordance with CAA sections 169A and the RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(f). On October 15, 2024, the EPA proposed to approve the elements of the 2021 Plan related to requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1), (f)(4), (f)(5),
As discussed in our May 2025 Proposed Rule, in sections II and III of this preamble, and in the accompanying Response to Comments document (RTC Document), the EPA finds that Texas's, and where relevant Oklahoma's, regional haze SIPs meet the statutory and specific regulatory requirements of the regional haze first planning period, the five-year progress report for the first planning period, and for the regional haze second planning period.
In this final rule, the EPA is approving portions of Texas's 2009 Plan and portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan. As articulated in the May 2025 Proposed Rule, and the RTC Document in support of this final rule, the EPA's evaluation takes into account the requirements of the CAA and RHR and is informed by the published Stay Opinion from the Fifth Circuit. The Stay Opinion outlined that the Petitioners had a strong likelihood of success on the merits in showing that the EPA was arbitrary and capricious and exceeded its statutory authority in partially disapproving the Texas and Oklahoma plans and replacing portions of them with a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). Because Texas considered the four factors and otherwise met the outstanding first planning period rule requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d), we are finalizing approval of Texas's 2009 Plan. As discussed in
Additionally, the EPA is approving Texas's 2014 Plan, for the reasons set out in the May 2025 Proposed Rule and RTC Document. The EPA finds that Texas's 2014 Plan satisfies the progress report SIP requirements for the first planning period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i).
In this final rule, the EPA is approving Texas's 2021 Plan and affirming that it is now the Agency's policy that, where visibility conditions for a Class I Federal area impacted by a state are below the uniform rate of progress (URP) and the state has considered the four statutory factors, the state will have presumptively demonstrated reasonable progress for the second planning period for that area. The EPA acknowledges that this final action reflects a change in policy as to how the URP should be used in the evaluation of regional haze second planning period SIPs but believes that this policy better aligns with the purpose of the statute and RHR: achieving “reasonable” progress towards natural visibility.
As described in the May 2025 Proposed Rule, the EPA has discretion and authority to change its policy. In
In developing the regulations required by CAA section 169A(b), the EPA established the concept of the URP for each Class I area. The URP is determined by drawing a straight line from the measured 2000-2004 baseline conditions (in deciviews) for the 20% most impaired days at each Class I area to the estimated natural conditions (in deciviews) for the 20% most impaired days in 2064. From this calculation, a URP value can be calculated for each year between 2004 and 2064. The EPA developed the URP to address the diverse concerns of Eastern and Western states and account for the varying levels of visibility impairment in Class I areas around the country while ensuring an equitable approach nationwide. For each Class I area, states must calculate the URP for the end of each planning period (
In the 2017 RHR Revisions, the EPA addressed the role of the URP as it relates to a state's development of its second planning period SIP. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Specifically, in response to comments suggesting that the URP should be considered a “safe harbor” that relieve States of any obligation to consider the four statutory factors, the EPA explained that the URP was not intended to be such a safe harbor.
Other comments indicated a similar approach, such as “a somewhat narrower entrance to a `safe harbor,' by suggesting that if current visibility conditions are already below the end-of-planning-period point on the URP line, a four-factor analysis should not be required.”
Importantly, the EPA's recently adopted policy does not make the URP a safe harbor. The policy merely creates a presumption that the state's second planning period SIP is making reasonable progress for a Class I Federal area if the state has taken into consideration the four statutory factors of 169A(g)(1) and that area is below the URP. This is consistent with the CAA and RHR.
The Class I areas impacted by emissions from Texas sources are all below the 2028 adjusted URP with one possible exception, and Texas's SIP submittal demonstrated that the state took into consideration the four reasonable progress factors listed in CAA 169A(g)(1)
The EPA's May 2025 Proposed Rule provided a 30-day public comment period that was then extended to July 23, 2025.
The EPA acknowledges these supportive comments, which are included in full in the docket for this action. The EPA is finalizing its proposed approval of the remaining portions of Texas's 2009 Plan and Oklahoma's 2010 Plan, Texas's 2014 first planning period progress report, and Texas's 2021 Plan for the reasons laid out in our May 2025 Proposed Rule, this preamble, and the associated RTC Document. To the extent commenters identify suggestions or ideas for ways to amend the RHR for future planning periods, those comments are beyond the scope of this rule.
We respond to the issues raised in the remaining comment letters received on our May 2025 Proposed Rule in this preamble and the associated RTC Document, which is included in the docket for this rule.
We briefly address in this section comments raised in opposition to our May 2025 proposed approval of portions of Texas's 2009 Plan, Texas's 2014 Plan, and portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan. Generally, the commenters in opposition asserted that the EPA is arbitrary and capricious in approving portions of Texas's 2009 Plan, Texas's 2014 Plan, and portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan. In so asserting, the commenters noted the EPA's prior statements in various rulemakings
As detailed in section IV of the RTC Document associated with this rule, the EPA explained its bases for approving portions of Texas's 2009 Plan, Texas's 2014 Plan, and portions of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan in our May 2025 Proposed Rule and reiterated those bases in responding to the comments. As explained in the May 2025 Proposed Rule, the SIP disapprovals and FIPs contained in the 2016 Final Rule were vacated by the Fifth Circuit on December 17, 2024. As such, the EPA was put in a position to act anew on these portions of the Texas and Oklahoma first planning period plans. We articulate our reasoning for approving the plans in both the May 2025 Proposed Rule and the RTC Document. Finally, while we were informed by and took into account the 2016 Stay Opinion in our decision, we are finalizing approval of the relevant portions of Texas's 2009 Plan and Oklahoma's 2010 Plan, based on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, which provide the states with considerable flexibility in crafting their regional haze plans.
As discussed in our May 2025 Proposed Rule and RTC Document associated with this rule, because Texas adequately considered the four statutory factors and otherwise met the outstanding first planning period rule requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d), we are approving the remaining outstanding portions of Texas's 2009 Plan. As previously discussed, the RHR provides states with flexibility in the sources they select for further evaluation and how states consider the four factors. As permitted by the RHR, Texas relied on the technical information and analyses from the RPO it participated in at the time, CENRAP, as a starting point for its analyses. We reviewed the source selection, four factor analysis and reasonable progress determination in the SIP and find it to meet the applicable requirements. The source selection methodology identified a reasonable number of sources. Texas considered the costs and emission reductions associated with potential controls, along with the other statutory factors, weighed the estimated visibility benefits that would result from those controls and determined that no additional reductions were necessary beyond those accounted for in the CENRAP modeling, which included the emission reductions which were anticipated under the CAIR, or its replacement. As discussed in detail in the May 2025 Proposed Rule and RTC Document, the Texas SO
We are also finalizing our approval of Texas's 2014 Plan as it satisfied the applicable requirements of the RHR.
We briefly address in this section: (1) whether the EPA's new policy is consistent with the CAA and RHR; (2) whether the EPA sufficiently justified its basis for the new policy; (3) whether the EPA's approval of Texas's 2021 Plan is based on a determination of nationwide scope and effect; (4) whether EPA's approval of Texas's 2021 Plan departs from national policy without complying with the EPA's consistency regulations at 40 CFR part 56; and (5) whether the 2021 Plan meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements in accordance with the new policy.
As detailed at length in section V.A of the RTC Document associated with this rule, the EPA's new policy is consistent with the CAA. Pursuant to CAA 169A(a)(4), Congress explicitly delegated to the EPA the authority to promulgate regulations regarding reasonable progress towards meeting the national goal. As some comments note, to determine the measures necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal under 169A(a)(1), Congress mandated “tak[ing] into consideration the cost of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any existing source subject to such requirement.”
The EPA emphasizes that just because a Class I area is below the URP does not mean that a state is relieved of its obligations under the CAA and the RHR to make reasonable progress. In other words, the URP is not a “safe harbor,” as that phrase has sometimes been used, because the EPA still must review a state's determination whether additional control measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, determine whether the state submitted those measures for incorporation into the SIP, and evaluate whether the measures are consistent with other provisions in the CAA.
As discussed in the West Virginia final action,
The decision in
As discussed in the West Virginia final action
As discussed in the West Virginia final action
Finally, as also detailed in sections V and VI of the RTC Document, the 2021 Plan meets the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The RHR requires states to submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the state and for each mandatory Class I Federal area located outside the state that may be affected by emissions from the state,
A discussed in more detail in section V.B of the RTC Document, Texas selected a reasonable number of sources for which it evaluated potential control measures through consideration of the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1). Texas then weighed the total aggregate annualized costs of controls
As required by the statute, Texas took into consideration the four statutory factors in CAA section 169A(g)(1) and determined that no additional controls for stationary sources were necessary to make reasonable progress. Texas therefore concluded that it was not necessary to incorporate any new emissions limitations, schedules of compliance, or other measures for stationary sources into its 2021 Plan. Thus, Texas did not ignore the results of its consideration of the four statutory factors. Rather, consistent with the CAA, RHR, and EPA's new policy, Texas considered the four factors, and because the affected Class I areas are below the glidepath with the possible
The full text of comments received is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this rule at
The following information applies only to the portions of Oklahoma's SIP which are approved in this rule. No portions of the Texas SIP which we are approving in this rule apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
The EPA has approved Oklahoma's SAFETEA request to administer all of the State's EPA-approved environmental regulatory programs in the requested areas of Indian country. As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA's approval under SAFETEA does not include Indian country lands, including rights-of-way running through the same, that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); (2) are held in trust by the United States on behalf of an individual Indian or Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to such land, or an area that included such land, in accordance with a treaty with the United States to which such Tribe was a party, and (b) never allotted the land to a member or citizen of the Tribe (collectively “excluded Indian country lands”).
The EPA's approval under SAFETEA expressly provided that to the extent the EPA's prior approvals of Oklahoma's environmental programs excluded Indian country, any such exclusions are superseded for the geographic areas of Indian country covered by the EPA's approval of Oklahoma's SAFETEA request.
As explained in earlier in this preamble and in our May 2025 Proposed Rule, the EPA is approving the portion of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
For the reasons set forth in the May 2025 Proposed Rule, the RTC Document, and in this final rule, the EPA is approving Texas's regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted on July 20, 2021, as satisfying the applicable regional haze requirements for the second planning period contained in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and (i). For the reasons set forth in the May 2025 Proposed Rule, the RTC Document, and in this final rule, the EPA is approving Texas's regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted March 20, 2014, as satisfying the applicable regional haze requirements for the first planning period progress report contained in 40 CFR 51.308(g), (h), and (i). Additionally, the EPA is approving portions of the 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP submission and portions of the 2010 Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP submission that relate to reasonable progress requirements for the first planning period from 2007 through 2018 as satisfying applicable requirements contained in 40 CFR 51.308(d).
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this final rule merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this final rule:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866:
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, the portions of this final rule that apply to the Texas SIP are not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The portion of Oklahoma's 2010 Plan addressing 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
This final rule is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this rule must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 3, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This rule may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
The addition reads as follows:
(e) * * *
The revision and additions read as follows:
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; rescission of interim final rule.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rescinding the interim final rule (IFR) titled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks, and Coke Oven Batteries; Residual Risk and Technology Review, and Periodic Technology Review,” published July 8, 2025. This rescission of the IFR effectively reinstitutes the compliance deadlines set forth in the 2024 final rule revising the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the coke ovens source category, published July 5, 2024.
This rule is effective on December 5, 2025.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085 for the Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks (PQBS) source category and EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051 for the Coke Oven Batteries (COB) source category. All documents in the docket are listed on the
For information about this final rule, contact the U.S. EPA, Attn: Jonathan Witt, Mail Drop: D243-04, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5645; email address:
As defined in the
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action will be available on the internet at
The Clean Air Act (CAA), and CAA section 112 in particular (42 U.S.C. 7412), provides the statutory authority to issue this action.
On July 8, 2025,
• For the PQBS source category, the EPA extended compliance deadlines from January 6, 2026, to July 7, 2027, for certain maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards, including:
○ New emission standards based on MACT for pushing operations: acid gases (AG), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), mercury (Hg), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) (which is also a surrogate for dioxins and furans (D/F), formaldehyde, and volatile organic HAP (VOHAP));
○ New emission standards based on MACT for battery stacks: AG, HCN, Hg, and particulate matter (PM) (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals);
○ New emission standards based on MACT for HNR heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) main stacks: AG, Hg, PAH (which is also a surrogate for formaldehyde), and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals);
○ New emission standards based on MACT for HNR bypass/waste heat (B/W) stacks: AG, formaldehyde (which is also a surrogate for VOHAP), Hg, PAH, and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals); and
○ A new MACT standard, in the form of a good combustion practices work practice standard, for PAH, D/F, and VOHAP emitted from battery stacks.
• For the COB source category, the EPA extended compliance deadlines from July 7, 2025, to July 5, 2027, for fenceline monitoring requirements; revised leak standards for doors, lids, and offtakes; and revised pressure monitoring requirements for oven doors at heat and nonrecovery (HNR) facilities.
As a result of rescinding the IFR, the original deadlines in the 2024 rule revisions to the Coke Ovens NESHAP will apply to this source category. As explained below, the EPA does not believe that rescinding the IFR will trigger immediate compliance difficulties with relevant deadlines and remains committed to engaging with relevant stakeholders to promote compliance efforts and provide technical assistance. Moreover, the EPA notes that interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the Coke Ovens NESHAP in the forthcoming rulemaking, announced on March 12, 2025, to reconsider the applicable standards.
On July 8, 2025, the Agency issued an IFR that extended the compliance dates for fenceline monitoring, PQBS MACT standards, leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes, and HNR oven door requirements to July 5, 2027.
At the time the EPA promulgated the IFR, the Agency had been made aware of serious concerns that, without the installation of additional controls that may be unavailable or infeasible, industry would be unable to comply with both the MACT standards for the PQBS source category and the leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes in the COB source category, thus necessitating additional time beyond the compliance deadlines.
Among other things, the EPA solicited information from regulated parties on occurrences that would have constituted noncompliance with the standards as written in the 2024 Rule absent the compliance deadline extensions in IFR.
In response to the solicitation, the EPA received data on only a small number of exceedances of the standards for doors and lids (but not offtakes) that occurred prior to promulgation of the IFR (Doc. ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-2013). Upon review of this and other information received in public comments and at the public hearing, the EPA does not believe that the currently available information supports a conclusion that regulated parties would face significant immediate compliance challenges meeting the PQBS MACT standards or the COB leak limits for doors, lids, and offtakes if the compliance deadlines were not changed, such that only a change in compliance date provided within the IFR would alleviate regulated parties' concerns. Thus, the EPA is rescinding the IFR compliance deadline extensions for these standards, as well as the extension for the associated fenceline monitoring requirements promulgated in the 2024 rule to promote compliance with the standards.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The EPA prepared an Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) estimating the compliance cost savings associated with extending these compliance deadlines. The EIA estimated the IFR would result in a present value (PV) of $8.1 million of compliance cost savings ($4.2 million equivalent annualized value, or EAV) using a 3 percent social discount rate and a PV of $7.9 million of compliance cost savings ($4.4 million EAV) using a 7 percent social discount rate. The estimated compliance cost savings resulted from two years during which operation and maintenance costs associated with the fenceline monitoring requirements and
This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection activities that apply to the coke oven facilities affected by this action and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060-0253 (COB NESHAP) and 2060-0521 (PQBS NESHAP). This action does not change the information collection requirements.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities.
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or Tribal governments. Although this action creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not exceed $100 million or more.
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule will implement revisions to the compliance dates for certain provisions. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards; therefore, the NTTAA does not apply.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801-808, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This is not a major action as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) * * *
(4) On and after July 7, 2025:
(d) Emission limitations and requirements applied to each coke oven battery utilizing a new recovery technology shall be less than the following emission limitations or shall result in an overall annual emissions rate for coke oven emissions for the battery that is lower than that obtained by the following emission limitations on and after July 7, 2025:
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The date for compliance with paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section is on and after July 7, 2025.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) The date for compliance with paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section is on and after July 7, 2025, or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
(b) * * *
(8) On and after July 7, 2025:
(h)
For each by-product coke oven battery facility as defined in § 63.301, beginning no later than July 7, 2025, the owner or operator of a coke manufacturing facility shall conduct sampling along the facility property boundary and analyze the samples in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section.
(d) * * *
(1) If you have an existing affected source or a new or reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction commenced on or before August 16, 2023, you must be in compliance no later than January 5, 2026.
(2) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source for which construction or reconstruction commenced after August 16, 2023, you must be in compliance no later than January 5, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.
(c) * * *
(4) Beginning January 5, 2026, you must identify and implement a set of site-specific good combustion practices for each battery. These good combustion practices should correspond to your standard operating procedures for maintaining the proper and efficient combustion within battery waste heat flues. Good combustion practices include, but are not limited to, the elements listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
(f)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) modifies the Commission's previous incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) rate caps in response to record evidence of the significant unintended consequences of those rate caps. It establishes new interim audio and video IPCS rate caps by basing the calculation of the Commission's rate caps only on billed minutes, incorporating all safety and security measure expenses that IPCS providers reported incurring, and creating an additional rate cap tier for extremely small jails. It also creates a separate interim rate additive to ensure recovery of correctional facilities' costs of administering IPCS. Additionally, it sets a new compliance date for providers' compliance with the new rules and clarifies that the rate cap, site commission, and per-minute pricing rules from the Commission's 2021 Order will no longer apply following that date.
Shabbir Hamid, Pricing Policy Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-2328 or via email at
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, document FCC 25-75, adopted on October 28, 2025 and released on November 6, 2025, in WC Docket Nos. 12-375 and 23-62. This summary is based on the public redacted version of the document, the full text of this document can be obtained from the Commission's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at
1. The rates and other practices of the incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) industry have been the subject of the Commission's and Congress' attempts to ensure just and reasonable rates for consumers and fair compensation for providers for over a decade. Indeed, the Commission has attempted on multiple occasions over the last 12 years to address these issues, spawning multiple rounds of litigation in several federal courts. With the passage of the Martha Wright-Reed Act and its implementation by the Commission in the
2. The goal of today's action is to establish a regulatory framework that is
3. The Martha Wright-Reed Act was enacted by Congress in January 2023 to ensure that “all [IPCS] rates and charges are just and reasonable” while continuing to ensure that “all payphone service providers are fairly compensated.” The Act expanded the Commission's jurisdiction to regulate IPCS to include intrastate IPCS and advanced communications services, including video IPCS. It also permitted the Commission to use industry-wide average costs to determine just and reasonable rates and directed the Commission to “consider costs associated with any safety and security measures necessary to provide” IPCS in determining those rates. In July 2024, the Commission adopted the
4. In October 2024, petitions were filed seeking reconsideration of various aspects of the
5. During the transition period to the newly adopted rate caps, the Commission was made aware of certain unintended consequences of the new IPCS rules for the industry and for correctional facilities. In the
6. We adopt a joint Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration (Order) to address rate cap setting issues that arose in two distinct procedural settings in this rulemaking—some in response to the
7. In this Order, we use a two-step process for revising the IPCS rate caps. We first address four methodological issues raised in the record and revise the approach to each in response to comments raised in the record. We then incorporate the effects of those modifications into the audio and video rate cap calculations by establishing a zone of reasonableness for each rate tier, calculating upper and lower bounds for each rate tier, and then select new rate caps from within the resulting zones, rounding to whole cent amounts. The rate caps we establish are interim, acknowledging the limitations of the data submitted and allowing the Commission to seek further comment before setting permanent rate caps.
8. We adopt the following revised, interim audio and video IPCS rate caps:
9. We first revise four aspects of the rate cap setting approach the Commission used in the
10. NCIC seeks reconsideration of the Commission's inclusion of unbilled minutes of use in calculating IPCS rate caps in the
11. In the
12. NCIC contends that the Commission erred by including unbilled minutes in its calculation of rate caps. It claims that the Commission failed to “adequately explain how including unbilled minutes, for which IPCS providers incur costs to carry the traffic and monitor the communications but receive no revenue, is a better reflection of an IPCS providers' costs to provide service.” We find that using total reported minutes of use to calculate interim rate caps may not produce rate caps that allow providers sufficient revenues to recover their costs, even if doing so may be useful in assessing overall industry cost characteristics. Using both billed and unbilled minutes, without accounting for the fact that providers may not presently have contracts in place enabling them to recover from facilities the costs of providing any unbilled minutes that facilities require, may lead to under-compensation, contrary to the “fair compensation” principle of section 276(b)(1)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act).
13. NCIC challenges the Commission's conclusion that using billed and unbilled minutes to derive its rate caps was “an improvement from the
14. While NCIC seeks to exclude unbilled minutes from the calculation of IPCS rate caps, it does not seek a return to the use of paid minutes to calculate rate caps as was done in the
15. The Public Interest Parties assert that “excluding unbilled minutes would lead to rate caps that are unreasonably high . . . in at least some facilities.” But they fail to acknowledge that basing rates on unbilled minutes will undercompensate providers unless they recover those costs directly from facilities. We therefore are not persuaded that excluding unbilled minutes results in interim rate caps that are not just and reasonable. Additionally, the Commission must take into account the fact that unbilled minutes represent a non-trivial percentage of all minutes as it balances the dual goals of ensuring just and reasonable rates for consumers and fair compensation for providers. Finally, consumers are direct beneficiaries of unbilled minutes, an offsetting benefit which must be factored in assessing the reasonableness of industry rate caps overall. This revision to our rate caps, as well as the others adopted in this Order, are cost-based, supported by the record, and meet the dual requirements that our rate caps be just and reasonable and fairly compensatory. We find that excluding unbilled minutes in calculating our interim rate caps satisfies both statutory mandates.
16. In the
17. Finally, NCIC questions the Commission's reasoning that “if the relative proportions of billed to unbilled minutes were to shift in the future, a rate cap based on the amount of billed minutes would become outdated.” It asserts that the Commission “already has plans to address any outdated rate caps in connection with ongoing oversight of IPCS service.” The Public Interest Parties assert in contrast that including unbilled minutes “eliminat[es] the need for the type of ongoing monitoring NCIC describes,” but do not explain how including unbilled minutes in rate calculations would obviate the need for the Commission to discharge its ongoing oversight responsibilities under the Communications Act and the Martha Wright-Reed Act. We agree with NCIC. We are currently monitoring and fully intend to continue to monitor the IPCS industry as part of our ongoing oversight obligations under the Communications Act and the Martha Wright-Reed Act.
18. We therefore use only billed minutes in calculating our interim rate caps, superseding our decision in the
19. In the
• A separate tier for all prisons regardless of average daily population;
• Jails with an average daily population of 1,000 or more (large jails);
• Jails with an average daily population between and including 350 to 999 (medium jails);
• Jails with an average daily population between and including 100 to 349 (small jails);
• Jails with an average daily population between and including 50 to 99 (very small jails); and
• Jails with an average daily population of 0 to 49 (extremely small jails).
20. The Martha Wright-Reed Act directs the Commission to ensure just and reasonable rates and consider costs associated with “small, medium, and large facilities” or “other characteristics.” In the
21. Notably, the very small jail tier included jails with an ADP between 0 and 99, which encompassed over half of all jails in the United States. Generally speaking, these and other small jails are located in rural areas—an “other characteristic[ ]” within the meaning of the Martha Wright-Reed Act—where the record suggests that providing IPCS involves increased costs due to “higher telecommunications expenses and customization requirements.” The Commission recognized that the rate cap tiers adopted in the
22. As a general matter, we agree with commenters that as ADP decreases, per-minute or per capita costs for the provision of IPCS increase for the provider. Several factors cause per-minute IPCS costs to rise as ADP shrinks. For one, the fixed costs of providing IPCS at smaller or more rural facilities are distributed over fewer incarcerated people and therefore fewer minutes of use, which results in providers tending to have higher costs per minute at smaller facilities as opposed to larger facilities. Importantly, extremely small jails and very small jails are more typically located in rural areas, where the per minute cost of service is higher because of the reported difficulty of serving those areas. In addition to increased costs for jail management and account set-up, greater reliance on prepaid accounts, and fewer calling minutes, IPCS providers that serve smaller jail facilities typically in rural locations often must also provision longer haul, higher cost broadband connections to deliver service. Accordingly, building upon the Commission's prior actions and based on the record and analysis of IPCS data, we subdivide the very small jail tier established in the
23. The real world implications of adopting rate caps that do not sufficiently take into account the higher costs of serving the smallest and most rural facilities is evident in the record subsequent to the adoption of the
24. We find that further disaggregating the very small jail tier into two separate tiers better accounts for the operational challenges of providing IPCS to very small and extremely small jails, more accurately captures the heightened costs associated with providing IPCS to jails in rural areas, and therefore more reliably ensures that IPCS rates are just, reasonable, and fairly compensatory. Further, the majority of incarcerated people that would have been covered by the former very small jail tier rate cap will pay relatively lower rates than they otherwise would have if the very small jail tier were not subdivided, given that the majority of incarcerated people within the two new tiers will be in the revised very small jail tier. Incarcerated people housed in jails included in the new extremely small jail tier, while paying marginally higher rates than they otherwise would have if the very small jail tier were not subdivided, will be assured of the long-term availability of IPCS at those institutions given that those rates will more accurately compensate providers for their costs.
25. We subdivide the former very small jail tier at 50 ADP to create two tiers, and find that using this additional threshold will improve or better ensure the provision of IPCS within these tiers, while balancing the differences in ADP, average length of time incarcerated people are detained, and consumers' interests. This action subdivides the rate tier that encompasses the largest number of facilities. The most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics show that of the 2,779 jails in operation, over half have an ADP below 100 (567 with an ADP of between 50 to 99 and 956 with an ADP lower than 50). While there are a higher number of jails in the lower half of the 0-100 ADP range, those jails house significantly fewer people. Of the total ADP of 59,600 in jails below 100 ADP during the 12-month period from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022, jails with ADPs from 50 to 99 account for roughly 40,500 (68%), while jails with ADPs under 50 account for only 19,100 (32%).
26. We agree with commenters that assert that, because of this uneven population distribution within the former very small jail tier, the rate cap for this tier “saddles many with rates that are far too high as a result of the costs associated with providing service in the smallest jails.” Taking into account the differences in ADP at the very small jail tier and the extremely small jail tier, we find that dividing the existing very small jail tier at 50 ADP will ensure that, at any given point in time, the majority of consumers in this group will pay lower IPCS rates, reflecting the relatively lower per-minute cost of service in jails from 50 to 99 ADP, while allowing providers at extremely small jails to charge rates that will enable them to recover their higher per-minute cost of service and therefore ensure they will be able to continue providing service over the long term. Differences in average length of stay between these two sets of facilities further amplify the importance of disaggregating the former very small jail tier to set appropriate rates for both new tiers. According to Worth Rises, on average, “people in jails with an ADP of 50 to 99 are detained for 21.6 days, whereas people in jails with an ADP of 0 to 49 are detained for 13.4 days.” Shorter detentions would tend to increase the frequency of one-time administrative costs, all else being the same. We therefore divide the former very small jail tier into two separate tiers based on ADP.
27. We decline to further disaggregate the extremely small jail tier by setting an additional threshold below 50 ADP. NCIC suggests that there are a limited number of IPCS providers willing to serve very small jails because they lack a consistent ADP that would enable adequate revenue projections. After a certain point, however, we find further disaggregating the smallest rate cap tiers beyond those we adopt today would likely offer diminishing benefits. We recognize that IPCS providers—both large and small--serving jails with, for example, an ADP below 20 would likely face disproportionate compliance burdens if an additional, even smaller tier were created. Therefore, after carefully reviewing the data and record, we conclude 50 ADP represents a reasonable break point between the very small and extremely small jail tiers.
28. In the
29. We now grant in part NCIC's Petition, by reconsidering the Commission's previous decision to exclude various safety and security costs from its IPCS rate cap calculations and instead treat all reported safety and security costs as used and useful costs for determining the costs to be included in the lower bounds of the zones of reasonableness. In its Petition, NCIC alleges that the Commission's application of the used and useful analysis “did not fully account for IPCS providers' safety and security costs.” NCIC argues that “the lack of comprehensive data” prevented “a reasoned analysis of the IPCS costs allocated across the seven categories of safety and security measures.” On reconsideration, we agree. While the available record evidence concerning used and useful safety and security costs provided a basis for the Commission to exclude certain categories of safety and security costs, given the record which has developed since the Commission adopted the
30. In the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection, the Commission expanded the scope of collected data, gathering more granular information concerning safety and security services offered by providers, particularly those safety and security services which were used and useful in the provision of IPCS, and required providers to report on these data in detail for the first time. The Commission structured reporting of safety and security expenses by requiring providers to allocate these expenses across seven different cost categories. Industry-wide, providers reported the following expenses by category:
As the chart demonstrates, providers reported a total of $569.9 million in safety and security costs across all categories, with Category 3 (“Communications Security Services”) showing the highest reported costs of any category. These costs represent 34.4% of all reported costs.
31. While the Commission's categories were designed to group costs according to the uses or functions for which they were incurred, the Bureaus further disaggregated the category-based approach by directing providers to report cost data for each category between regulated IPCS (like audio IPCS, video IPCS, and ancillary services) and nonregulated services using a catch-all column for reporting. Despite these changes and attempts at clarification, providers still had difficulty in reporting. Commenters have since disputed the categories as a viable means of identifying used and useful costs, arguing that “IPCS providers do not categorize safety and security measures costs the same way the [Commission] grouped them.” For example, the record demonstrates that responding providers interpreted communications monitoring services (category 5) to include functions that might be considered as typical of law enforcement, such as “aid[ing] investigations related to detention facilities,” but that providers also reported services more typically considered IPCS-related in category 5, for example costs for “keeping incarcerated people from calling blocked numbers and from engaging in three-way calling.” Similarly, as the National Sheriffs' Association argues, call recording (category 4) and call monitoring (category 5) both may include functions they consider used and useful in the provision of IPCS, insofar as threats are made or crimes are committed during the use of IPCS. On reconsideration, we find these arguments imply a benefit to IPCS consumers and that overlapping uses between the categories of safety and security measures include costs that the Commission did not evaluate previously, which we find appropriate to contemplate for all categories. Without more and better information, the Commission undermined its category-based analysis by requiring providers to lump reported costs into inexact categories, which, in some instances, excluded certain reported costs from the categories the Commission deemed used and useful.
32. At a more granular level, some of the individual services within each category also suffered from ambiguity in function and use, as they could be classified as a law enforcement function, as a service which supported the provision of IPCS, or potentially both. Cost data for safety and security measures can be allocated among different security categories or functions in many ways, for example, by allocating costs for research and development processes to one specific category even if those costs apply more broadly to additional categories. Further, reported safety and security costs—such as platform development—could support both regulated IPCS and nonregulated services like text messaging. For example, certain IPCS providers develop their own proprietary software platforms for use by customers and law enforcement; such platforms naturally serve multiple functions, supporting not only the use of IPCS, but also education, entertainment, or other nonregulated uses, in addition to providing some safety and security features. Without a prescribed method of cost allocation or attribution, the categorical distinctions lose reliability, and can be treated differently by different respondents. In sum, we find other costs, such as platform development costs, and other functional overlaps heighten the degree to which regulated and nonregulated service costs are intermingled, and further obfuscate the Commission's ability to exclude reported safety and security cost categories without better data.
33. Next, given the limitations of the available data in the
34. Despite the Commission's analysis, the safety and security data on which the Commission relied in the
35. The record demonstrates that the unintended consequences of these
36. While the Commission attempted to reconcile the intermingled nature of these costs in the
37. On an interim basis and consistent with the record, we adopt a uniform rate additive of up to $0.02 per minute separate from and in addition to our rate caps to account for the costs correctional facilities incur in allowing access to IPCS. This additive is applicable equally to each rate tier we adopt today, and may be charged on top of the new, interim per-minute audio and video IPCS rate caps adopted in this Order. Our adoption of this uniform additive is an interim measure designed to provide greater certainty to IPCS providers and correctional facilities in determining compensation for correctional facilities for the costs they incur in allowing access to IPCS while the Commission seeks comment on how to structure a permanent rate additive in today's Further Notice.
38. As an initial matter, we modify the IPCS rate structure to create separate provider-related and facility-related cost recovery components, as the Commission previously did in the
39. In the
40. To provide correctional facilities with the opportunity to recover their used and useful costs, the Commission permitted IPCS providers to reimburse correctional facilities for such costs under the rate caps. The Commission explained that the rate caps “reflect . . . all of the used and useful costs incurred in the provision of IPCS regardless of whether such costs are incurred by IPCS providers or correctional facilities” and thus “recognize[d], consistent with the record, that correctional facilities may incur some used and useful costs in allowing access to IPCS.” Since the Commission also eliminated site commissions, which likely were the primary means by which correctional facilities recovered their used and useful costs, they would have no means to recover those costs absent a reimbursement mechanism.
41. In response to comments that the Commission's reimbursement mechanism may be difficult for IPCS providers to implement and the suggestion of some commenters that the Commission should instead use an explicit additive to IPCS rate caps to account for correctional facility costs, the Commission sought comment in the
42. The record now before us supports the adoption, on an interim basis, of a uniform rate additive in lieu of the reimbursement framework adopted in the
43. In contrast, a “rate additive would provide much greater certainty and remove providers from the role of gatekeeper for correctional facility cost reimbursement.” Pay Tel explains that a fixed correctional facility cost rate additive would “prevent the harms associated with the flawed reimbursement provision and better align market forces for all participants in the IPCS industry” because it would permit “full facility cost recovery” while also incentivizing correctional facilities to increase the availability of IPCS and create downward pressure on rates “to stimulate more calling.” Commenters also point out that a rate additive structure is a “tested approach” that is “far simpler to implement and enforce, and can better ensure that facilities can recover their reasonably incurred costs.” Indeed, “a uniform additive has been in place” for prisons and large jails since the
44. Although there is broad support for a rate additive, some commenters oppose this approach. Worth Rises argues because “the Commission's rates already account for all investments necessary to sustain IPCS, a uniform rate additive is duplicative at best and a way around the ban on commissions at the worst.” Given the prohibition on paying site commissions, however, a rate additive does not result in duplicative recovery. Nor does a uniform rate additive allow circumvention of that prohibition because the rate additive is limited to used and useful IPCS costs incurred by facilities. The Public Interest Parties likewise oppose a rate additive, noting that it “would include an additional amount on top of the rate caps,” which already incorporate an estimate of used and useful correctional facility costs. But, unlike in the
45. Securus and Pay Tel acknowledge that the record lacks definitive correctional facility cost data and that such data is difficult to obtain, complicating the process of determining the appropriate additive amount. Securus notes that “the data used to derive the previous $0.02 rate additive . . . is based on old data” but that IPCS providers “do not have information on the costs correctional facilities incur.” For its part, Pay Tel argues that “implementing an interim fixed additive of $0.02 per minute consistent with the 2021 ICS Order is achievable” even if it would need adjustment at a later date “based on further evidence.” In today's Further Notice, we seek comment on how to obtain correctional facility cost data that could be used to implement a permanent rate additive. Additionally, prior to the adoption of the
46. Considering the significant record support, we adopt an interim uniform rate additive of up to $0.02 per minute. We agree with commenters that an additive will provide greater certainty for IPCS providers and correctional facilities. In particular, as Securus notes, a rate additive “would better enable facilities to estimate their IPCS-related costs that would be compensable by providers” as opposed to the current reimbursement mechanism which requires correctional facilities to negotiate contracts with providers
47. We therefore cap the interim additive at $0.02 per minute for audio and video IPCS across all rate tiers for all correctional facilities. The $0.02 additive derives from the additive adopted in the
48. The interim additive we adopt today is to be charged on top of the per-minute audio and video rate caps as set forth in this Order. It is thus “in addition to, and not an offset or extraction from” the IPCS rate caps as they have been recalculated in this Order. The interim rate caps adopted in this Order are higher than the rate caps adopted in the
49. The interim $0.02 per-minute rate additive “does not constitute a site commission” as that term is defined in the Commission's rules. In the
50. Some commenters argue that if “IPCS providers are allowed to freely compensate correctional facilities for costs without oversight, they will effectively reintroduce site commissions by a different name.” We disagree. The interim rate additive we adopt is capped at $0.02 per minute. In contrast, the current reimbursement mechanism is “uncapped” in that its only constraint is the IPCS rate caps. The $0.02 per-minute rate additive we adopt here will provide a more “consistent, predictable, and transparent solution for ensuring correctional facilities can recover their costs associated with providing access to IPCS.”
51. We also disagree with commenters arguing against a rate additive based on the lack of data in the record regarding used and useful correctional facility costs. While the Commission has noted the lack of updated correctional facility cost data in the record, it has, “out of an abundance of caution,” incorporated a measure of correctional facility costs into its rate structure based on the National Sheriffs' Association's 2015 cost survey in both the
52. After carefully considering the record developed since the Commission adopted the
53. Our revised rate structure consists of two primary rate components: provider-related rate caps designed to allow providers to recover their used and useful costs in providing IPCS, and facility-related rate additives, designed for the recovery of the used and useful costs facilities incur in making IPCS available. In calculating revised interim rate caps and rate additives for each tier, we incorporate the four principal changes described in the foregoing section based on the record developed in response to the
54. Each of these modifications functions within the ratesetting methodology that the Commission used in both the
55. Our revisions to IPCS rates are based on the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection, which remains the best data available to us, notwithstanding the limitations previously acknowledged. From the results of that data collection, the Commission developed and refined a database that enabled it to analyze industry cost and operational characteristics and ultimately to select IPCS rate caps. The database represents approximately 99% of all industry minutes of use and approximately 97% of all industry revenues. We revisit the IPCS rate caps and rate cap setting methodology given the fact that the record developed since the adoption of the
56. We set audio and video IPCS rate caps on an interim basis. As the aforementioned discussion on safety and security costs illustrates, more accurate data is needed with regard to how safety and security measures are used in the provision of IPCS, including data on the costs of individual safety and security measures and data on how and where such measures are used, before the Commission can set permanent audio rate caps. Additionally, as the Commission previously noted in the
57. We clarify that our revisions to the rate cap setting methodologies and rate structure continue to be based on the used and useful framework for analyzing industry costs the Commission used in the
58. We employ a zone of reasonableness approach to rate cap setting that follows a three-step analysis consistent with the process used by the Commission in the
59.
60. Our approach to establishing the upper bounds of the zones of reasonableness diverges from that in the
61. In light of the foregoing, and after adding the new size tier for “extremely small jails,” we calculate the upper bounds for interim audio and video IPCS rate caps for each tier as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
62.
63. As explained above, and upon reconsideration, we now incorporate the five previously excluded categories of safety and security costs in the lower bounds, which includes costs for: Category 2 (Law Enforcement Support Services); Category 4 (Communication Recording Services); Category 5 (Communication Monitoring Services); Category 6 (Voice Biometric Services); and Category 7 (Other Safety & Security Services). Including these costs increases industry-wide total costs in the lower bounds by approximately $346 million. Because we find that the data collected by the categorical approach the Commission took in 2024 did not offer sufficient precision to allow the Commission to exclude entire categories without risking providers' and facilities' ability to provide and/or fund IPCS and the necessary safety and security services, we take the conservative approach to include all such reported costs in our lower bounds.
64. Apart from the inclusion of safety and security costs in the lower bounds, the remaining steps and adjustments we take today replicate those taken in 2024. To be clear, the components of the lower bounds continue to incorporate reported ancillary service charge costs and an estimate of providers' TRS-related costs, both of which were also included in the upper bounds. As we describe in Appendix D, the adjustment we make to the reported weighted average cost of capital lowers the net sum of ancillary service expenses, although the total per minute allowance for recovery of these expenses is otherwise developed identically. This is the same approach the Commission took in 2024, to which no commenter objected. And, because we excluded an estimate of facility costs from the upper bound, we need no longer adjust the lower bound to remove them. In other words, because we adopt an external rate additive to ensure recovery of facilities' costs of making IPCS available, we no longer include any separate estimate of facility costs in our rate cap setting analysis.
65. We make two adjustments to the industry cost data. First, we adjust the weighted average cost of capital reported by certain providers to match the industry default of 9.75%. As explained in greater length in Appendix D, the net effect of this adjustment is to reduce reported costs by about $72.5 million industry-wide.
66. Second, we adjust Securus's reported video costs to bring Securus's costs in line with its competitors in the IPCS market and set Securus's video IPCS cost per minute equal to the weighted average for all other providers offering video IPCS. We complete the adjustment by reducing Securus's cost per-minute data reported for each facility by the appropriate relative percentage. Without adjustment, the per-minute video IPCS costs reported by Securus in the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection are between {[ REDACTED ]} times the average of the rest of the industry. Given its size, Securus should be able to “achieve economies of scale” by “spread[ing] its fixed costs over a relatively large portfolio of contracts relative to other providers.” Notably, these economies of scale are present in Securus's reported cost data for audio IPCS but not for video IPCS. While
67. Separate from its video IPCS cost data, Securus's reported video safety and security cost data are also significantly higher than the rest of the industry. Given the inclusion of all safety and security costs in the lower bounds we establish here, including those for video IPCS, we extend our adjustment of Securus's video IPCS costs to include its video safety and security costs. Failure to do so would perpetuate the distortions caused by Securus's extremely high video costs, which would “significantly skew the industry average” on which we base our interim video IPCS rate caps. Further, not extending our adjustment to Securus's video safety and security costs would also be inconsistent with our adjustment to other costs, including our adjustment to weighted average cost of capital costs, which applies to both IPCS and safety and security costs.
68. Following the aforementioned steps, including adding all reported safety and security costs upon reconsideration, and adding the new “extremely small jail” tier, we calculate the lower bounds for interim audio and video IPCS rate caps as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
69. Based on the available information and on the changes outlined above regarding billed and unbilled minutes, the adoption of a new “extremely small jail” tier, and the incorporation into the lower bounds of all safety and security costs as reported, we find that the following rate caps based on the zone of reasonableness for each tier of facilities will provide just and reasonable rates while ensuring fair compensation. We establish these rate caps based on our examination of the developing record, the available data, and the Commission's experience regulating the IPCS marketplace. These rate caps are interim in nature given the need to conduct an additional industry data collection that will capture, particularly for the evolving video IPCS market, more mature market characteristics that will provide a sufficient basis for the establishment of permanent IPCS rate caps. These interim rate caps and rate additives will serve to ensure that the demonstrated benefits of increased communication in the carceral setting—reduced recidivism, increased public safety and strengthened family ties—will not be jeopardized by unintended implementation challenges.
70.
71. The lower bounds are the appropriate starting points when setting the audio IPCS rate caps, for many of the reasons that drove the Commission's rate cap setting decisions in the
72. Choosing to set interim audio rate caps based on the lower bounds also is justified by the fact that the largest adjustment we make—the inclusion of all reported safety and security costs in our calculation of the lower bounds—may include some costs that are only marginally related to the provision of IPCS. Although we describe above why the categorical exclusion of safety and security costs failed to adequately provide fair compensation for facilities and providers, it is just as important to note that the wholesale inclusion of all reported safety and security costs may be overbroad. Consequently, taking all such costs as reported should also tend to result in a conservative estimate of IPCS costs, further supporting the use of the lower bounds as a basis for setting interim rate caps.
73. Record evidence received since the
74. After deciding to set audio IPCS rate caps based on the lower bounds, we use the standard rounding rule, in order to set caps at the whole cent. We find that setting rate caps at the whole cent will reduce confusion and complexity, and result in rate caps which can be more easily understood and used by consumers. While rounding a lower bound downward (or upward) can result in a rate cap that technically falls below a lower bound (or above an upper bound), our use of standard rounding principles is a statistically defensible process that yields interim rate caps that remain consonant with our zone of reasonableness approach. (Our use of a factor to estimate the effects of inflation on the 2022 cost data is intended to reflect a separate dynamic in our ratesetting process and does not impact the validity of our standard rounding rule.) Additionally, rounding to the nearest whole cent avoids conveying a false sense of precision, given the limitations of the data, and facilitates the administration of and provision of IPCS. Further, by the very nature of the rounding process, the differences between the audio rate caps we now adopt and the lower bounds which we have calculated are
75. Finally, the rate caps we set today are interim in nature given remaining outstanding questions we have with the dataset we use (goodwill costs, excess of costs over revenues industry-wide, inconsistent allocation practices, etc.) and given the continued evolution of the IPCS market. Likewise, interim caps are particularly appropriate until we can better isolate and analyze the costs of safety and security measures. Rather than the permanent caps adopted in the
76.
77. We identify certain factors that support setting video IPCS rate caps based on the lower bounds, including several that dovetail with those referenced above in the discussion of our audio IPCS rate caps, as well as with those the Commission relied on in 2024. In particular, we reiterate that including all safety and security costs is generally conservative, and that providers have a natural incentive to overreport their IPCS cost data. Additionally, given the nascent nature of the video IPCS market, substantial initial investments in fixed assets are typical and are evident in our record, which gives us further confidence that relying on our lower bounds to set video IPCS rate caps will result in rate caps that are just and reasonable and fairly compensatory. Finally, given the inclusion of all safety and security costs in the lower bounds and the removal of facility costs from our rate cap analysis, the video rate caps we adopt today are above the corresponding rate caps adopted in the
78. We continue to adopt video rate caps on an interim basis, as the Commission did in the
79.
80. We therefore find it more appropriate to use the GDP-PI figure for the 4th quarter 2022, 120.175, as the starting point (
81. We reaffirm the Commission's prior delegation of authority to WCB and OEA to conduct an additional data collection to enable the Commission to set permanent rate caps for both audio and video IPCS. That delegation included a direction to WCB and OEA to determine the timing and scope of the data collection, “provided that such collection shall be conducted as soon as practicable.” Parties have underscored the importance of conducting a data collection without further delay. Given the time that has elapsed since the most recent mandatory data collection, the evolution of the market in the interim, and the importance of establishing permanent IPCS rate caps without undue delay, we now direct WCB and OEA to conduct a data collection following the conclusion of the Further Notice comment period with the goal of establishing permanent rate caps before the end of the first quarter of 2027. We reiterate our delegation of authority to WCB and OEA to make any appropriate modifications to the structure of the collection and the template and instructions for the collection necessary to provide the Commission an objective basis to establish permanent IPCS rate caps.
82. We perform an analysis of the relative costs and benefits of establishing new, interim audio and video IPCS rate caps. We expect that the benefits of adopting new, interim audio rate caps that are lower than the rate caps currently in effect, and establishing new interim video rate caps, will far exceed the implementation costs over a five-year time horizon. The net welfare gain to IPCS consumers alone is sufficient to ensure that the benefits of our actions exceed the costs. The other salutary effects of higher IPCS call volume—greater family stability, improved mental health, and lower recidivism and crime—will further expand these benefits.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87. We find good cause to make our rules effective on publication in the
88. At the same time—and to avoid any risk of prejudice from our determination to make the new rules effective immediately upon publication of notice in the
89. The compliance date, 120 days after publication in the
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFAs) in the
99. The Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration modify the incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS) regulatory framework, changing the methodology for calculating IPCS rate caps and adopting revised, interim audio and video IPCS rate caps that address unintended consequences of the Commission's
100. The Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration alters the ratesetting methodology used in the
101. No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rules on small entities.
102. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy (SBA), and also provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
103. 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 rules they adopt. 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 (SBA). 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. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.
104. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less
105. The rules adopted in the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the new rules will impact several small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the identified industries below.
106. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of the adopted rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
107. IPCS providers that qualify as small entities should be positively impacted by the modifications made in the calculation of IPCS rate caps. Those changes include the incorporation of five additional safety and security costs in the rate caps, helping to ensure that IPCS providers, and particularly smaller IPCS providers, recover their costs and therefore receive fair compensation. The Commission also determined that only billed minutes will be used to calculate
108. Additionally, the creation of a $0.02 per-minute interim rate additive to account for costs that facilities incur in making IPCS available will ensure the adopted IPCS rates allow smaller correctional institutions to be better able to recover those costs. Setting the effective date of the joint Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration at the date of its publication in the
109. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”
110. In the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, the Commission took several steps to minimize the economic impact of its IPCS regulations on small entities. First, the item modifies existing rate caps by including additional safety and security costs in the rate cap calculations which will minimize the chance that providers, particularly smaller providers with generally higher per-minute costs, will not be able to recover their costs. The Commission also adopts a new rate cap tier that provides additional differentiation between five different sizes of jails—large, medium, small, very small, and extremely small—based on ADP. The use of five different size tiers for jails is supported in the record and accounts for differences in costs incurred by providers serving these different facility sizes. Adding this extremely small jail tier minimizes the risk that providers, and smaller providers that typically serve smaller facilities, will not be able to recover their cost of service. However, we decline to adopt a proposed alternative to set an additional tier below extremely small because it would likely create a disproportionate compliance burden for jails with a lower ADP. Finally, instead of the approach adopted in the
111. This appendix sets forth the Commission's revised methodology for setting just and reasonable and fairly compensatory rate caps for incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS). The appendix reflects our reassessment of the data and other information IPCS providers submitted to the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection in light of the expanded record developed in response to the
112.
113. The percentage of total IPCS minutes that are billed significantly differs between audio and video IPCS. Table 1 shows that 93.1% of all audio IPCS minutes are billed. Providers with the lowest percentages of billed audio minutes include {[ REDACTED ]}, {[ REDACTED]}, {[ REDACTED ]}, and {[ REDACTED ]}. Three providers ({[ REDACTED ]}) report {[ REDACTED ]} of their audio minutes as billed. In contrast, only 72.5% of all video IPCS minutes are billed, with significant variation among providers ranging from {[ REDACTED ]}. {[ REDACTED ]} reports the lowest percent of billed video minutes at {[ REDACTED ]}, followed in increasing order by {[ REDACTED ]}, {[ REDACTED ]}, and {[ REDACTED ]}. Only two providers ({[ REDACTED ]}) report {[ REDACTED ]} of billed video minutes.
114. The industry share of billed versus total minutes across providers also varies between audio and video IPCS. Securus and ViaPath supply almost {[ REDACTED ]} of the industry's billed and total audio minutes, with Securus supplying more than a third and ViaPath supplying nearly half of industry audio minutes. ICSolutions has the third largest share of audio minutes at {[ REDACTED ]}, while the remaining nine providers account for less than {[ REDACTED ]} of the industry. As for video IPCS, ViaPath similarly supplies a large share of the billed and total minutes ({[ REDACTED ]}), but Securus, the second largest provider of video IPCS, supplies a much smaller share of respective industry billed and total video minutes ({[ REDACTED ]}) compared to audio IPCS minutes ({[ REDACTED ]}). HomeWAV, ICSolutions, and Pay Tel account for {[ REDACTED ]} of billed video minutes and {[ REDACTED ]} of total video minutes, respectively. The remaining five providers account for {[ REDACTED ]} of industry billed and total video minutes, respectively.
115.
116. Additionally, Table 2 shows that the average costs of providing audio and video IPCS differed between very small and extremely small jails, further supporting our disaggregation of the former very small tier (ADP < 100) into two separate tiers. For example, the average per minute cost of providing audio IPCS in very small jails was $0.083 as compared to $0.115 for extremely small jails. For video IPCS, the average per minute cost of providing service in very small jails was $0.192 as compared to $0.282 for extremely small jails. The cost differences between these two sets of facilities support disaggregation of the former very small jail tier into two tiers to ensure our rate caps are just and reasonable and fairly compensate the providers serving these two sets of facilities.
117.
118. The per billed minute ancillary services expenses included in our rate cap calculations equal the sum of all ancillary service expenses divided by the sum of all billed audio and video minutes for providers that reported ancillary expenses. Those expenses total $0.013 per billed minute—an increase from the estimate of $0.011 per minute in the
119.
120.
121. The adjustments we make in this Order to Securus's and ViaPath's claimed WACCs and Securus's tax-deductible interest expense also have the effect of reducing these providers' claimed expenses for all seven categories of safety and security measures, as here we make no adjustment to remove any of these categories. Moreover, the adjustments we make here to Securus's WACC and tax-deductible interest expense are made prior to the adjustments we make below to bring Securus's video expenses in line with industry expenses (by disallowing a portion of Securus's claimed expenses for both video IPCS costs and video safety and security measure costs). In the
122. Table 4 summarizes IPCS and safety and security expenses for audio and video IPCS before and after adjusting Securus's and ViaPath's WACC and Securus's tax-deductible interest expenses. Adjusting both providers' WACCs to 9.75% and Securus's tax-deductible interest expense results in total audio and video IPCS and safety and security expenses decreasing by about $60 million. The WACC and tax-deductible interest expense adjustments for Securus and the WACC adjustment for ViaPath also reduce Securus's and ViaPath's reported ancillary service expenses by approximately {[ REDACTED ]}, respectively. These adjustments are developed using the investment and expense data reported by these providers for ancillary services in their Company-Wide Information worksheets, as company-wide data are used to develop the allowance for recovery of ancillary services expenses. This reduction corresponds to a 6.2% decrease in total expenses for the industry. The total of the expenses reported separately by ICSolutions and ViaPath for the 22 facilities at which ICSolutions is the contractor and ViaPath is the subcontractor is reduced because of the adjustment to ViaPath's WACC, but the impact is limited. As shown in Table 4 below, of the $60 million total reduction in expenses associated with the WACC and tax-deductible interest expense adjustments, $54 million comes from a reduction in audio IPCS and safety and security expenses while the remaining $6 million comes from a reduction in video IPCS and safety and security expenses. Adding the total of the two ancillary services expense reductions referenced above, about {[ REDACTED ]}, to the reduction to audio and video IPCS and safety and security expenses, about $60 million, brings the total of the WACC and tax-deductible interest expense reductions to about {[ REDACTED ]}.
123.
124. Table 5 summarizes the safety and security expenses attributable to audio and video IPCS by category and by provider. Audio safety and security expenses total approximately $475 million. Video safety and security expenses total approximately $48 million. For audio IPCS, Securus and ViaPath report total safety and security expenses of {[ REDACTED ]}, respectively, accounting for nearly {[ REDACTED ]} percent of the industry total. All other providers have expenses between {[ REDACTED ]}. For video IPCS, Securus's and ViaPath's respective safety and security expenses ({[ REDACTED ]} account for {[ REDACTED ]} of the industry total). All other providers' expenses range from as little as {[ REDACTED ]}.
125. Table 6 summarizes safety and security expenses attributable to audio and video by provider and across facility tiers. For audio, prisons account for 66.6% of industry-wide safety and security expenses and Securus and ViaPath jointly account for {[ REDACTED ]} of those prison expenses. Extremely small jails account for the lowest share of audio safety and security expenses, and Securus and ViaPath account for {[ REDACTED ]} such expenses. Video safety and security expenses are more evenly distributed across the four larger facility tiers. Securus and ViaPath account for {[ REDACTED ]} of the industry's video safety and security expenses among prisons ({[ REDACTED ]}), large jails ({[ REDACTED ]}), and medium jails ({[ REDACTED ]}), but their combined
126. Table 7 presents per billed minute audio and video safety and security expenses by provider and across facility tiers. For audio, the
127. We would expect larger facilities to have lower per billed minute expenses due to economies of scale. However, these counterintuitive observations result, in large part, from the different ways providers allocated expenses between IPCS and safety and security measures. Only Securus and ViaPath allocated a non-trivial share of their expenses to categories of safety and security measures. Securus reports {[ REDACTED ]} of its total expenses as safety and security expenses. ViaPath reports {[ REDACTED ]} of its total expenses as safety and security expenses. The rest of the industry, on average, reports only 3.9% of total expenses as safety and security expenses. Because Securus and ViaPath supply a lower share of billed minutes in the smallest facility tiers relative to their share in prisons and large jails, per billed minute safety and security expenses in the smallest tiers are driven less by these two market leaders and more by the smaller providers. These smaller providers allocated nearly all of their expenses to audio and video IPCS, and nearly none to safety and security measures. Securus and ViaPath have per billed minute audio safety and security expenses of {[ REDACTED ]}, respectively, which dwarfs all other providers' expenses. The provider with the next highest per billed minute safety and security expense is CPC at {[ REDACTED ]}. For video safety and security, Securus and ViaPath have per billed minute expenses of {[ REDACTED ]}, respectively. ICSolutions is third at {[ REDACTED ]} per billed minute. As a consequence, industry average safety and security measure expenses across facility size tiers appear to exhibit diseconomies of scale. However, this is almost entirely the result of the different cost allocation approaches taken by Securus and ViaPath as compared to those taken by smaller providers.
128.
129. Table 8 presents the unadjusted and adjusted video IPCS expenses per billed minute for Securus and the industry (including Securus) for each facility type. Securus's unadjusted per-minute expenses range from just under {[ REDACTED ]}, depending on facility type. Securus's per-minute average of {[ REDACTED ]} across all facilities is more than {[ REDACTED ]} times higher than the industry average, and more than {[ REDACTED ]} times higher than the industry average when excluding Securus. Securus's unusually high per-minute expenses increase the industry average from {[ REDACTED ]}, a {[ REDACTED ]} increase. However, once the adjustment to Securus's video IPCS expenses is made, its per-minute expenses are significantly more comparable to those of the rest of the industry.
130. Table 9 shows the total video IPCS expenses for Securus and the industry before and after the adjustment. The overall reduction in video IPCS expenses is roughly {[ REDACTED ]} million, or a reduction in
131.
132. The record does not allow us to fully determine why Securus's per billed minute video IPCS safety and security measure expenses deviate so
133. We therefore adjust Securus's high video IPCS safety and security measure expenses per billed minute down to the industry average (without Securus). The adjustment is made in the same manner as the adjustment to Securus's video IPCS expenses. We thus use the industry average (without Securus) to reduce both Securus's video IPCS expenses and its video IPCS safety and security measure expenses. Specifically, we reduce Securus's video IPCS safety and security measure expenses equally across all facilities by the percentage that equates the sum of these expenses to the overall industry average (excluding Securus) on a per billed minute basis. Securus's video IPCS safety and security measure expenses are {[ REDACTED ]} per billed minute. The industry average video IPCS safety and security measure expenses per billed minute without Securus are $0.07. A reduction of {[ REDACTED ]} to Securus's video IPCS safety and security measure expenses across all of its facilities reduces the sum of these expenses to the level of the industry average on a per billed minute basis.
134. Table 11 shows the unadjusted and adjusted video IPCS safety and security measure expenses per billed minute for Securus and the industry (including Securus) for each facility type. Securus's unadjusted billed per minute expenses range from {[ REDACTED ]}, depending on facility type. After the adjustment to Securus's video IPCS safety and security measure expenses, its per billed minute expenses range from {[ REDACTED ]}, and as shown in the final column, these adjusted per billed minute expenses are significantly more comparable to the industry average for each facility type.
135. Table 12 shows Securus and industry total (including Securus) video IPCS safety and security measure expenses before and after the {[ REDACTED ]} downward adjustment to Securus's expenses. Adjusting Securus's video IPCS safety and security measure expenses to reflect the industry average per billed minute expense reduces Securus's video expenses by approximately {[ REDACTED ]} million. This reduction decreases total industry video IPCS safety and security measure expenses by {[ REDACTED ]}.
136.
137. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, including this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for the SBA Office of Advocacy and will publish a copy of the Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or a summary thereof) in the
138. Accordingly,
139. Accordingly,
140.
141.
142.
Communications, Communications common carriers, Incarcerated people, Inmates, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone, Video.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091; Pub. L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
The revision reads as follows:
(e) A Provider must not charge a per-minute rate for international audio Incarcerated People's Communications Services in each Prison or Jail it serves in excess of the applicable interim interstate and intrastate cap set forth in § 64.6030 plus the average amount that the Provider paid its underlying international service providers for audio communications to the International Destination of that communication, on a per-minute basis. A Provider shall determine the average amount paid for communications to each International Destination for each calendar quarter and shall adjust its maximum rates based on such determination within one month of the end of each calendar quarter.
A Provider must not pay any Site Commissions associated with its provision of Incarcerated People's Communications Services.
(a) A Provider must offer each Incarcerated People's Communications Service at a per-minute rate. A Provider may also offer an Incarcerated People's Communications Service under one or more Alternate Pricing Plans, pursuant to § 64.6140.
(b) A Provider must not charge a per-minute rate for intrastate or interstate audio Incarcerated People's Communications Services in excess of the following interim rate caps:
(1) $0.09 per minute for each Prison;
(2) $0.08 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population of 1,000 or more Incarcerated People;
(3) $0.10 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population of between and including 350 and 999 Incarcerated People;
(4) $0.11 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population of between and including 100 and 349 Incarcerated People;
(5) $0.13 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population of between and including 50 and 99 Incarcerated People; and
(6) $0.17 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population below and including 49 Incarcerated People.
(c) A Provider must not charge a per-minute rate for video Incarcerated People's Communications Services in excess of the following interim rate caps:
(1) $0.23 per minute for each Prison;
(2) $0.17 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population of 1,000 or more Incarcerated People;
(3) $0.17 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population of between and including 350 and 999 Incarcerated People;
(4) $0.19 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population of between and including 100 and 349 Incarcerated People;
(5) $0.23 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population of between and including 50 and 99 Incarcerated People; and
(6) $0.42 per minute for each Jail having an Average Daily Population of below and including 49 Incarcerated People.
(d) Providers may charge up to an additional $0.02 per minute above the audio and video Incarcerated People's Communications Services rate caps in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section to recover the costs that a Correctional Facility may incur in making Incarcerated People's Communications Services available.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection under OMB Control Number 3060-0703 and announces the effective date for amendments adopted by the Report and Order, FCC 25-33, 90 FR 31145 (Order), which were delayed. This document is consistent with the Order, which states that the Media Bureau will publish a document in the
Amendatory instruction 7 (47 CFR 76.923), published at 90 FR 31145 on July 14, 2025, is effective January 1, 2026.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Katie Costello, Policy Division, Media Bureau at
This document announces that OMB approved the modifications to the information collection requirements in 47 CFR 76.923, associated with FCC Form 1205, on November 26, 2025. This rule section was modified in the Order, FCC 25-33, published at 90 FR 31145 on July 14, 2025. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of January 1, 2026 for 47 CFR 76.923.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received final OMB approval on November 26, 2025 for the information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 76.923, associated with FCC Form 1205. Further, the FCC is notifying the public that revisions to 47 CFR 76.923 are effective January 1, 2026. Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.
No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-0703.
The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reapportioning the unused amounts of Pacific cod Trawl Cooperative (PCTC) Program halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits to the Pacific cod limited access trawl catcher vessel sector C season in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI).
Effective December 4, 2025, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2025.
Andrew Olson, 907-206-5813.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2025 Pacific cod fishery halibut PSC limits specified for the PCTC Program A and B seasons (January 20-June 10) is 220 metric tons (mt) and for trawl catcher vessel C season (June 10-November 1) is 15 mt as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025). Halibut PSC limits for the Pacific cod fishery are apportioned between the PCTC Program, the trawl catcher vessel limited access C season, and American Fisheries Act catcher/processors as established under § 679.131(c). Any unused PCTC Program halibut PSC limits may be reapportioned to the trawl catcher vessel C season under § 679.131(c)(3).
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS has determined that during the A and B seasons 137 mt of halibut PSC limit apportioned to the PCTC Program was not caught. The B season closed on June 10. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.131(c)(3), NMFS reapportions 137 mt of the halibut PSC limit for the PCTC Program to the limited access trawl catcher vessel sector C season, which increases this sector's halibut PSC limit apportionment to 152 mt. This action is authorized by § 679.131(c)(3), which allows for unused halibut PSC limits to be reapportioned to the C season, and is necessary to account for the trawl catcher vessel sector's C season halibut PSC.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and from providing an accounting of the reapportionment of unused halibut PSC limits to the trawl catcher vessel C season under § 679.131. Without this authorized reapportionment, this would result in exceeding halibut PSC limits for the limited access trawl catcher vessel sector. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent relevant data for halibut PSC by those sectors harvesting Pacific cod only became available as of December 2, 2025.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting retention of demersal shelf rockfish in the Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the 2025 total allowable catch (TAC) of demersal shelf rockfish in the Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas of the GOA has been or will be reached.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 4, 2025, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2025.
Adam Zaleski, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2025 TAC of demersal shelf rockfish in the Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas of the GOA is 271 metric tons as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (90 FR 12468, March 18, 2025).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(2), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 2025 demersal shelf rockfish TAC in the Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas of the GOA has been or will be reached. Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting retention of demersal shelf rockfish in the Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas of the GOA and requiring that demersal shelf rockfish in the Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas of the GOA be treated in the same manner as a prohibited species in accordance with § 679.21(a)(2) for the remainder of the year, except for demersal shelf rockfish in the Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas of the GOA caught by catcher vessels using hook-and-line, pot, or jig gear as described in § 679.20(j) or caught by catcher vessels using trawl gear participating in the electronic monitoring program as described in § 679.21(a)(2). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2025 TAC of demersal shelf rockfish in the Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas of the GOA.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data on demersal shelf rockfish catch in a timely fashion and would delay prohibiting retention of demersal shelf rockfish in the Western, Central, and West Yakutat Regulatory Areas of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data on demersal shelf rockfish catch only became available as of December 3, 2025.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; reallocation.
NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amount of Pacific cod from catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 meters (m)) length overall (LOA) using pot gear to catcher/processors using pot gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to allow the 2025 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod to be harvested.
Effective December 4, 2025, through 2400 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2025.
Andrew Olson, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear in the BSAI is 10,605 mt as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).
The 2025 Pacific cod TAC allocated to catcher/processors using pot gear in the BSAI is 1,894 mt as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025).
The Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA will not be able to harvest 200 mt of the 2025 Pacific cod TAC
The harvest specifications for 2025 Pacific cod included in final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025) are revised as follows: 10,405 mt to catcher vessels greater than or equal to 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using pot gear and 2,094 mt to catcher/processors using pot gear.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would not allow for the full harvest of the Pacific cod TACs by the sectors with harvesting capability. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data for Pacific cod harvest by those sectors harvesting Pacific cod, as well as the potential capability to harvest reallocated Pacific cod, only became available as of December 2, 2025.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific Ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2025 Pacific Ocean perch total allowable catch (TAC) in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 3, 2025, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2025.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared and recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The 2025 Pacific Ocean perch TAC in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI is 10,121 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2025 and 2026 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (90 FR 12640, March 18, 2025) and reapportionment of reserves (90 FR 27483, June 27, 2025).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator has determined that the 2025 TAC for Pacific Ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI will be or has been reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 10,111 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 10 mt as incidental catch because it is necessary to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific Ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI to prevent exceeding this sectors allowance of Pacific Ocean perch TAC.
While this closure remains in effect the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of Pacific Ocean perch in the Bering Sea subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of December 2, 2025.
There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action. This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Farm Credit Administration.
Proposed rule and request for comment.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, or our) proposes to amend our regulatory high-risk loan performance categories by removing “Formally restructured loans (TDR),” also known as troubled debt restructurings. In 2022, changes in generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) eliminated the accounting guidance for TDRs, enhanced disclosure requirements for certain loan refinancings and restructurings undertaken when a borrower is experiencing financial difficulty and changed existing vintage year disclosure requirements for public business entities. We propose removing TDRs from our regulatory loan performance categories to reflect changes in GAAP. Further, we seek comments on our determination no regulatory changes are needed for the enhanced disclosures related to loan refinancings and restructurings or the amended vintage year disclosure requirements, as these disclosures are already required under applicable GAAP. Additionally, comments are requested on retaining the “90 days past due still accruing interest” loan performance category.
Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted on or before February 3, 2026.
For accuracy and efficiency, please submit comments by email or through FCA's website. We do not accept comments submitted by fax because faxes are difficult to process. Also, please do not submit comments multiple times; submit your comment only once, using one of the following methods:
• Send an email to
•
1. Go to
2. Click inside the “I want to . . .” field near the top of the page.
3. Select “comment on a pending regulation” from the dropdown menu.
4. Click “Go.” This takes you to the comment form.
•
We post all comments on the FCA website. We will show your comments as submitted, including any supporting information; however, for technical reasons, we may omit items such as logos and special characters. Personal information that you provide, such as phone numbers and addresses, will be publicly available. However, we will attempt to remove email addresses to help reduce internet spam.
To review comments on our website, go to
1. Click inside the “I want to . . .” field near the top of the page.
2. Select “find comments on a pending regulation” from the dropdown menu.
3. Click “Go.” This will take you to a list of regulatory projects.
4. Select the project in which you're interested. If we have received comments on that project, you will see a list of links to the individual comments.
You may also review comments in person at the FCA office in McLean, Virginia between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please call us at (703) 883-4056 or email us at
The objectives of this proposed rule are to:
• Amend FCA's high-risk loan performance categories due to changes in GAAP; and
• Clarify Farm Credit bank and association reporting expectations for vintage disclosures and disclosures of loan modifications to borrowers experiencing financial difficulties.
The Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Farm Credit Act), establishes Farm Credit System (System) institutions as federally chartered instrumentalities of the United States.
Relevant to this proposed rulemaking is FCA regulation § 621.6 on high-risk
On March 31, 2022, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
The ASU 2022-02 updates related to TDRs affect all entities adopting ASU 2016-13 “Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments” and the current expected credit losses (CECL) methodology.
ASU 2022-02 also introduced qualitative and quantitative disclosure requirements for loan modifications provided in the form of principal forgiveness, interest rate reductions, other-than-insignificant payment delays, or term extensions (or a combination thereof) in the current reporting period. For each period the income statement is presented, the disclosures are to provide information on the type and magnitude of loan modifications, the financial effect of the loan modifications (by modification type), and their performance in the 12 months after modification.
On December 30, 2022, FCA issued Informational Memorandum, “Accounting standards update on troubled debt restructuring (TDR)” to provide interim guidance to the System on the changes in GAAP related to TDRs until FCA regulation § 621.6(b) is amended.
This proposed rule would revise our accounting and reporting regulations in subpart C of 12 CFR part 621 to incorporate changes in GAAP that took effect January 1, 2023.
Our regulation at § 621.6(b) currently requires System institutions to categorize high-risk loans as TDRs when required to do so under GAAP and FASB guidance. ASU 2022-02 eliminated TDR recognition and related measurement guidance under GAAP for all entities that adopt CECL. The System now uses the CECL methodology, so the TDR categorization in § 621.6(b) is no longer supported by GAAP.
In response to changes in GAAP, and supported by prior comments received, we propose removing § 621.6(b). As a conforming technical change, we propose renumbering existing paragraphs (c) and (d) as new § 621.6(b) and (c), respectively. We similarly propose a corresponding numbering change to the cross-reference in § 621.6(a)(2) from “under paragraph (c)” to read “under paragraph (b).”
Prior to developing this proposed rule, we also received comments from the FCC and various System institutions on our § 621.6(c) high-risk loan category, “loans 90 days past due and still accruing interest.” These comments requested removal of the “loans 90 days past due and still accruing interest” category. The FCC stated it believed removing § 621.6(c) would conform with GAAP and explained that in the System's experience, loans 90 days past due still accruing interest were usually fully guaranteed, thus mitigating credit risk. The FCC contended that under the CECL methodology, the performance categories for high-risk loans and loan-related assets should be limited to nonaccrual loans and other property owned.
We evaluated these comments on § 621.6(c) during this rulemaking but do not propose removing the “90 days past
As explained in the 1986 rulemaking, this performance category was developed from the FFIEC guidance on nonperforming loans, which identified three categories: nonaccrual, loans 90 days past due still accruing interest, and renegotiated troubled debt. At that time, FCA included loans 90 days past due still accruing interest in an “other high risk” category (which also included loans held as current but otherwise in severe default, bankruptcies, and foreclosures). In 1993, FCA amended the high-risk loan performance categories to further align System financial statement disclosures with those of the financial services industry.
However, FCA requests comments on whether retaining the “loans 90 days past due and still accruing interest” performance category is unduly burdensome as suggested by the FCC given the benefits it provides, especially since removing it may otherwise deviate from the FFIEC's definition of a nonperforming loan. We ask that any comments submitted on this subject include empirically derived evidence in support of retention or removal of the “90 days past due still accruing interest” high-risk loan performance category.
ASU 2022-02 requires all entities to provide financial statement disclosures for loan modifications by modification type, expected financial effect of those modifications, their performance in the 12 months after modification, and payment defaults on modifications granted within the previous 12 months (if any). Additionally, these disclosures, made by portfolio segment, should also provide qualitative information on how the entity factored the loan modifications, the borrowers' subsequent performance, and payment defaults (if any) into the allowance for credit losses (ACL). ASU 2022-02 also amended the vintage year requirement of public business entities to require disclosure of current period gross write-offs by year of origination for financing receivables and net investments in leases (“vintage disclosures”).
FCA reviewed these disclosure requirements to determine if a regulatory change was necessary instead of guidance. We reviewed our existing financial reporting regulations in 12 CFR 620.5 and 620.11 to determine if the ASU 2022-02 disclosures could be made using existing regulatory provisions or if they would require new regulations. Based on our review, we do not believe additional regulatory change is required. Existing regulatory disclosure provisions in §§ 620.5, 620.11, 630.20, and 630.40 provide appropriate categories in which to place the ASU 2022-02 disclosures.
Our financial reporting regulations are designed to balance GAAP compliance with ensuring stockholder-owners of Farm Credit banks and associations receive clear, beneficial information that is reported consistently for optimal stockholder-owner use and for consolidation within the Systemwide combined financial statements. Also, FCA regulations §§ 620.3(a), 620.4(c), and 620.10(b) prohibit making misleading disclosures. The consistent placement of ASU 2022-02 disclosures by all System institutions in the same location of financial reports furthers the objectives of §§ 620.3(a), 620.4(c), and 620.10(b). For this reason, and to provide meaningful disclosures, this preamble discussion provides compliance information for placing the enhanced GAAP disclosures within an institution's annual and quarterly reports to stockholders using the existing provisions of §§ 620.5 and 620.11. We do not believe similar compliance information is required for the Systemwide Report to Investors, as existing FCA regulation § 630.3(e) authorizes the Funding Corporation to present the information in the Systemwide report “in any order deemed suitable” to ensure disclosures are meaningful to investors and the general public. While not required, we encourage the Funding Corporation to consider FCA compliance information given to Farm Credit banks and associations on making these disclosures. In preparing its annual and quarterly reports Farmer Mac follows the provisions of 12 CFR 655.10 and it should use the information in this preamble as appropriate to its operations.
Although we do not propose regulatory changes for the ASU 2022-02 GAAP disclosures, we request comments on our expectations for consistent reporting of these core qualitative disclosures. We also seek comments on our determination that no regulatory changes are necessary for the ASU 2022-02 GAAP disclosures. We further welcome suggested alternatives for placement of the disclosures discussed below.
ASU 2022-02 enhanced financial disclosures for certain loans that may previously have been considered TDRs. As a result, disclosures for loan modifications are made by class of
FCA regulation § 620.5(j)(1) provides, in part, that banks and associations must “furnish financial statements and related footnotes that have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and instructions and other requirements of the Farm Credit Administration.” While GAAP requires disclosure of loan modifications in the financial statements and related footnotes, bank and association financial reports are for the benefit of the stockholder-owners. As such, FCA regulation § 620.2(g) requires Farm credit bank and association financial reports to not only follow GAAP but to present information in a manner that provides the “most meaningful disclosure to shareholders.” Accordingly, each Farm Credit bank and association is expected to make the required GAAP loan modification disclosures in the financial statements and related footnotes as required per §§ 620.5(j)(1) and 620.11(c)(2) and include in the management's discussion and analysis (MD&A) loan portfolio section a core loan modification qualitative disclosure (core disclosure) per §§ 620.5(g)(1) and 620.11(c)(1). The core disclosure should be a short, qualitative summary of how the modifications, subsequent performance of the borrowers, and payment defaults (if any) impacted the ACL and portfolio segments during the reporting period. Further, the core disclosure should be adequate to aid shareholder understanding and awareness of the GAAP loan modification disclosures in the financial statements and related footnotes. As such, the GAAP disclosures included in the financial statements and related footnotes should include a reference to the core disclosure in MD&A and vice versa.
ASU 2022-02 changed the vintage year disclosure requirements of public business entities.
FCA does not propose any regulatory changes for this disclosure.
FCA expects to issue separate guidance on the relationship of GAAP's loan modification accounting instructions and System compliance with the distressed loan servicing provisions of the Farm Credit Act. In particular, the guidance will discuss GAAP accounting on loan modifications for borrowers experiencing financial difficulty and its impact on what constitutes a new or restructured loan for other purposes under the Farm Credit Act. We anticipate issuing this guidance soon, either before or after the publication timeline and comment period of this rulemaking.
The Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined by Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, made applicable to FCA by Executive Order 14215. This action, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an Executive Order 14192 deregulatory action.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023
Public commenters may access the summary for this rulemaking under the identifier of RIN 3052-AD63 at:
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, Banking, Government securities, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Farm Credit Administration proposes to amend part 621 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Secs. 4.12(b)(5), 4.14, 4.14A, 4.14D, 5.17, 5.19, 5.22A, 8.11 of the Farm
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that certain bolts installed on the horizontal control rods of the flight controls were not dye penetrant inspected for cracks during manufacturing and thus could lead to bolt failure. This proposed AD would require replacement of affected bolts with bolts that are eligible for installation. This proposed AD would also prohibit installing an affected bolt on any helicopter. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by January 20, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed 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
Aryanna Sanchez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-4058; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under
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 Joe Salameh, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0228, dated November 28, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0228) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 D-3 and D-3m helicopters. The MCAI states it has been determined that bolts on the horizontal control rods of the flight controls having part-number D671M7051211 and with a serial number listed in the applicable material were not subject to a dye penetrant inspection for cracks during manufacturing and thus are subject to bolt failure.
The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent bolt failure, which if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the helicopter.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2022-0228, which specifies procedures for checking (inspecting) the serial number (S/N) of the bolt, and depending on the results of the inspection, replacing any affected bolts with serviceable bolts. EASA AD 2022-0228 also prohibits installing an affected bolt on any helicopter.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2022-0228, described previously, as incorporated by reference, except for any exceptions identified in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. See “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI” for a discussion of the general differences included in this proposed AD.
The MCAI applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model D-3m helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would not because that model does not have an FAA type certificate.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some CAA ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2022-0228 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2022-0228 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0228 does not mean that operators need to comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2022-0228. Material required in EASA AD 2022-0228 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 146 helicopters of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by January 20, 2026.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 D-3 helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6700, Rotorcraft Flight Control.
This AD was prompted by a determination that certain bolts installed on the horizontal control rods of the flight controls were not dye penetrant inspected for cracks during manufacturing and thus are subject to bolt failure. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent bolt failure, which if not addressed, could result in 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 2022-0228, dated November 28, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0228).
(1) Where EASA AD 2022-0228 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2022-0228 defines affected bolt as “Bolts, having part number D671M7051211 and a s/n [serial number] as listed in the ASB”, this AD requires replacing that text with “bolts, having part number D671M7051211 and a serial number as listed in Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin ASB MBB-BK117 D-3-67A-002, Revision 1, dated July 29, 2024”.
(3) Where EASA AD 2022-0228 refers to flight hours, this AD requires using hours time-in-service (TIS).
(4) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0228 specifies “check”, this AD requires replacing that text with “inspect”.
(5) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0228 specifies “discard”, this AD requires replacing that text with “remove from service”.
(6) Where the material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0228 specifies to make the bolt unserviceable, this AD does not require those actions.
(7) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2022-0228.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2022-0228 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that action.
(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 (k) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Aryanna Sanchez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-4058; 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0228, dated November 28, 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.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-24-09, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A318 and A320 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. AD 2024-24-09 requires the actions in AD 2022-24-05, provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections, revises the list of affected parts, and prohibits the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. Since the FAA issued AD 2024-24-09, the list of additional affected galley part numbers has been revised. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in AD 2024-24-09 and would revise the list of affected parts. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 20, 2026.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Evan Weaver, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 316-944-8910; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments using a method listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Evan Weaver, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 316-944-8910; email:
The FAA issued AD 2024-24-09, Amendment 39-22899 (89 FR 97499, December 9, 2024) (AD 2024-24-09), for all Airbus SAS Model A318, and A320 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. AD 2024-24-09 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2024-0038, dated February 5, 2024, to correct an unsafe condition.
AD 2024-24-09 requires repetitive inspections of certain galleys for corrosion of trolley retainer aluminum blocks and delamination of the upper panel of the trolley compartment, and applicable corrective action; provides optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections; revises the list of affected parts; and prohibits the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. The FAA issued AD 2024-24-09 to address damage that could affect the galley's capability to hold the trolley under emergency landing loads, which could lead to trolley detachment, possibly resulting in blocking of an escape path during an emergency exit.
Since the FAA issued AD 2024-24-09, EASA superseded EASA AD 2024-0038, dated February 5, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0038) and issued EASA AD 2025-0068, dated March 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0068) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, -251NX, -252NX, -253NX, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that it was identified that galleys having part numbers 601891-006801, 601891-003701, and 601891-010001 were missing in Appendix 1 of EASA AD 2024-0038, and it was identified that galleys having part number 6019A3-000101 are not affected by the unsafe condition addressed by that AD. Damage, if not detected and corrected, could affect the galley's capability to hold the trolley under emergency landing loads, which could lead to trolley detachment, possibly resulting in blocking of an escape path during an emergency exit.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD 2024-24-09, this proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2024-24-09. Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2025-0068, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this proposed AD.
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0068, which includes the following provisions:
• Procedures for repetitive general visual inspections of certain galleys for discrepancies including cracks and corrosion of trolley retainer aluminum blocks and delamination of upper panel of trolley compartment;
• Corrective actions including repeating the inspection, repairing the trolley compartment upper panel, and limiting the trolley weight;
• Procedures for modifying the affected galleys as optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections;
• A revised the list of affected galleys; and
• Prohibition of the installation of affected parts unless the parts are inspected and corrected.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority
This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2024-24-09. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0068 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2025-0068 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2025-0068 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0068 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2025-0068. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0068 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,985 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the parts manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of the optional modification specified in this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
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 January 20, 2026.
This AD replaces AD 2024-24-09, Amendment 39-22899 (89 FR 97499, December 9, 2024) (AD 2024-24-09).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any category.
(1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
(2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes.
(3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
(4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.
This AD was prompted by a report that damage (including delamination of work deck and corroded and cracked retainer blocks) was found during inspection of certain galleys. The FAA is issuing this AD to address damage that could affect the galley's capability to hold the trolley under emergency landing loads, which could lead to trolley detachment. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in blockage of an escape path during an emergency exit.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0068, dated March 28, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0068).
(1) Where EASA AD 2025-0068 refers to “18 August 2021 [the effective date of the EASA AD 2021-0183 at original issue],” this AD requires using January 9, 2023 (the effective date of AD 2022-24-05 Amendment 39-22245 (87 FR 74291, December 5, 2022)).
(2) Where EASA AD 2025-0068 refers to “19 February 2024 [the effective date of EASA AD 2024-0038],” this AD requires using January 13, 2025 (the effective date of AD 2024-24-09).
(3) Where EASA AD 2025-0068 refers to “the effective date of this AD,” this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(4) Where EASA AD 2025-0068 does not specify corrective action after a post-repair inspection that has findings of damage, this AD requires obtaining repair instructions before further flight from the FAA, EASA, or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA), and accomplishing those actions accordingly. Any approval by the DOA must include the DOA-authorized signature.
(5) Where the second row of Table 1 of EASA AD 2025-0068 specifies “P/N 6018A7-000101 or P/N 6018C1-000101”, for this AD, replace that text with “P/N 6018A7-000101 or P/N 6018C1-000101 or P/N 601891-006801”.
(6) Where the third row of Table 1 of EASA AD 2025-0068 specifies “P/N 601891-006801 or P/N 601891-003701 or P/N 601891-010001”, for this AD, replace that text with “P/N 601891-003701 or P/N 601891-010001”.
(7) Where Table 2 of EASA AD 2025-0068 specifies “P/N 601891-006801 or P/N 601891-003701 or P/N 601891-010001”, for this AD, replace that text with “P/N 601891-003701 or P/N 601891-010001”.
(8) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2025-0068.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2024-24-09 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2025-0068 that are required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Evan Weaver, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 316-944-8910; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2025-0068, dated March 28, 2025.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking, withdrawal.
The Coast Guard is withdrawing the proposed rule entitled “Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement Regarding Preemption for Certain Regulations Issued by the Coast Guard,” published in the
The notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 27, 2013 (78 FR 79242) and comment period extension published on March 28, 2014 (79 FR 17482) are withdrawn as of December 5, 2025.
The docket for this withdrawal is available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For information about this document call or email Stephen Hubchen, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1198, email
On December 27, 2013, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Assessment Framework and Organizational Restatement Regarding Preemption for Certain Regulations Issued by the Coast Guard,” at 78 FR 79242 (hereafter “the Framework”). On March 28, 2014, the comment period on the NPRM was reopened for an additional 60 days, at 79 FR 17482.
The Coast Guard received many comments on the NPRM that helped inform this decision to withdraw the rulemaking. The comments are available in the docket. Several commenters shared a concern that the breadth of the Framework's assertions of field preemption made it difficult to determine with certainty what the Framework's full impact would be on state laws. In addition, some commenters requested that the Coast Guard withdraw the proposed rule.
The Coast Guard also held two public meetings related to the NPRM, as announced in the notice published at 79 FR 22071 on April 21, 2014. Since 2014, the Coast Guard has not published any other actions related to this rulemaking and has decided to withdraw the NPRM.
The Coast Guard is withdrawing the proposed rule because our practice of discussing the preemptive effect of the Coast Guard's legal authorities and regulations in the preamble of our rulemaking documents is sufficient to identify any preemptive effects. The Coast Guard has determined that the implied and express preemptive effects of our federal regulations, as established in statutory authorities and case law, do not require a blanket, general restatement in the Code of Federal Regulations of their preemptive effects.
The Coast Guard has taken, and will continue to take, a targeted approach to clarify its authorities in the preamble of each rulemaking document. The Coast Guard believes this approach is more aligned with the principles identified in Executive Order 13132 on Federalism than an organizational preemption statement that would be applied across different Coast Guard authorities. Therefore, the proposed rulemaking is not needed.
Upon publication of this notice, the Coast Guard will classify the corresponding Unified Agenda as a completed action.
This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and is consistent with the procedures set forth in 5 U.S.C. 533 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Comments are due on or before January 5, 2026; reply comments are due on or before February 3, 2026. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before February 3, 2026.
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). You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 25-59, 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 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 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.
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Paul Powell,
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
1. In July 2025, Congress adopted, and President Trump signed, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB Act), Public Law 119-21, 40002(b)(2). The OBBB Act re-instituted the Commission's general auction authority and specifically directed the Commission to “grant licenses through systems of competitive bidding, before the expiration of the general auction authority . . . for not less than 300 megahertz, including by completing a system of competitive bidding not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act for not less than 100 megahertz in the band between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz.” Consistent with this directive, we propose today to further expand the ecosystem for next generation wireless services in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (C-band) by making as much as 180, and at least 100, megahertz of the 3.98-4.2 GHz band (Upper C-band) available for terrestrial wireless flexible use via a system of competitive bidding.
2. To satisfy our congressional mandate and rapidly make more valuable mid-band spectrum available for terrestrial wireless services, we have identified several key goals for this proceeding. First, we propose to make additional spectrum in the Upper C-band available for new terrestrial wireless operations within the congressionally mandated timeframe. Next, as with the earlier 3.7-3.98 GHz (Lower C-band) transition, we seek to expeditiously transition incumbent operations in the Upper C-band in keeping with our
3. Accomplishing these tasks within the timeframe established by the OBBB Act will necessitate broad-based and proactive engagement from relevant industry stakeholders as well as our federal partners. To that end, we look forward to robust participation in this proceeding from entities with current and prospective in-band equities, including Upper C-band incumbents (
4.
5. The 3.98-4.0 GHz portion of the Upper C-band was reallocated as part of the earlier lower band transition in the contiguous United States, and is reserved as a guard band to protect adjacent incumbent operations in the remainder of the Upper C-band from potential harmful interference. 3.98-4.0 GHz is allocated in the continental United States for non-federal use on a primary basis for FS and Mobile, except aeronautical mobile, Service, but there are no service rules established for that portion of the band. Outside the contiguous United States, these frequencies are allocated for and used by FSS and FS services. Outside of the contiguous United States, authorized FSS and FS providers were allowed to continue operating throughout the entire 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
6.
7.
8. In the
9. The
10. All five eligible space station operators elected accelerated relocation, subsequently met the respective Phase I and II deadlines, and became eligible for the designated accelerated relocation payments. As a result, the practical work of the transition was completed in 2023, and 3.7 GHz Service licensees are now providing 5G service using these frequencies in markets throughout the contiguous United States. Residual cost-related aspects of the transition were effectively completed by June 2025, and the relocation cost reimbursement program officially ended as of August 21, 2025.
11. In February 2025, the Commission issued the
12. The
13. The
14. In July 2025, as part of the OBBB Act, Congress reinstituted the Commission's general authority to grant licenses through systems of competitive bidding through September 2034 and established a path forward for the eventual repurposing of 800 megahertz to be licensed through competitive bidding, including at least 500 megahertz for full power commercial licensed use cases. The OBBB Act also specifically directed the Commission to “grant licenses through systems of competitive bidding, before the expiration of the general auction authority for not less than 300 megahertz, including by completing a system of competitive bidding not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act for not less than 100 megahertz in the band between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz.” In light of this direction, we are quickly moving forward to fulfill our Congressional mandate and seek comment below on reconfiguration alternatives for the Upper C-band which are designed to meet this goal.
15. In this
16. Our ultimate decision regarding the amount of spectrum to repurpose will depend on a variety of additional factors. Specifically, we seek input on the economic benefits and costs of repurposing spectrum for terrestrial wireless and how that value could be affected by the amount of spectrum that is ultimately repurposed and the clearing timeline. We also will consider the capabilities of adjacent band radio altimeters which are expected to undergo upgrades that will further enhance their signal rejection capabilities and bolster the existing
17. Under any of the reconfiguration options under consideration, our baseline proposition is that we would apply the existing 3.7 GHz Service rules to any newly authorized terrestrial wireless operations. Any other rules and requirements, including those relating to the transition process, would be modeled to the greatest extent possible on those that applied to the Lower C-band transition. We recognize, however, that certain modifications may be necessary in light of our experiences during that earlier transition with the Lower C-band, with the unique parameters of the Upper C-band and the instant transition in mind, and as a result of the band reconfiguration option we ultimately adopt. We seek comment on these reconfiguration options generally, and specifically as to how each of the topics addressed throughout this
18. To implement any reconfiguration proposal in effectuating the OBBB Act's Upper C-band directive, we propose to add a primary, non-federal mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation to whatever portion of the 4.0-4.2 GHz band we reconfigure in the contiguous United States. We also propose to remove the FSS allocation from the reconfigured portion of the Upper C-band in the contiguous United States. This proposal would harmonize the allocations in the immediately adjacent Upper C-band with those in the 3.7-4.0 GHz portion of the band and thus make a wider band of contiguous mid-band spectrum available for next generation wireless services. As noted
19. We propose to closely align the allocations across the C-band for reasons similar to those that prompted the Commission's 2020 reallocation of 3.7-4.0 GHz. Mid-band spectrum is crucial for next-generation wireless broadband service due to its favorable propagation and capacity characteristics. As before, we believe that adding a primary non-federal mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation to whatever portion of the 4.0-4.2 GHz band that is eventually repurposed in the contiguous United States will foster more efficient and intensive use of mid-band spectrum and facilitate investment in next generation wireless services. Recognizing that FS operations have been sunset in those areas, we further propose to retain exclusive non-federal allocations for FSS and FS in whatever portion of that band is
20. Although we propose to remove the FSS allocation from the reconfigured portion of the Upper C-band in the contiguous United States, we also propose to preserve the status quo regarding FSS and FS allocations and operations outside of the contiguous United States, which would be permitted to continue in the entire C-band. This proposal would ensure the ongoing provision of C-band services necessary to protect life and property—including national security, telehealth, E911, and education services—for which C-band service may be the only option available, such as in remote areas of Alaska.
21. We seek comment on the above reallocation proposals. What are the benefits and potential drawbacks of adding a mobile allocation, except aeronautical mobile, in some portion of the 4.0-4.2 GHz band in the contiguous United States? Do our reallocation proposals strike the proper balance between enabling more intensive flexible use of the band and reserving spectrum for existing incumbent FSS operations which—based on information previously provided by certain C-band satellite operators—are declining in use over time? What are the potential economic and operational/service impacts of our reallocation proposals, and of any potential alternatives that commenters may advance? Commenters are encouraged to provide specific data in support of any views on existing or future service trends that may inform the reconfiguration approach we adopt, and the resulting allocations that will be needed to implement that decision.
22. Consistent with our statutory mandate to grant licenses in the 3.98-4.2 GHz band through a system of competitive bidding, and to complete competitive bidding for such licenses within two years, we propose to conduct an auction of licenses in this band in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules. As we have done in all recently conducted Commission spectrum auctions, we propose to employ the part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences, unjust enrichment, application and certification procedures, payment procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on certain communications between auction applicants. Under this proposal, such rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission may adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the future. We seek comment on whether any of those rules would be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of licenses in the Upper C-band. Consistent with our longstanding approach, we will initiate a public notice process to solicit input on certain details of auction design and the auction procedures.
23. We also seek comment on the specific implementation of designated entity preferences available in the Upper C-band. Consistent with every recent Commission auction of 5G-
24. Additionally, we propose to offer rural service providers a designated entity bidding credit for licenses in the Upper C-band. Consistent with the findings in the
25. In the
26. In the
27. We also seek to afford new terrestrial wireless licensees the flexibility to align licenses in the Upper and Lower C-band with licenses in other spectrum bands also governed by part 27 of the Commission's rules. We therefore propose that new licensees in the Upper C-band comply with licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all part 27 services, including those rules relating to the assignment of licenses by competitive bidding, flexible use, regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting, compliance with construction requirements, renewal criteria, permanent discontinuance of operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and spectrum leasing. We seek comment on this approach and ask commenters to identify any aspects of our general part 27 service rules that should be modified to accommodate the particular characteristics of the Upper C-band.
28. In addition, we seek comment on whether to adopt service-specific rules in several areas for the Upper C-band, or integrate the Upper C-band into those rules already applicable to the Lower C-band, including eligibility, license term, performance requirements, renewal term construction obligations, and other licensing and operating rules. In addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and benefits associated with these proposals and any alternatives that commenters propose.
29.
30. Alternatively, would a mix of channel sizes improve efficiency and flexibility for a wider variety of users in the band? Should we consider smaller block sizes to create opportunities for a wider variety of entities to compete for licenses at auction? For example, in the
31.
32.
33.
34. While the reconfiguration options discussed
35.
36. Spectrum is an essential input for the provision of mobile wireless
37. We propose a 15-year term for licenses in the Upper C-band. In the
38. Performance requirements play a critical role in ensuring that licensed spectrum does not lie fallow, and are required for licenses issued through competitive bidding. To that end, the Commission has imposed different performance and construction requirements in various spectrum bands based on the specific characteristics of each band in order to ensure that spectrum is intensely and efficiently utilized in the public interest. Although we propose to use the performance requirements previously adopted for the Lower C-band, we also seek comment on possible alternative approaches to each of the performance requirements proposed below, including how we might facilitate access to portions of this band or geographic areas that are not ultimately assigned or used.
39.
40. We also seek comment on any potential alternatives. We invite commenters to indicate whether we should consider adjustments to the proposed performance benchmarks for the Upper C-band and explain their rationale for proposing such adjustments. We also seek comment on whether small entities face any special or unique issues with respect to build-out requirements such that they require certain accommodations or additional time to comply. Commenters should discuss and quantify how any build-out requirements they support will affect investment and innovation, as well as discuss and quantify other associated costs and benefits.
41.
42. We propose to adopt the geographic area coverage levels applied in the Lower C-band as alternative IoT performance benchmarks for the Upper C-band and invite commenters to provide input on our proposal, which we believe will provide sufficient time
43.
44. We propose adopting performance standards that are consistent with the benchmarks for Lower C-band for Upper C-band licensees relying on point-to-point service. For the same reasons as stated above, we believe that extending the Lower C-band framework will afford sufficient time for FSS incumbent operators to transition their operations and for new Upper C-band flexible-use licensees to deploy and meet the requisite coverage requirements once the license area has been cleared of FSS operations. We invite the public to comment on this proposal and on any adjustments or alternative proposals, as well as their basis for proposing such adjustments or alternatives. Commenters should also discuss and quantify how any proposed performance requirements will impact investment and innovation, as well as discuss and quantify other costs and benefits associated with the proposal in question.
45.
46. In the event a licensee's authority to operate terminates automatically, we propose that the licensee's spectrum rights would become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding provisions of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act. Consistent with the Commission's rules applicable to Lower C-band and in other bands, we propose that any Upper C-band licensee that forfeits its license for failing to meet its performance requirements would be precluded from regaining the spectrum rights covered by the license. We invite comments on these proposals. Is the approach that the Commission adopted for the Lower C-band transition appropriate for the Upper C-band? Commenters should address the costs and benefits of our proposals, and of any suggested alternatives.
47.
48.
49.
50. In addition to, and independent of, the general renewal provisions set forth in our rules, we seek comment on applying specific renewal term construction obligations to Upper C-band licensees. In particular, we invite comment on whether there are unique characteristics of the Upper C-band that might warrant a different approach than the general renewal requirements applicable to all WRS. Do any of our proposals for the Upper C-band, such as longer license terms, necessitate a more tailored approach than our general part 27 renewal requirements? Commenters advocating rules specific to the Upper C-band should address the costs and benefits of their proposed rules and discuss how a given proposal will encourage investment and deployment in areas that might not otherwise benefit from significant wireless coverage.
51. In addition to the proposed licensing and operating rules discussed
52.
53. In the
54. Because advanced antenna systems often have multiple radiating elements in the same sector, the Commission adopted power limits in the 3.45 GHz and Lower C-bands that apply to the aggregate power of all antenna elements in any given sector of a base station. The Commission found that adopting power levels consistent with other bands used for wide area wireless operations (
55. We also seek comment on alternative base station power limits. We invite commenters who propose alternative solutions to provide specific technical details and thorough analyses to support their proposals, including the effect on receiver blocking or other aggregate interference issues impacting receivers operating above and below the band. In addition to providing this technical support, proponents should outline the corresponding costs and benefits underlying their proposals. Should power be composed of transmit conducted power and antenna gain with some flexibility to “mix and match” both, or should the rule only define the final power in EIRP? Although higher power limits can facilitate deployment, what impact might this approach have on adjacent bands? Are there particular circumstances or locations where a different approach may be merited in consideration of adjacent band operations?
56.
57. Similarly, in the
58.
59. For base station OOBE, we also propose to adopt the same part 27 measurement procedures and resolution bandwidth that are currently used for the Lower C-band. Specifically, the resolution bandwidth used to determine compliance with the base station limit is 1 megahertz or greater, except that within the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block where a resolution bandwidth of at least 1% of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. We seek comment on our proposal to apply the part 27 measurement procedures and resolution bandwidth and invite input on alternative approaches to defining resolution bandwidth.
60.
61.
62. Consistent with the existing part 27 AWS rules and Lower C-band and 3.45 GHz band requirements, none of which impose antenna height limits on antenna structures, we propose to not restrict antenna heights for Upper C-band operations beyond any requirements necessary to ensure air navigation safety. In both the Lower C-band and 3.45 GHz proceedings, the Commission noted that rather than using antenna height limits to reduce interference between mobile service licensees, as had been done in the past, it has more recently used field strength limits at service boundaries to provide licensees more flexibility to design their systems while still ensuring harmful interference protection between systems. Furthermore, the limitations of field strength at the geographical boundary of the license also effectively limit antenna heights. Given its success in other services, the Commission adopted the same approach in the Lower C-band as well as the 3.45 GHz band. We propose to take the same approach here as well and seek comment on this proposal, including its costs and benefits along with those associated with any alternative approaches that may be advanced.
63. In the
64. We propose to apply § 27.57(c) of the Commission's rules to terrestrial licensees in the Upper C-band, consistent with the approach that was adopted for the Lower C-band. Section 27.57(c) requires all part 27 operations to comply with international agreements for operations near the Mexican and Canadian borders. Under this provision, licensee operations must not cause harmful co-interference across the border, consistent with the terms of agreements currently in force. We note that modification of the existing rules might be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. We seek comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits of any alternative approaches.
65. Consistent with the approach taken in the Lower C-band, we propose to once again adopt several additional technical rules that are applicable to all part 27 services, including §§ 27.51 (Equipment authorization), 27.52 (RF safety), 27.54 (Frequency stability), and part 1, subpart BB of the Commission's rules (Disturbance of AM Broadcast Station Antenna Patterns) for new terrestrial commercial wireless operations in the Upper C-band. As observed in the
66. We also propose to require client devices to be capable of operating across any portion of the Upper C-band that is allocated for terrestrial commercial wireless operations, as the Commission has done for other part 27 services since 2014. Specifically, we propose to add any such portion of the Upper C-band to § 27.75, which requires mobile and portable stations operating in the 600 MHz band and certain AWS-3 bands to be capable of operating across the relevant band using the same air interfaces that the equipment uses on any frequency in the band. The Commission observed in the
67. For any repacked FSS operations in the C-band band after the proposed transition is complete, we propose to incorporate the existing incumbent protection measures that apply to 3.7 GHz Service operations in the Lower C-band and to apply them to new terrestrial wireless licensees in the Upper C-band. These measures include: (1) a PFD limit to protect registered FSS earth stations from out-of-band emissions from Upper C-band operations; (2) a PFD limit to protect against receiver blocking resulting from Upper C-band operations; and (3) allowing full band/full arc use of the Upper C-band by FSS earth stations.
68. To safeguard against out-of-band emissions, we propose to require a PFD limit of −124 dBW/m
69. In order to protect earth stations from receiver blocking, we propose to require a PFD limit of −16 dBW/m
70. Finally, we propose to allow full band/full arc use by FSS earth stations that continue to operate in the band during and after the transition process. In the
71. In the
72. Are there additional TT&C sites which were not identified for purposes of the Lower C-band transition that are active in the Upper C-band? If so, could operations at those sites be consolidated or co-located at already protected facilities? If additional sites are identified, should they be protected from harmful interference through
73.
74. We seek comment on our proposal to apply the existing co-channel protection criteria to TT&C operations throughout the C-band. Do the assumptions that the Commission made in the
75.
76. To provide protection from potential receiver overload, we propose to require that: (1) base stations and mobile devices meet a PFD limit of −16 dBW/m
77. We seek comment on our proposal to maintain the existing adjacent channel interference protection criteria for TT&C operations. Do our previous assumptions regarding aggregated power, blocking protections, and the workability of the coordination framework remain true? What, if any, alternatives might be appropriate in light of the past several years of experience and technical developments?
78. Lastly, in its
79. In the
80. As discussed in further detail below, we propose adopting many of the same transition framework elements used for the Lower C-band for the Upper C-band transition of incumbent FSS operations. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on whether there are any improvements that should be made to certain elements of the Lower C-band transition framework based on technological advances or lessons learned during that process which will facilitate our efforts to meet Congress' mandate of completing a system of competitive bidding “for not less than 100 megahertz in the band between 3.98 gigahertz and 4.2 gigahertz” by July 4, 2027. In addition, we seek comment on whether modifications to the elements of the transition framework are necessary to accommodate whatever reconfiguration option we elect for the Upper C-band.
81. In the
82.
83. For purposes of transition cost reimbursement, the Commission defined an “eligible space station operator” as an incumbent space station operator that has demonstrated as of February 1, 2020, that it has an existing relationship to provide service via C-band satellite transmission to one or more incumbent earth stations in the contiguous United States. At the time of the
84.
85. We propose to retain the existing definition of incumbent earth stations for purposes of the Upper C-band transition, using the most recently released incumbent earth station list for the Lower C-band transition as the baseline going forward. We seek comment on this proposal, and any considerations we should keep in mind given the passage of time since the Lower C-band transition.
86. As noted above, we propose to adopt rules to reconfigure the Upper C-band landscape. and to use our authority under Section 316 of the Communications Act to modify, as needed, the existing licenses, market access authorizations, and registrations currently held by FSS C-band incumbents to clear whatever portion of the Upper C-band we ultimately reallocate.
87. The OBBB Act directs the Commission to grant licenses through a system of competitive bidding for at least 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band. This directive necessitates modification of the space station operator licenses and market authorizations that operate in whatever portion of the band we ultimately reallocate. We again propose to use our authority under Section 316 of the Communications Act to accomplish the legislative mandate in this context. We also propose to further modify our existing rules to prohibit new applications for space station licenses and new petitions for market access concerning space-to-Earth operations in whatever portion of the band we reallocate in the contiguous United States.
88. As observed in the
89. We also seek comment on the specific clearing targets, steps, and timing for any further FSS transition in the Upper C-band. Space station operators have indicated that greater use of advanced compression technologies, combined with the ongoing trend of customer migrations to alternative distribution mechanisms, means that a repacking and clearing of some portion of the Upper C-band might be achievable in a shorter timeframe than that required for the Lower C-band. We seek additional input and specifics from the incumbent space station operators about their anticipated customer needs, the trajectory of their capacity demands, the extent of potential capacity gains that can be achieved by greater use of advanced compression, and any other factors and considerations relating to the potential future transition of their existing services. To the extent that any such information may be confidential or
90. In the
91. Accordingly, the Commission previously modified all necessary earth station registrations to comport with the Lower C-band reconfiguration adopted in the
92. As noted by the incumbent space station operators, any transition of existing C-band services will necessarily impact and must be carefully coordinated with their customers. That said, C-band utilization is gradually declining, particularly in terms of media content services, with C-band customers switching to alternative distribution technologies (including but not limited to Ku-band, fiber, and content delivery networks) over time. To this end, we seek additional information and input on how this trend may impact any clearing of incumbent earth stations from the Upper C-band and on any considerations specific classes of earth station operators, including those in rural locations and with transportable facilities, may have.
93. We propose to set a specific transition deadline to ensure that all incumbent FSS operations are cleared in a timely manner to facilitate the introduction of terrestrial wireless services in the Upper C-band and to provide potential auction bidders with some certainty as to when they will be able to obtain access to Upper C-band spectrum. In the
94. We seek comment on whether a transition timeline of a similar length (
95. As discussed in further detail
96.
97. In this context, we seek comment on certain issues relating to compensable transition costs that were raised by stakeholders during the Lower C-band transition which may likewise be relevant for an Upper C-band transition depending on which reconfiguration option we ultimately adopt. As in the Lower C-band transition, to the extent that any unregistered earth stations, or registered earth stations that do not meet the existing definition of an incumbent earth station, remain operational in the C-band in the contiguous United States, our intent is that such stations would
98.
99. We propose to give incumbent earth station operators the same choice in the instant transition to opt out of the formal transition process through a lump sum reimbursement option, and seek comment on whether we should again utilize the lump sum categories and general procedures set forth in our cost category schedule (Cost Catalog) for the Lower C-band transition. Proponents of any changes to the lump sum reimbursement option should describe both the scope of intended lump sum reimbursements as well as any new basis upon which to calculate the lump sum amounts, or other adjustments thereto, such as for inflation. For example, should lump sum payments now be premised on the cost of potentially moving incumbent earth station operators to an alternate distribution technology? How might the scope of lump sum reimbursements differ under the band reconfiguration options we are considering for Upper C-band? Could a modified and expanded lump sum regime essentially replace or obviate the need to reimburse actual costs, resulting in a more streamlined and efficient cost reimbursement program? We encourage commenters to submit detailed breakdowns of any potential alternative approaches to the lump sum option and also describe in detail the methodology they would use to determine an appropriate lump sum payment in lieu of actual cost reimbursement for incumbent earth station operators in the instant context.
100.
101. We seek comment on the possible use of incentives to facilitate the timely introduction of new terrestrial wireless operations in the Upper C-band. For example, in the Lower C-band, the Commission used incentives in the form of accelerated relocation payments to eligible space station operators that voluntarily committed to relocate on an accelerated two-phase schedule and met those deadlines. The use of accelerated relocation payments to incentivize eligible space station operators to voluntarily relocate by early clearance benchmarks sought to leverage the technical and operational knowledge of incumbent space station operators, align their incentives to achieve a timely transition, and enable that transition to begin as quickly as possible. As further incentive, the Commission determined that eligible space station operators which failed to clear their existing C-band services out of the lower band by either of the Accelerated Relocation Deadlines would receive an incremental reduction in the amount of accelerated relocation payment based on the number of days that had passed since the deadline, with a payment of zero after more than 180 days.
102. Given the different circumstances in the Upper and Lower C-band—including the scope and scale of parties that may be seeking transition cost reimbursement as well as the timing of any adjacent band altimeter retrofits—would a similar incentive structure be appropriate for eligible space station operators in the forthcoming transition process? Will successful completion of the Upper C-band transition to terrestrial wireless services be primarily dependent on the expeditious clearing of incumbent FSS operations or will other factors and other parties be the primary drivers of the transition timeline? In light of these different considerations, what is the economic value of accelerating the FSS transition in this instance? We encourage parties supporting incentives for eligible space station operators in the Upper C-band to submit detailed arguments, including cost-benefit analyses, underlying their perspectives.
103. We also seek comment more generally on whether we should consider incentives—monetary or otherwise—to facilitate expeditious clearing of the Upper C-band. If so, who should be eligible for such incentives, how should any responsibility thereto be allocated, and what benchmarks should they be aligned with? If monetary in nature, how should such incentives be calculated, and should there be any reduction or elimination of incentives if the requisite deadlines are missed? Commenters should also indicate how such an estimate would be impacted by either of the band reconfiguration options we are considering. For example, should any incentives hinge on the amount of spectrum to be cleared?
104. Consistent with our approach in the earlier transition, we propose to again use an independent Clearinghouse to oversee the cost-related aspects of the eventual Upper C-band transition, using a similar selection process and imposing the same broad responsibilities that were outlined in the
105. In the
106. First, the Commission charged the Clearinghouse with collecting from all eligible space station operators and incumbent earth station operators a showing of their transition relocation costs, as well as a demonstration of those costs' reasonableness. Parties submitted their costs to the Clearinghouse directly, which then ascertained in the first instance whether the costs were reasonable, and allowed submitting parties to supplement claims initially deemed insufficient. Entities seeking reimbursement were required to document all of their costs, and to justify them; these entities were subject to audits and required to make all relevant documentation available to the Clearinghouse upon its request. The Clearinghouse notified requesting parties in the event that it deemed any claimed costs to be unreasonable, and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau was empowered to make further determinations related to reimbursable costs, as necessary, throughout the transition process.
107. Second, the Clearinghouse was tasked with apportioning costs among new 3.7 GHz Service licensees and distributing payments to eligible space station operators, incumbent earth station operators, and appropriate surrogates of those parties that incurred compensable costs. After the auction, the Clearinghouse calculated each 3.7 GHz Service licensee's estimated share of the eventual relocation costs, as well as an estimate of total costs from before the auction through the first six months after it was complete. Licensees paid their shares of the initial cost estimate into the Clearinghouse-administered relocation fund shortly after the auction was complete, and the Clearinghouse drew from that fund to reimburse approved claims. The Clearinghouse calculated the estimated total program costs for every six-month period until the transition was complete, notified the 3.7 GHz Service licensees of their amounts owed at least 30 days before every six-month payment deadline, and reimbursed approved claims within 30 days of invoice submissions. The Clearinghouse included its own reasonable costs in its six-month estimates and provided an annual financial audit to the Office of the Managing Director and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau including those costs, which were paid by 3.7 GHz Service licensees once their licenses were issued.
108. Third, the Clearinghouse was directed to, as needed, act as a special master and either mediate disputes related to cost estimates or payments, or refer the parties to alternate dispute resolution fora. The Commission also provided for expedited non-binding arbitration, with costs shared by the disputing parties, and for review of any disputes by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, with the opportunity for further review on appeal to the Commission.
109. Fourth, the Clearinghouse was required to provide quarterly information and progress reports to the Commission in order to ensure proper oversight of the Clearinghouse program. These reports included information related to available funds for reimbursement, payments issued, amounts collected from licensees, incumbents' certifications, funds spent on the transition, and description of any disputes and their resolutions. The Clearinghouse was also required to provide additional information upon the request of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of the Managing Director.
110. We propose to task a new independent third-party Clearinghouse with these same broad duties for the Upper C-band transition, and we seek comment on this proposal. Should we retain the basic structure of the processes by which the new 3.7 GHz Service licensees will replenish the reimbursement fund and eligible incumbents submit reimbursement claims for their reasonable transition costs? To the extent that a new terrestrial wireless licensee relinquishes to the Commission its license prior to all its transition payment responsibilities being discharged, we again propose that the remaining payments will be distributed among other similarly situated new terrestrial wireless licensees. If a new license is issued for such previously relinquished rights prior to final payments becoming due, we propose that the new licensee will be responsible for the same pro rata share of the payment obligations as the initial terrestrial wireless licensee. Finally, if a new terrestrial wireless licensee sells its rights on the secondary market, we propose that the new licensee will be obligated to fulfill all payment obligations associated with the license. We again anticipate that each eligible space station operator will be responsible for payment of its own satellite transition costs until the new terrestrial wireless licensees are determined, and those licensees will pay the Clearinghouse's costs throughout the reimbursement program, and thus seek comment on those proposals. Did the dispute resolution process resolve any open issues in a timely manner, or would additional alternative dispute resolution options or a more streamlined appeals process from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau directly to the Commission facilitate the expeditious resolution of such matters? Were the quarterly Clearinghouse reporting requirements sufficient for the Commission to carry out its transition oversight duties, or would a different cadence of filings serve the same goal? Did the experience of the Lower C-band transition offer any other lessons that should guide us to adopt alternative approaches to any of the duties described above? If so, what are those alternatives, and why should we depart from our previous practice? For example, are there ways in which the new Clearinghouse could streamline the claims review process without compromising its duty to prevent fraud, waste, or abuse in the transition cost reimbursement program? Would any additional Clearinghouse duties, not contemplated in the Lower C-band transition, be useful in administering the cost aspects of the Upper C-band transition?
111. As part of the earlier transition, the Commission directed Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to establish a Cost Catalog which provided guidance to both incumbents and the new 3.7 GHz Service licensees about a range of reasonable transition costs. The Cost Catalog also detailed the process and relevant categories for incumbent earth station operators opting out of the formal transition and seeking a lump sum payment. Consistent with this approach, reimbursement claims that fell within the applicable range in the Cost Catalog were presumed reasonable. Should we once again utilize a Cost Catalog to establish ranges of presumptively reasonable transition costs? If so, should we retain the existing Cost Catalog, adjust it in some way (such as for inflation), or develop an entirely new one for the Upper C-band transition? If we again direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to develop a new Cost Catalog or modify the existing one, how should we develop appropriate ranges identifying presumptively reasonable reimbursement claims?
112. We propose to appoint a search committee tasked with selecting the Clearinghouse for the Upper C-band transition. As in the
113. We seek comment on our proposal to adopt for the Upper C-band transition a process broadly similar to that used to select the Clearinghouse for the Lower C-band transition, with certain proposed modifications as detailed above. What lessons from the previous transition might inform the composition of the search committee, the substance of the selection criteria, or the procedures for, and timing of, the Clearinghouse's selection? We also seek comment on what should happen in the event that the search committee fails to select a Clearinghouse and notify the Commission by the deadline, including but not limited to procedures similar to those used in the Lower C-band transition?
114. In order to relocate incumbent FSS operations out of the reconfigured portion of the Upper C-band, we propose to adopt requirements similar to those that governed the transition of FSS operations out of the Lower C-band. We therefore propose to require: (1) the preparation and submission of Transition Plans by the eligible space station operators; (2) a filing deadline for the submission of such Transition Plans, to be followed by a public comment period and the opportunity to update the plans as permitted by the Commission; (3) requirements for the content of eligible satellite operators' Transition Plans; and (4) the submission of quarterly status reports by the eligible space station operators on their implementation efforts; and (5) the selection and appointment of a Relocation Coordinator to ensure that relocation is completed in a timely manner.
115. The Commission previously found that the eligible space station operators possessed the technical and operational expertise that was required to facilitate the transition of FSS services out of the Lower C-band, and that putting them in charge of practical transition logistics—with Commission oversight—would be the most effective approach. Such operators were required to submit formal Transition Plans roughly three months after the Commission adopted the
116. The Commission previously determined that the establishment of a Relocation Coordinator to oversee the FSS transition was in the public interest, upon a demonstration of its expertise. Should we take the same approach to ensure the timely execution of the Upper C-band transition, or might a different approach be warranted depending on which reconfiguration option is adopted? Should we again establish a search committee of interested parties to select the Relocation Coordinator, or would another approach better suit this transition? What lessons from the Lower C-band transition might inform our approach to using a Relocation Coordinator for this effort? Should the Relocation Coordinator's selection process and responsibilities remain essentially the same as before, or might they change depending on which reconfiguration approach we select?
117. In light of our statutory mandate to complete a system of competitive bidding for licenses for at least 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band by July 4, 2027, we seek comment on how best to promote spectral coexistence between these proposed new wireless services and radio altimeters in the neighboring 4.2-4.4 GHz band. Since this issue was first addressed in the
118. We seek comment on the current state of radio altimeter performance, and particularly specific technical data about the signal rejection capabilities of existing radio altimeters above 3.98 GHz that have been in use following the 2023 FAA-mandated retrofit. We ask radio altimeter equipment manufacturers and other relevant stakeholders to provide this data in sufficient detail to allow us to independently assess the ability of
119. In light of the ongoing industry efforts to develop and produce improved radio altimeters, we also seek comment on the substance and timing of the transition process for implementing future radio altimeter upgrades throughout the NAS. Once any new technical requirements are adopted by FAA, what compliance steps would the aviation industry need to undertake, and how long would an altimeter retrofit process last? What steps, if any, can be taken to enable a rapid implementation timeframe for any needed retrofits? Given our statutory mandate to complete a system of competitive bidding for the Upper C-band spectrum by July 2027, and the need to provide bidders with assurances of when they will be able to access the spectrum won at auction, we also seek comment on how the timing of the aviation industry's future implementation efforts can be aligned with the fulfillment of our statutory responsibilities.
120. In this context, we note that the requirement in the OBBB Act to complete a system of competitive bidding for least 100 megahertz of the Upper C-band by July 4, 2027 does not mention adjacent band issues. We also recognize that our established
121. As an initial matter, and to provide financial certainty and transparency to all stakeholders, we seek comment on the estimated scale and scope of anticipated radio altimeter retrofits as a result of any new technical requirements that FAA may adopt in the near term that would facilitate a predictable and rapid repurposing of the Upper C-band. We also seek comment on specific proposals and mechanisms to facilitate these retrofits from a financial perspective, including how best to design and implement any such regime, as well as the basis for calculating such payments (
122. We further seek comment on how best to manage any potential payments related to radio altimeter retrofits. Specifically, could a list of eligible entities be created and maintained, such as with the incumbent earth station list used in the in-band FSS transition? What mechanism could be used to manage any such process and prevent potential fraud, waste, or abuse? If a third-party clearinghouse were used, could that be the same clearinghouse that we propose would oversee the in-band FSS transition cost reimbursement process? If not, what other type of entity might be appropriate to manage payments relating to an aviation retrofit process, how would it be selected, what would its responsibilities include, and who would be responsible for its operational costs?
123. Finally, in recognition of the evolving spectral environment in the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band, we seek comment on whether the proposed technical rules in the instant proceeding—including limits on maximum base station power and OOBE—would contribute to a successful coexistence environment between new wireless operations in the Upper C-band and current and upgraded radio altimeters. Some commenters have suggested that more stringent limits on power and OOBE than those that were adopted in the
124.
125. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended, Public Law 104-121, the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
126. With today's
127. The
128. Pursuant to this statutory directive, the
129. Thus, throughout the
130. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 302(a), 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 302(a), 303, 304, 307, 309, 316, and 403, and by Section 40002 of the OBBB Act.
131. 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 (SBA). 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. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.
132. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than
133. We have identified the Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and Satellite Telecommunications industries as the most likely to be impacted by the rules proposed in the
134. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
135. The proposed changes in the
136.
137. Additionally, the
138.
139. The
140.
141. The
142. Regarding the transition schedule, the
143. As with the Lower C-band transition, the
144. Consistent with the Lower C-band approach, the
145. To allocate the transition financial responsibilities of new 3.7 GHz Service licensees, the
146. The
147. The
148. In order to relocate incumbent FSS operations out of the reconfigured portion of the Upper C-band, the
149.
150.
151. In addition, the
152. Regarding mobile spectrum holding policies, the
153.
154. Regarding penalties for failure to meet performance requirements, we propose to adopt a rule requiring that, in the event a licensee fails to meet the first performance benchmark, the licensee's second benchmark and license term would be reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second performance benchmark two years sooner (at 10 years into the license term) and correspondingly reducing its license term to 13 years. As with our approach in the Lower C-band, we further propose that, in the event a licensee fails to meet the second performance benchmark for a particular license area, its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the performance requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action. In the event a licensee's authority to operate terminates automatically, we propose to make the relevant license available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding provisions of § 309(j). Consistent with the Commission's rules applicable to the Lower C-band and other bands, we propose that any Upper C-band licensee that forfeits its license for failing to meet its performance requirements would be precluded from regaining the license. We invite comments on these proposals.
155.
156.
157. In addition to, and independent of, the general renewal provisions set forth in our rules, we seek comment on applying specific renewal term construction obligations to Upper C-band licensees. We invite comment on whether there are unique characteristics of the Upper C-band that might warrant a different approach than the general renewal requirements. Commenters are encouraged to address the costs and benefits of their proposed rules and discuss how a given proposal will encourage investment and deployment in areas that might not otherwise benefit from significant wireless coverage.
158.
159. For base station out-of-band emissions (OOBE), the
160. Consistent with the existing part 27 AWS rules, Lower C-band, and 3.45 GHz band requirements, none of which impose antenna height limits on antenna structures, the
161. The
162. To safeguard incumbent FSS earth stations, the
163. In order to protect Telemetry, Tracking, and Command (TT&C) operations, the
164. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(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 and 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.”
165. In formulating its request for comments, the Commission considered alternatives addressing the economic impact of its proposals on small entities, should they be adopted. In the
166. Specifically, the
167. The Commission finds an overriding public interest in encouraging investment in wireless networks, facilitating access to scarce spectrum resources, and promoting the rapid development of mobile services to Americans. All licensees, including small entities, play a crucial role in achieving these goals. Therefore, the
168. None. This proposed rule is not duplicative, nor does it overlap or conflict, with any other federal rules.
169.
170.
171.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes steps to improve the availability and accuracy of caller identification information transmitted to consumers to enable them to better understand who is calling and decide whether to answer calls. Specifically, the Commission proposes to enhance the effectiveness of STIR/SHAKEN by
Comments are due on or before January 5, 2026 and reply comments are due on or before February 3, 2026.
Pursuant to § 1.49 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.49, parties to this proceeding must file any documents in this proceeding using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket No. 17-59, WC Docket No. 17-97, and CG Docket No. 02-278, 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 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 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.
•
For further information about the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
This is a summary of the Commission's Ninth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Public Notice (
1. We propose steps to improve the availability and accuracy of caller identification information transmitted to consumers to enable them to better understand who is calling and decide whether to answer calls. Specifically, we propose to enhance the effectiveness of STIR/SHAKEN by requiring terminating providers to transmit verified caller name or other caller identity information for presentation on a consumer's handset whenever they transmit an indication that a call has received an A-level attestation. We also seek comment on requiring providers to use RCD to transmit verified caller name on IP networks, and on whether to permit or require use of other solutions. Additionally, we seek comment on an alternative option to require that
2. We believe that our proposals will empower consumers by giving them the information they need when deciding whether to answer a call. STIR/SHAKEN has served the Commission's goals of making spoofing more difficult, improving providers' call blocking and spam labeling decisions, and increasing the overall level of trust consumers have that a particular call originated from the telephone number being presented. However, consumers often cannot be sure who is calling unless a number is stored in their contact list or otherwise recognized. STIR/SHAKEN information does not provide consumers with robust information about who is calling, and an A-level attestation indicator alone does not give consumers enough information to decide whether a call is worth answering. In the absence of accurate caller name, and possibly other caller identity information, consumers might mistakenly believe that a checkmark or other indication that a call received an A-level attestation is an assurance that a call is not a scam or otherwise unlawful.
3. We believe that providing consumers with a verified caller name or other caller identity information would empower a more informed decision about whether to answer the call. We further believe that when a consumer's handset presents this additional information, it will reduce their confusion about the meaning of a green checkmark or other indicator that a call has received an A-level attestation, which will further increase trust and better enable consumers to avoid spoofed, scam, and other unlawful calls. Finally, we believe that transmitting verified caller identity information to the terminating provider will give providers additional information to use in their analytics, potentially making the analytics more accurate and thus addressing concerns about calls being labeled inaccurately.
4. Consumer surveys strongly support the goal of our proposals and suggest that legitimate callers, especially business callers, can benefit as well. One consumer survey indicated that 90% of consumers are uncomfortable answering unidentified calls and that 78% of consumers have missed an important call in the last month because they did not answer an unidentified call. Another survey revealed that 92% of consumers assume unidentified calls are fraudulent and that 56% of consumers sometimes risk answering an unidentified call because they fear it is a call they cannot afford to miss. It also asserted that employees who make calls on behalf of businesses believe that ensuring that consumers know who is calling is the most effective way to improve answer rates. As many as 88% of enterprise calls are not answered, which can reduce efficiency, increase costs of doing business, and reduce customer service. Notably, a different survey indicates that consumers are more likely to answer calls as more trusted caller identity information is presented to them. According to that survey, 73% will answer a call if the name of the caller is presented, 76% will answer if the caller's name and logo are presented, and 78% will answer if the reason for the call also is presented.
5. We propose to define “caller identity information” as having the same meaning given the term “caller identification information” in our rules, but excluding the originating telephone number or portion thereof and billing number information.
6. Terms like “Caller ID” and “Caller ID with Name” historically have been used to refer to functionalities that enabled a terminating provider to present to consumers, respectively, the originating telephone number or the originating telephone number and the associated caller name from a CNAM database. The Truth in Caller ID Act and our implementing rules define “caller identification information” to include both the originating telephone number and “other information regarding the origination of the call,” which our rules define to include certain enumerated items and “[o]ther information regarding the source or apparent source of a telephone call” and refer to any service or device used to provide caller identification information to a consumer as a “caller identification service.”
7. In the context of the TRACED Act and the STIR/SHAKEN framework, however, “caller ID authentication” often is used to refer more narrowly to the originating telephone number alone. To be clear and to avoid duplication of rules that already require authentication of originating phone numbers using the STIR/SHAKEN framework, we use the term “caller identity information” throughout this document to refer to the caller's name, location, and “other information regarding the source or apparent source of a telephone call,” which generally means information other than the originating telephone number and billing information, and have proposed to define that term similarly in our rules. We seek comment on this analysis.
8. We propose to require terminating providers to transmit to consumer handsets verified caller identity information whenever they transmit to the handset an indication that a call received an A-level attestation. To be clear, we do not propose to require terminating providers to transmit to consumer's handsets whether a call has received an A-level attestation or to transmit any new caller identification information. Instead, we propose a requirement that would apply only when a terminating provider chooses to transmit to the handset an indication that a call received an A-level attestation and seek comment on this proposal.
9. We believe that presenting an A-level attestation indicator on a handset with only the originating number provides little benefit to consumers because they might not understand the meaning of the indicator, mistakenly taking it to indicate that the call is not a scam or otherwise is lawful. Are marketplace solutions, on their own, sufficient to drive widespread presentation of verified caller identification information?
10. We believe that verified caller identity information helps legitimate callers, especially business callers, as well as consumers. If consumers have trustworthy caller identity information, they can make better informed decisions about whether to answer a call, which is likely to lead to higher answer rates and engagement. Information from the industry appears to support this belief. TransUnion states that customers are up to 105% more likely to answer a branded call. Similarly, a TNS survey found that 76% of Americans would prefer to engage with businesses that use branded calling and that 81% of consumers would answer a branded call if they recently had engaged with that brand. Is our belief correct?
11. While we believe that an indication that a call received an A-level attestation provides little benefit to
12. Does indicating that a call received an A-level attestation without additional caller identity information create opportunities for fraud? Are there situations where it would significantly benefit consumers to receive an A-level attestation indicator without any other verified caller identity information? Would adopting our proposal cause providers to stop transmitting A-level attestation indicators to consumer handsets? If so, would that enhance or undermine the goals of STIR/SHAKEN? What actions, if any, should we take to address any such outcomes?
13.
14. Are there situations in which we should not require terminating voice service providers to transmit caller name or other caller identity information to consumer handsets? For example, what requirements should apply to callers who have a legitimate need for privacy, such as domestic violence shelters? What about callers who simply wish to maintain privacy? For example, what about callers who place calls using *67 or a handset that has a privacy setting to hide caller identify information? Does the Truth in Caller ID Act or any other provision of law require us to ensure that callers may prevent transmission of identifying information to the called party? We also seek comment on existing industry practices regarding privacy. For example, the ATIS RCD standard states that the terminating voice service provider is not to transmit RCD to the called party's handset if the caller requested privacy.
15.
16. Modern mobile phones can present images, such as logos, as well as text on the screen. In addition, we believe that most modern mobile phone operating systems currently support the presentation of verified caller identity information, including verified logos, on their screens. We seek comment on this belief. Does the ability to present verified caller identity information on the screen vary depending upon the manufacturer of the mobile phone or the operating system? If so, how can we address this issue and ensure that consumers receive this valuable information? Are there steps we can take to ensure consumers consistently understand the information presented regardless of the device and/or operating system they are using? Are there similar options for IP or traditional wireline service that would allow the full range of verified caller identity information to be presented? If not, are most IP or traditional wireline phones capable of, at a minimum, presenting verified caller name? Would the transition of traditional wireline service to IP-based networks enhance consumer access to verified caller identity information?
17. We seek comment on the impact of our proposal on people with disabilities who use assistive devices and technologies, such as braille readers, TTYs, and assistive technologies integrated into handsets. For example, do mobile phones vary depending upon the manufacturer or operating system in how they present caller identification information when the consumer uses assistive technologies built into the phone? How would our proposal affect users of third-party assistive devices, generally? When text or other graphic communication is transmitted via assistive devices (
18.
19. We also seek comment on the implications of these proposals for different types of relay services. For example, when a user of TTY-based TRS or Speech-to-Speech Relay Service (STS) calls 711 to connect to the relay service, is the caller identification information, including attestation level, for the relay center or for the caller? Why? Does the result depend on the capabilities of the relay center, the voice service providers in the call path, or something else? Does the attestation level assigned by a voice service provider differ depending on whether the caller identification information is for the relay center or for the caller? Why and how? Providers of Video Relay Service (VRS) and IP Relay assign their users telephone numbers. Before connecting a call placed by a VRS or IP Relay user, the TRS provider must first query the TRS Numbering database to determine whether the call is point-to-point or requires a communications assistant. Calls requiring a
20. Are there changes or refinements we should make to our proposals to ensure that users of assistive devices, services, and technologies, including TRS, receive all of the benefits associated with being better able to identify callers? If so, are those changes or refinements different depending on whether the user of assistive devices, services, or technologies is making or receiving a call?
21. We propose to require originating providers that transmit caller identity information to employ reasonable measures to verify the accuracy of the information transmitted. We believe that caller identity information is valuable to consumers only if it is accurate. Inaccurate information has the potential to cause significant harm if it leads a consumer to trust a caller making unlawful calls, and can further erode trust in the telephone network. We seek comment on this proposal.
22. What measures should be viewed as “reasonable”? Should our codified rules prescribe specific measures or specific standards or criteria for assessing reasonableness? As part of a verification requirement, should we mandate collection and verification of specific information? If so, what specific information should be collected, and how should it be verified? Should we allow providers flexibility in how they verify caller identity information or in what information must be verified? If so, are there minimum standards or guidelines we should adopt? How can we ensure that all providers are taking necessary steps to ensure the accuracy of caller identity information? Do we need to adopt specific requirements when the originating provider is a reseller or when the caller utilizes a branded calling solution provided by a third-party vendor? Are there other requirements we could adopt that do not involve the collection and verification of specific information but still would ensure that caller identity information is accurate? For example, should we permit voice service providers contractually to require customers to provide only accurate information and names, logos, etc. that they legally are entitled to use? Are there practical, operational, or business considerations that limit the ability of an originating provider to verify the accuracy of caller identity information? Should we define what constitutes “accurate” information? If so, how should we define it?
23. If we adopt particular requirements, should we address differences among types or classes of callers, such as government, non-profit, business, and individual callers, or differentiate among callers based on call volume? Would originating providers be able to accurately determine the type or class of caller in all instances? For business callers, what steps should an originating provider take to ensure that business name, company logo, or other information is accurate? What steps should we take to ensure business callers are authorized to use a business name, brand name, or logo? Is it necessary to take different approaches depending on the type or size of the business? What about franchisees or individual business locations of a large, perhaps regional or national, business? For individual callers, should we require verification of the caller name against government issued identification prior to transmission of the name for this purpose? Are there alternative approaches to verifying the caller name for individual callers? If we were to differentiate among callers based on call volume, what threshold should be used to differentiate, for example, between high-volume and low-volume callers?
24. Are there situations in which an individual caller might have a valid reason to transmit something other than a legal name, such as a nickname? How can we address these situations? How should we handle multi-line accounts, including family plans, where the caller name for each individual line might be different from the subscriber's name and where verification of each name might be more difficult? If names of individuals on a family plan can be presented on called parties handsets, should we establish safeguards regarding the transmission and presentation of the names of minors? For example, should there be a broad exception for all consumers under the age of 18? Would a generic label be more appropriate for non-business calls placed by an individual caller? If so, how would a caller select this option for their personal calls? How would our proposal affect a person calling a crisis hotline, such as 988 for suicide prevention or the National Domestic Violence Hotline?
25. Should other entities share responsibility for ensuring caller identity information is accurate? For example, if a terminating provider becomes aware that an originating provider is transmitting inaccurate information, should it cease delivery of the originating provider's traffic or take other steps? Are there other enforcement requirements we should consider to similarly ensure accurate caller identity information?
26. There appear to be some industry standards and best practices that could inform our deliberations. For example, the ATIS RCD standard contains provisions related to the vetting of RCD information, and CTIA has created best practices for its branded calling solution. We seek comment on these documents and any other related industry practices, including their sufficiency, propriety, and enforceability, and on whether they mitigate the need for us to adopt requirements.
27. Should we consider measures beyond requiring that originating providers take reasonable steps to ensure caller identity information is accurate? Citing other sources, Numeracle states that “93.4% of robocall traffic from the most prolific robocall signers now carry A-level attestations” and “48 percent of illegal calls are A-attested.” Are these numbers accurate and, if so, do they buttress the view that A-level attestations mislead consumers and that we should adopt more stringent requirements for verifying caller identity information? For example, should we consider establishing a “trusted framework” whereby the Commission or another
28. We seek comment on any requirements we should adopt to ensure that caller identity information is securely transmitted from the originating provider to the terminating provider, including whether to require the use of RCD to do so. We believe that if caller identity information is changed or tampered with in transit, then the verification efforts of the originating provider will not ultimately benefit consumers or callers. We seek comment on this belief. Is secure transmission necessary to ensure that caller identity information is not altered by bad actors and can be trusted by consumers? Are there other ways to ensure that the data transmitted is not modified or tampered with? Are there other legal requirements or benefits to ensuring the caller identity information is securely transmitted throughout the entire call path?
29.
30. We believe that RCD provides a means to securely transmit caller identity information. Is our belief correct? Are there features of caller identity information transmission that suggest we should depart from the RCD standards? If so, how might we address them? Are there any steps we can take to make the RCD standards more secure? Alternatively, is the security of RCD generally unnecessary in this context? If so, why, and how much security is actually necessary?
31. If we were to require use of RCD, should we require the use of only one or up to all three RCD standards? Why or why not? Should we require that providers implement the ATIS standard to ensure that providers comply with vetting requirements? Are there other aspects unique to the ATIS standard that would justify its adoption? Are there omissions that would counsel against its adoption or do those omissions give providers helpful implementation flexibility? We seek comment with respect to any unique features and additional omissions in the IETF standards as well and their relevance to whether we should mandate their adoption. We also seek comment on whether we should specify that the current version of any RCD standard we require must be used. If we do specify a standard, how should we balance the evolution of standards and provide implementation timelines for updated standards looking forward?
32. We also seek comment on whether the standards are sufficiently developed and available to require their implementation. We note that the two recently published IETF standards have been in draft form for several years, and the first version of the ATIS RCD standard was adopted in 2021. To what extent have providers and vendors implemented the earlier versions of these standards, and do the recently-finalized standards require additional time to implement based on any incremental changes? Since our understanding is that some providers already use RCD as part of their branded calling solutions, we believe that the RCD standards, including the revised standards, can be implemented in a reasonable amount of time. We seek comment on this belief. We also seek comment on whether any additional features or functions of the standards need to be developed to ensure that they achieve their purpose. If not, what work must be completed prior to implementation? How can we ensure that this work is completed in a timely manner?
33. We also seek comment on the benefits and drawbacks of RCD generally. Does RCD provide particular benefits that make it superior to other caller identity information solutions? Are there any particular weaknesses we should be aware of? For example, does it present particular challenges for some providers, such as smaller providers? If we do not require use of the RCD standards, should we adopt rules that set minimum requirements based on the RCD standards? If so, what minimum requirements should we set? Should any minimum requirements vary by provider type? How would the costs associated with this option impact its implementation?
34.
35. If we allow providers to use solutions other than RCD or that do not rely on the RCD standards, how can we ensure that caller identity information is securely transmitted so that consumers can rely upon it? Are there specific existing alternative solutions that offer secure transmission that we should authorize or require providers to use? If so, which solutions offer appropriate security?
36. If we allow providers to use more than one solution to fulfill their obligations, we believe that they should be interoperable so that caller identity information is not lost. How can we ensure that approved solutions are interoperable? To what extent are current alternatives interoperable? Are there requirements we could adopt to ensure that caller identity information is always passed on to the point of termination regardless of which solution a provider uses? Should we require intermediate providers to transmit caller identity information for calls that transit their networks for any IP-based caller identity solutions providers may use? What should we do if an intermediate provider is not able to comply with such
37.
38.
39. Should we require providers to implement the existing RCD standards? Since there are three RCD standards, should we require implementation of just one, all three, or some combination of two of the standards? Why? How would requiring implementation of one or two of the RCD standards affect providers that choose also to implement the third? If we were to adopt requirements that differ from those contained in the RCD standards, such as for verification of caller identity information or regarding the ability of callers to maintain their privacy by preventing caller identity information from being transmitted with their calls, how would that affect the choice of which RCD standard or standards to require? Would our choice of any particular standard or standards create a significant or different burden on smaller providers?
40. What measure or measures should we adopt to determine whether a provider has implemented RCD? Would any potential measure be different for resellers, originating facilities-based providers, intermediate providers, or terminating providers? If so, why? For example, would an intermediate provider properly be considered to have implemented RCD if it transmits to subsequent providers in the call path the RCD information it receives from the provider immediately before it in the call path?
41. If we do adopt an implementation mandate, how quickly can providers implement RCD throughout their IP networks? Does this answer depend upon which RCD standard or standards we require providers to implement? Are there any types of providers, such as smaller or rural providers, for which RCD implementation would be especially burdensome? If so, should we adopt a mandate that is more limited in scope with the intention of expanding it to all providers in the future? Alternatively, should we adopt an exemption for certain categories of providers or establish a longer implementation timeframe for those providers? Is there any standards work left to be done to ensure that RCD is implementable across all IP networks? Does interoperability testing need to be completed? If so, how can we ensure that this work is completed as quickly and efficiently as possible while ensuring that key steps are not skipped? If standards work or testing still is needed, are there rules short of a mandate that we could adopt to expedite this work?
42 Considering that STIR/SHAKEN and RCD work only on IP networks, we seek comment on any steps we should take, consistent with requiring RCD, to address the non-IP gap as the Commission continues to drive towards an all-IP environment. Are there requirements we could adopt that would address the fact that RCD does not work on non-IP networks? For example, are there other existing solutions that work on non-IP networks that we could require? Are these solutions interoperable with RCD or can they be made interoperable? We previously proposed to require the implementation of non-IP caller ID authentication solutions. We received limited comment on the use of RCD and alternatives on non-IP networks and now seek additional, focused comment. If we do require any or all of these solutions, are there rules we could adopt consistent with requiring RCD that would build on those solutions for caller identity information beyond the originating number? Are there methods by which RCD could work with non-IP authentication frameworks, either as currently envisioned or with minor adjustments? If not, are there equivalent options that would work with non-IP authentication frameworks? If there are equivalent options, how can we ensure that they can be used where appropriate? Would allowing providers the flexibility to use options other than RCD enable or encourage more providers to transmit verified caller identity information? Do any non-RCD solutions prevent caller identity information from reaching the terminating provider when a call transits from IP to non-IP networks? If so, are there ways we could address that problem? What is the cost to implement non-RCD solutions on non-IP networks?
43.
44. We seek comment on whether requiring caller identity verification as a condition of A-level attestation could yield greater benefits than our proposal to require originating providers to simply verify the accuracy of caller identity information. If so, how? Would such an approach effectively deter A-level attestations for calls that are spoofed? Should we consider such a requirement in conjunction with requiring the transmission of verified caller identity information as we propose above? If so, are there any changes we should make to that proposal? Could such an approach create greater or different burdens for originating providers compared to our proposal to require originating providers to verify the accuracy of caller identity information prior to transmission? What modifications could help reduce these burdens and this possibility? Is such an approach aligned with the overall goal of STIR/SHAKEN, or are there reasons to separate the caller's identity from an indicator that the number is less likely to be spoofed? If the latter, what steps could we take to ensure consistency with the goals of STIR/SHAKEN? Are there other issues we should consider?
45. We also seek comment on how providers can verify caller identity information in scenarios where the
46. Additionally, we seek comment on the potential short- and long- term impacts of conditioning A-level attestations on verification of end-user caller identity. In the short term, could this effectively eliminate A-level attestations in many scenarios, thereby reducing the usefulness of STIR/SHAKEN for analytics and consumer trust? Over the longer term, what processes, standards, or technical solutions would be necessary for providers to develop reliable caller identity verification practices? Should we require their adoption, and what timelines would be reasonable for development and implementation? To date, we have not raised the possibility of deviating from the standards' requirements for providers to sign a call with an A-level attestation. We seek comment on whether imposing requirements that go beyond current STIR/SHAKEN standards would conflict with the standards or pose other challenges. As the Commission continues to evaluate the effectiveness of the technologies used for call authentication frameworks, how should we balance the goals of improving caller identity assurance with the existing functionality of the STIR/SHAKEN framework?
47.
48.
49. We believe that transmitting such information through the entire call path and the presentation of an associated indication on the called party's handset would give both providers and consumers information to protect against scam robocalls originating outside of the United States. We seek comment on that belief.
50. We seek comment on the ability of gateway providers to determine the country of origin for a call and for providers across the call path to include the country of origin in caller identity information when transmitting a call. For example, are gateway providers able to identify a call's country of origin? Why or why not? Can gateway providers include the country of origin when transmitting a call? How can we ensure the country of origin information is transmitted securely across the entire call path? For instance, should we require a gateway provider authenticating foreign originated calls using STIR/SHAKEN to encrypt information that a call originated overseas in the PASSporT? Should we require a specific means for achieving this? Is it possible for providers to insert this information in the OrigID, and, if so, should we require that providers use a specific OrigID to indicate a call is foreign originated? Can providers user a unique OrigID for each country? Would this use of an OrigID conflict with the STIR/SHAKEN standards or impose any implementation obstacles?
51. Would we also need to require intermediate providers to pass the OrigID intact downstream and for the terminating provider to accept it before transmitting an indication that the call was foreign originated to the called party? Should we require use of non-IP solutions to ensure transmission over non-IP networks? Do terminating providers have a means of transmitting the OrigID or another indicator that the call originated outside the United States for presentation on handsets? Does the ability of terminating voice service providers to transmit to consumer handsets an indicator that a call received an A-level attestation demonstrate that they could readily transmit an indicator that a call originated from outside of the United States? Do handsets typically have a means of presenting an indication that a call was foreign originated based on any such indicator? What difference would the handset's manufacturer or operating system make in being able to present the country of origin when the phone rings compared to being able to present an indicator that the call originated from outside of the United States? Should we, and is it technically feasible to, require gateway providers to label or modify the number sent for presentation on the called party's handset for foreign-originated domestic
52. We seek comment on the impact, if any, on the ability of voice service providers to implement our proposals for calls that originate from outside of the United States but that legitimately spoof a North American Numbering Plan (NANP) number, such as when a domestic business has offshored call center operations and chooses to present a domestic NANP number as the originating number or for consumers to call back. Are there any different or unique factors we should consider for calls that originate outside of the United States but legitimately spoof a NANP number, especially a domestic NANP number?
53. Similarly, we seek comment on whether we should exempt from our proposals calls that originate on devices subscribed to United States mobile and/or VoIP service and that are roaming outside the United States. For example, United States VoIP consumers may seek to use nomadic capabilities of their service to place calls using their United States telephone number while traveling abroad. Do service providers have the means to distinguish United States mobile and/or VoIP service roaming calls from other calls that originate outside the United States?
54. We further propose to require voice service providers that use reasonable analytics to block calls to include whether a call originated from outside of the United States as a factor in their analytics. We seek comment on this proposal. We seek comment on what steps providers would need to take to include this information in their analytics and whether this requirement would further protect consumers against scam robocalls originating outside of the United States. Do those steps differ depending upon whether providers who use analytics know only that the call originated from outside of the United States versus the specific country from which a call originated? Can current or potential Artificial Intelligence capabilities play a role in these analytics or in verifying caller identity information?
55. Are there countries from which a greater volume of scam or otherwise potentially unlawful calls originate or countries that otherwise pose a greater risk to consumers? If so, which countries and why? What volume of scam or otherwise potentially unlawful calls originates from each country? How does that compare to the total volume of calls that originate from each country? Based on annual data, what is the total number of calls that originate from outside of the United States? Of those calls, what percentage are scam calls, spam calls, use an autodialer, and/or use an artificial or prerecorded voice? For each of these types or categories of calls, what methodology was used to identify and categorize the calls?
56. How should foreign-origin indicators appear on consumer devices without confusing consumers? What, if anything, are providers already doing to protect consumers from scams or otherwise potentially unlawful calls that originate from outside of the United States or from specific countries? What challenges do providers face when dealing with detecting, blocking, or labeling such calls? Are there other actions that the Commission could take to address these calls?
57.
58. If we establish a designated area code for foreign-originated calls, we seek comment on whether we should require that gateway providers block any foreign-originated calls carrying United States NANP numbers for presentation on the called party's handset that are not from that area code. We believe that marketplace developments and the continued evolution of similar rules in other countries may provide real-world evidence of the effectiveness and administrability of such a requirement in the United States. For example, in 2024, the UK's Ofcom released revised guidance stating that calls from outside of the UK carrying a UK “presentation” number (
59.
60. To what extent can providers, including United States gateway providers and foreign intermediate providers, identify the originating caller or provider of a foreign-originated call? Does existing routing technology, which is often designed to reduce costs and avoid congestion, prevent providers from identifying the source of a call? Could traceback efforts be streamlined if calls originating from outside of the United States involved fewer voice service providers in the call path before the call reaches the United States? How can the number of voice service providers in the call path outside of the United States be reduced? What factors contribute to how many voice service providers are in the call path outside of the United States? What can we do to mitigate or eliminate those factors? Are there international agreements or memoranda of understanding that might provide mechanisms for reducing the number of voice service providers in the call path before a call reaches the United States or that we should otherwise be mindful of as we consider our proposals?
61. What other tools could we use to help identify the sources of foreign-originated calls? For instance, could we implement a chain of agreements requirement whereby gateway providers
62. Do the answers to the questions posed above differ depending on whether the goal is to identify the country of origin, the originating voice service provider, or the maker of the call? If so, how? How can the process of identifying the source of a call that originates from outside of the United States be automated or made a part of transmitting a call? Is there a way or a basis to treat calls differently depending on whether the origin of the call is known or on the specific origin of the call? For example, should a factor in call analytics be that a call originated from a country, voice service provider, or maker known to be a source of unlawful calls or should calls be blocked from entering the United States if the origin of the call is not known?
63.
64. Should we prohibit spoofing of United States telephone numbers on calls that originate from outside of the United States? Does the practice mislead consumers about a call's origin? Does it make consumers more susceptible to unlawful calls involving spoofing, such as by increasing their trust in calls that originate from outside of the United States? How many calls that originate from outside of the United States spoof a United States telephone number? Of those, how many are unlawfully spoofed? Do calls that originate from outside of the United States and spoof a United States number carry a greater risk of being unlawful, such as being a scam, than calls that originate from within the United States and spoof a United States number? What is the magnitude of that risk?
65. Are there other factors that we should consider? If we were to prohibit spoofing of United States numbers for calls that originate from outside of the United States, what, if any, changes would be required to existing technical standards, such as STIR/SHAKEN or RCD? How would such a prohibition impact businesses that have offshored certain operations, including call centers? Would this prohibition encourage businesses to invest in the United States or return jobs to the United States? What effect, if any, would this prohibition have on calls that originate from other countries that are part of the NANP? And if we adopt our proposal to require voice service providers to transmit to handsets an indicator that a call originated from outside of the United States, would that indicator be sufficient to alert the called party when the call appears to originate from a United States number?
66. Should spoofing or other use of NANP United States numbers for calls originating from outside of the United States be addressed in memoranda of understanding or other collaborative efforts among the United States and other countries? If so, what should the content of such memoranda be? Should calls be treated differently depending on whether the country of origin has entered into a memorandum of understanding or other agreement with the United States? If so, how?
67. We seek comment on our authority to adopt these proposals and on our authority regarding other actions on which we seek comment above, including under the Truth in Caller ID Act, the TRACED Act, and section 251(e) of the Communications Act. We also seek comment on any other bases of authority for our proposals and other actions on which we seek comment.
68. The Truth in Caller ID Act defines caller identification information as including both the originating telephone number and “other information regarding the origination of the call.” It also prohibits any person from “caus[ing] any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value” and directs the Commission to prescribe implementing regulations. We believe that requiring originating providers to verify caller identity information—a subset of caller identification information—will reduce opportunities for bad actors to manipulate caller identification information. We seek comment on this reasoning and on whether our proposed rules and other actions on which we seek comment are consistent with the Truth in Caller ID Act. If our proposals or other actions do not align with the Truth in Caller ID Act's scienter and intent elements, are there ways our proposals and other actions can be structured to come into alignment?
69. We believe that the TRACED Act provides additional authority for our proposals and other actions on which we seek comment. In it, Congress directed the Commission to require implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN framework in IP networks and granted us the authority to “revise or replace” call authentication frameworks after assessing the efficacy of such frameworks following notice and an opportunity to comment. Although the TRACED Act requires us to conduct formal triennial assessments and submit a report to Congress, we believe the statute provides authority to conduct ongoing assessments and take responsive action in the interim, so long as we provide notice and opportunity to comment. We can use comments in this proceeding as part of a future assessment to evaluate STIR/SHAKEN's effectiveness and need for revision. The TRACED Act also grants us authority over non-IP networks, including to require robocall mitigation programs. We also believe that we have authority under the TRACED Act to promulgate rules governing when providers may block calls based on call authentication information. We seek comment on our belief that these provisions provide authority for our proposals and other actions on which we seek comment. We also seek comment on our authority under section 4(d) of the TRACED Act, which provides that ”[n]othing in this section shall preclude the Commission from initiating a rule making pursuant to its existing statutory authority.” We believe that this provision confirms that
70. We also seek comment on whether our exclusive jurisdiction over the United States portion of the North American Numbering Plan pursuant to section 251(e) provides authority for our proposals and other actions on which we seek comment. The Commission previously has found that section 251(e) provides ample authority to take actions to “prevent the fraudulent abuse of NANP resources” and that unlawfully spoofed originating telephone numbers are an abuse of those resources. We believe that our proposals and other actions here similarly are aimed at preventing abuse of NANP resources. We also believe that it is within our authority more generally to prohibit actions resulting in the presentation of NANP numbers in a manner that misleads consumers or aids in making scam and other unlawful calls more believable. We further believe that our authority extends to requiring providers to take actions that prevent the authentication and presentation of NANP numbers in combination with caller identity information from being misleading. We note that the Commission long has invoked these statutory provisions to adopt rules regarding caller identification obligations. We seek comment on these beliefs and on whether section 227(e) provides authority to adopt rules aimed at averting misleading caller identification information even if the statutory scienter and intent requirements of the Truth in Caller ID Act are not met.
71. This document proposes to require terminating providers to transmit to consumer handsets verified caller identity information whenever they transmit an indicator that a call has received an A-level attestation and similarly to transmit an indicator that a call originated from outside of the United States when they know or have a reasonable basis to know that a call originated from outside of the United States. In addition, this document proposes to require originating providers that transmit caller identity information to employ reasonable measures to verify that that the information is accurate and for gateway providers to mark calls that originate from outside of the United States. This document further proposes to require intermediate providers across the entire call path to transmit information that a call originated from outside of the United States. This document also seeks comment on requirements to ensure that caller identity information is securely transmitted over the entire call path, including whether to require providers to use RCD to securely transmit this information, and on prohibiting spoofing of United States telephone numbers on calls that originate from outside of the United States, including where the caller is authorized to use the spoofed number. Further, this document seeks comment on the impact of our proposals on people with disabilities who use assistive devices, services, and technologies, and on providers of TRS and other services.
72. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of these proposals. By giving consumers better and verified information about the identity of those who call them, we believe that our proposals would help consumers avoid scam, fraudulent, and otherwise unlawful calls. These proposals also are expected to help businesses reach more consumers over the phone for legitimate purposes. Because these proposed requirements apply only when a terminating provider chooses to transmit to consumer handsets an indicator that a call received an A-level attestation or when an originating provider chooses to transmit caller identity information, we expect the benefits to extend gradually to consumers and businesses as more providers choose to transmit verified caller identity information. We expect that providers will transmit verified caller identity information when the benefits of doing so outweigh the associated costs and seek comment on the costs to implement the proposals discussed above. We note that our proposals rely upon the already-implemented STIR/SHAKEN framework and upon the existing RCD standards, which builds upon the STIR/SHAKEN framework to enable secure transmission of additional data. Thus, the ingredients that underlie our proposals already exist. We recognize, however, that verifying information to ensure its accuracy and that ensuring interoperability might necessitate some additional costs. We seek comment on our views, including cost estimates from providers over the entire length of the call path and from providers of TRS and other assistive devices, services, and technologies. Will smaller providers face unique challenges implementing our proposals?
73. This document also seeks comment on the alternative approach of requiring implementation of RCD in IP networks. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of requiring implementation of RCD in IP networks. We note that the particular RCD standard or standards that providers would be required to implement have not yet been determined. Therefore, we seek comment on the costs and benefits of all possible standards for implementation. The document also seeks comment on requiring caller identity information verification as a condition of A-level attestation. We seek comment on the costs and benefits of this approach. We further seek comment on the costs and benefits, including the potential for job creation and investment in the United States, of prohibiting spoofing of domestic United States numbers for calls that originate from outside of the United States, including when the caller is authorized to use the spoofed number.
74. We seek comment on whether some of our calling-related rules can be simplified, streamlined, or eliminated, perhaps because they are outdated or have not been enforced for a substantial amount of time.
75.
76. The Commission adopted the rules in 2003 to ensure consumers do not answer calls only to get silence, or to be hung up on, largely as a result of the predictive dialers callers used at the time. Today's predictive dialers appear to leverage advances in technology, including Artificial Intelligence, to drive
77. We seek comment on whether the calling practices these rules target are no longer a significant source of consumer frustration. Have changes since 2003 rendered the rules unnecessary? Would eliminating the rules relieve callers of the burden of tracking their calls to comply, and to be prepared in the event the Commission were to ask about them? Would consumers be harmed by elimination of these rules? Does the DNC Act require us to retain these rules and does the Commission's differing jurisdiction from the FTC favor retaining or deleting these rules? Are there any other factors affecting whether these rules may or should be deleted? For example, would application of the FTC's corresponding rules to only those callers over which the FTC has jurisdiction result in potential confusion among callers and consumers regarding the applicable standard for call abandonment?
78.
79.
80. Does the rule unduly restrict consumers' ability to receive wanted calls? For example, does it unduly restrict consumers' ability to receive calls from healthcare providers that might have multiple locations or practice specialties or from pharmacies? What about banks or other financial institutions where consumers might have different types of accounts or other businesses that have multiple locations, operating units, or lines of business? How does this affect consumers who both are customers of a business and are employees, job applicants, or contractors of that same business? Does this requirement place an undue burden on callers to modify their communications systems or is an all-or-nothing requirement less burdensome to implement? Would requiring consumers to revoke consent separately for each business unit, location, practitioner, or other sub-division of a caller create an undue burden under this rule modification? How can we modify the rule so that consumers continue to receive calls they want and in so doing ensure that callers honor consent revocation for those they do not, including empowering consumers to specify the scope of their revocations?
81. We also propose to amend § 64.1200(a)(10). For example, commenters in the Delete Proceeding asked us to permit callers to designate the exclusive means by which consumers may revoke prior express consent rather than requiring callers to honor all revocation requests made using “reasonable means.” We seek comment on this proposal. At the same time, we seek comment on whether there are less restrictive ways for consumers to revoke consent that nevertheless avoid the potential ambiguity of the current reasonable-means standard.
82. Are there any methods of revoking consent that should be required, even if other methods are permitted? Are there any that should be prohibited? What standards, if any, should we establish to ensure that revocation methods clearly are disclosed to consumers? Is there a significant risk that callers will demand revocations to be made by unduly complex, difficult, or cumbersome methods that could prevent or deter consumers from revoking consent effectively? Is there a significant risk that consumers would be less likely to give prior express consent? Would amending the rule as suggested provide more certainty to callers and consumers by making the rule less vague? Would it improve efficiency for callers or consumers?
83.
84. Are there significant concerns about misdirected calls or about financial information being improperly disclosed if we were to broaden the exception for fraud alert and similar calls to cover calls to numbers other than those provided by consumers? Does the ability of financial institutions to obtain prior express consent for such calls, and thus to make calls outside the exception, resolve these concerns? Are there applicable federal or state laws or best practices with which we should align our proposal to alleviate any such concerns? Would it improve the ability of financial institutions to reach consumers and reduce consumers' exposure to fraud? How does the risk of misdirected calls weigh against the benefits of allowing financial institutions to better reach consumers? Are there other factors we should consider?
85.
86. 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 policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
87. The Commission initiates this proceeding to enhance consumer protection against potentially unlawful and fraudulent robocalls. While the existing STIR/SHAKEN call authentication framework indicates whether a caller is authorized to use a particular number, it does not identify who is calling, meaning consumers often cannot determine the caller's identity unless the number is in their contact list or they otherwise recognize it. Additionally, consumers may not understand this limitation, mistakenly believing that A-level attestation provides assurance that a call is lawful rather than a scam or otherwise unlawful.
88. To address these issues, this document proposes the following: (1) When a voice service provider provides caller identification service and includes in the caller identification information for a call an indication that the call has received A-level attestation, the voice service provider must include a verified caller name in the caller identification information; (2) a voice service provider that transmits caller identity information for an originating telephone call must employ reasonable measures to verify that the caller identify information is accurate; and (3) voice service providers that are the entry point into the United States for calls that originate from outside of the United States and know or have a reasonable basis to know that a call originated from a country other than the United States must include in the caller identification information for that call an indication that the call originated from a country other than the United States. These measures are intended to restore consumer confidence in caller ID information and reduce the burden on consumers of screening unlawful or potentially unlawful calls.
89. We also propose to modernize anti-robocall protections by eliminating outdated requirements that have been superseded by technological advances and calling practices and to enhance regulatory certainty by dismissing older pending petitions and applications related to TCPA implementation.
90. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1-4, 201(b), 202(a), 227, 227b, and 251(e)of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201, 202, 227, 227b, and 251(e).
91. 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 (SBA). 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. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.
92. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
93. The rules proposed in this document will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the above identified industries.
94. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
95. The
96. This document also proposes to require originating voice service providers that transmit caller identity information to take steps to verify that the information is accurate. This may require affected small entities to establish verification procedures, maintain records of verification activities, and implement systems to ensure caller identity information transmitted with calls is accurate before transmission.
97. This document also proposes that voice service providers that are the entry point into the United States for calls that originate from outside of the United States and know or have a reasonable basis to know that a call originated from a country other than the United States must include in the caller identification information for that call an indication that the call originated from a country other than the United States. To comply with this requirement, affected small entities may need to establish procedures indicating when a call originated from a country other than the United States.
98. The Commission also proposes to modernize anti-robocall protections by eliminating outdated requirements that have been superseded by technological advances and calling practices and to enhance regulatory certainty by dismissing older pending petitions and applications related to TCPA implementation. If adopted, this may reduce the recordkeeping and compliance burden on small entities.
99. The Commission invites comment on the costs and burdens of these proposals on small entity voice service providers, telemarketing bureaus, equipment manufacturers, and other affected small entities. The Commission expects that information received in comments, including cost and benefit analyses where requested, will help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant compliance matters for small entities that may result if the proposals and associated requirements discussed in the document are ultimately adopted.
100. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(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 and 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.”
101. In the
102. Second, the Commission seeks comment on alternative technical solutions beyond Rich Call Data (RCD) for securely transmitting caller identity information. This approach would provide small entities with flexibility to choose cost-effective solutions that work with their existing network infrastructure rather than mandating a single technical standard that might be burdensome for smaller providers.
103. Third, the Commission seeks comment on whether certain categories of calls or providers should be exempted from caller identity verification requirements, which could reduce compliance burdens on small entities that primarily handle such calls.
104. Additionally, the Commission proposes to eliminate several outdated robocall requirements that may represent unnecessary burdens on small entities, including call abandonment rules that technology and calling practices have overtaken.
105. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact and alternatives for small entities following review of comments filed in response to the
106. None.
Carrier equipment, Customer premises equipment, Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091; Pub. L. 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156.
The revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) During or after the message, state clearly the telephone number (other than that of the autodialer or prerecorded message player that placed the call) of such business, other entity, or individual; and * * *
(k) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Those analytics include consideration of caller identification authentication information and information that a call originated from outside of the United States, where such information is available;
(s) The term “caller identity information” has the same meaning given the term “caller identification information” in 47 CFR 64.1600(c) as it currently exists or may hereafter be amended, but excludes the information contained in 47 CFR 64.1600(g)(1)-(2) and (5).
(a) When a voice service provider includes in caller identification information transmitted to a called party an indication that the call has received an A-level attestation pursuant to the Caller Identification Authentication requirements contained in subpart HH of this part, the voice service provider must include verified caller name in the caller identification information transmitted to the called party.
(b) A voice service provider that transmits caller identity information for an originating telephone call must employ reasonable measures to verify that the caller identity name is accurate.
(c) Gateway providers must include in the caller identification information for a call that originates outside the United States an indication that the call originated from outside of the United States.
(d) Non-gateway intermediate providers within a call path must pass unaltered to subsequent providers in the call path caller identification information identifying the call as having originated from outside of the United States.
(e) When a voice service provider is the terminating voice service provider for a call and knows or has a reasonable basis to know that a call originated from outside of the United States, such as when the caller identification information it receives for that call includes an indication that the call originated from outside of the United States, the voice service provider must include in the caller identification information transmitted to the called party for that call an indication that the call originated from outside of the United States.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks additional comment and data from stakeholders on adopting permanent audio and video IPCS rate caps and on whether and how the Commission should refine its IPCS data collections going forward to provide the data needed to ensure rate caps are just and reasonable and fairly compensate IPCS providers. It also seeks comment on how and when the Commission should structure a permanent rate
Comments are due on or before January 5, 2026; and reply comments are due on or before February 3, 2026.
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this document in WC Docket Nos. 23-62 and 12-375 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.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 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.
•
Shabbir Hamid, Pricing Policy Division of the Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-2328 or via email at
This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
1. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
2. Today's Order adopts interim rate caps for audio and video IPCS, reflecting the evolving video IPCS marketplace and resulting anomalies in provider-reported video data, but also in recognition of the limitations of the available data on safety and security costs and of the cost data more generally. Meanwhile, commenters continue to acknowledge a need for permanent rate caps. We agree that permanent caps are necessary for IPCS and, accordingly, we seek further comment on how the Commission could best adopt permanent rate caps for audio and video IPCS which are just, reasonable, and fairly compensatory and the time frame for implementing any such rate caps.
3.
4.
5. How else has the video IPCS marketplace evolved with the passage of time? We seek comment on the changes in availability of and demand for video IPCS, and for other, non-IPCS video products, including the deployment of platforms and devices capable of delivering these services. For example, how has demand for video IPCS changed since the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection (reflecting 2022 data)? We also seek comment on how costs for providing video IPCS and revenues for video IPCS have changed since the
6. Commenters generally agree that the video IPCS marketplace is still in its nascent stages and investments in video IPCS infrastructure continue to be relatively high given current demand. We seek comment on the continued evolution of the video IPCS marketplace, and on the data that would most accurately reflect its growth and development. One commenter suggests three criteria which may indicate a maturing market: “comparing the variance of costs across video calling products with the variance of costs among audio calling products, comparing within-provider costs to those of market leaders, and analyzing forecast demand by service providers.” Are these effective ways of gauging whether the video IPCS marketplace has matured with sufficient reliability to set permanent video rates? If so, why? If not, what are the other alternatives? What additional data will best support these analyses, and how can we obtain such data, if it has not already been collected?
7. When do commenters expect the video IPCS marketplace will reach a point where the Commission will be able to set reliable permanent rate caps? Conversely, if commenters believe the video IPCS data already allows us to adopt permanent rate caps, why? Certain commenters suggest permanent video IPCS rate caps should be adopted immediately. What advantages and disadvantages would there be from adopting permanent caps in the near future versus doing so at a later date? What are the costs and benefits of maintaining interim caps over a longer period to allow the marketplace to develop? How do the costs and benefits of delay versus immediacy translate to the adoption of permanent audio rate caps?
8.
9. We seek additional comment on whether and how we should refine the IPCS data collections going forward, particularly in light of the recognized anomalies with IPCS data. Are any adjustments to the structure of the collection necessary to distinguish between necessary equipment and services costs? What other data are necessary, if any, for the Commission to consider establishing permanent, per-minute audio and video IPCS rate caps? In particular, should we attempt to collect data that would allow us to measure the effects future inflation and productivity increases will have on the average cost per minute of providing audio and video IPCS and rate caps and, if so, what data should we collect? How can the Commission ensure all video IPCS providers fully respond to any additional data collection?
10. Commenters should identify the relevant safety and security data and information necessary to set permanent IPCS audio and video rate caps, and should specify how the Commission should seek to have such information reported. To what extent have audio and video IPCS safety and security services changed over time, and how should any such change impact the adoption of permanent audio or video IPCS rate caps? Are there any trends in safety and security expenses in the IPCS provider or private business sectors, and if so, how should they be accounted for when adopting permanent audio or video IPCS rate caps? For example, Zoom and Teramind offer safety and security add-ons (including listening to a call without the parties being aware and remote employee monitoring) as part of their business communications services.
11. We also seek comment on how providers recover shared costs for safety and security services between video and audio IPCS and between IPCS and non-IPCS services. What data would help the Commission to properly allocate such costs among these services? Should the categories used previously be adjusted and, if so, how? Should there be a larger, smaller, or the same number of categories as compared to the number in the 2023 Mandatory Data Collection, and how should each category be defined? Should the Commission exclude from rate caps any allowance for recovery of safety and security expenses attributable to law enforcement functions? The 2023 Mandatory Data Collection directed providers to allocate safety and security expenses among seven different categories and then to further allocate the expenses within each of these categories among (1) audio IPCS, (2) video IPCS, (3) ancillary services, and (4) other products and services. If we were to draw a line between safety and security expenses attributable to IPCS functions versus law enforcement functions, for example, could we simply retain the existing reporting structure and at the same time clarify that safety and security expenses are to be allocated to other products and services to the extent these are incurred as a consequence of providing law enforcement functions? Or would a better approach be to add law enforcement as a separate, fifth “service” to which safety and security expenses could be allocated? How might the Commission direct providers to allocate expenses shared between IPCS and law enforcement functions? Are there better approaches than our current category-based approach to standardize the reporting and collection of safety and security cost data that commenters recommend? What other information should we seek concerning safety and security services which would help us determine just, reasonable, and fairly compensatory rates? Are there any factors related to safety and security expenses that primarily affect either audio or video rates alone, and if so, what are they, and why?
12. Likewise, we seek comment on any interaction or interdependence between audio IPCS and video IPCS offerings, including relationships between service pricing or usage. Will the continued video IPCS market evolution also affect the market for audio rates and, if so, how? Do providers expect demand for audio IPCS to fall as demand or availability of video IPCS increases? Should video IPCS be
13. Parties note that correctional institutions are increasingly paying directly for IPCS and making service available to incarcerated people free of charge. They propose that the Commission address the applicability of its IPCS regulations to instances where a correctional institution is the party that pays for IPCS. Commenters note, for example, that in the “agency-paid model,” correctional institutions may use alternative units of sale, such as ADP, instead of per-minute rates to purchase IPCS. We seek comment on the applicability of our regulations to correctional institutions as, in effect, wholesale purchasers of IPCS. To what extent do the Martha Wright-Reed Act and the Communications Act provide legal authority to the Commission to regulate the rates and related conditions of IPCS when purchased by an intermediary for retail customers' use?
14. We seek comment on how and when the Commission should structure a permanent rate additive or additives to account for correctional facility costs. In today's Order, we adopt a uniform interim rate additive of up to $0.02 per minute for audio and video IPCS for all facility types and size tiers. Several commenters support the use of an additive, arguing that it will provide a predictable framework for IPCS providers and correctional authorities to ensure the recovery of correctional facility costs in the provision of IPCS. Do commenters agree? Why or why not? We seek comment on the assertion by one commenter that additives will effectively reintroduce site commissions and on the extent adopting a permanent rate additive may actually minimize market distortions the record shows site commissions can generate. The interim rate caps we set today are provider-related rate components, the revenues from which are not intended for facility cost recovery, which is the purpose of the separate rate additives we seek further comment on today. Pay Tel, however, cites the fact that the record shows that at least one provider sought to offer correctional facilities payments from rate cap revenues. We seek further comment on Pay Tel's request for clarification “that any site commissions in excess of the facility cost additive remain prohibited.” What are the benefits and burdens of a rate additive for IPCS providers, correctional facilities, and IPCS consumers?
15. We also seek comment on how to structure a permanent rate additive. As an initial matter, we invite comment on whether a permanent additive should be a uniform cap across all rate tiers or whether it should vary by correctional facility type and/or size. What specific tasks, responsibilities and activities do correctional facilities undertake? What are the number of person hours and the hourly wage rates required to provide each activity and each activity's frequency of occurrence? Do these activities and their frequency and costs vary depending on the size or type of the facility, the volume of calls, the correctional authority's policies, or other factors and, if so, how should the Commission incorporate those variations into any permanent rate additive? We also seek comment on a recommendation by one commenter that “IPCS providers that incorporate any facility additive [with] the rate and compensate facilities accordingly must document those costs before such a payment could be imposed on or charged to the paying customer.” Additionally, should providers be required to demonstrate that any expenses being recovered through the rate additive be for used and useful expenses incurred in making IPCS available?
16. The interim per-minute rate additive we adopt today applies uniformly to all rate tiers, in principal part due to the lack of reliable correctional facility cost data currently in the record beyond the National Sheriffs' Association 2015 cost survey. The Commission previously has highlighted that “[o]btaining reliable correctional facility cost data has been a perennial problem in these proceedings.” As we explain above, the record lacks the requisite data that would allow the Commission to reasonably justify a variable additive based on facility type or size. Yet, the National Sheriffs' Association argues that a rate additive “cannot be uniform because the costs to facilities are not uniform” but provides no data or other information regarding costs beyond what was previously submitted in the record. As Securus notes, the “[k]ey to establishing a reasonable rate additive is gaining up-to-date information on facility costs.” We agree and invite further comment on how we can ensure we receive current, complete, and reliable data that accurately capture the differences in used and useful costs that facilities of different sizes and types incur. We request commenters address in detail the types of data that would be most useful in determining facility costs and the procedures we should follow in collecting the data.
17. To the extent commenters support a permanent rate additive that varies by facility type and size, we underscore the importance of receiving updated, relevant data in the record given that correctional facilities are not regulated entities subject to data retention requirements, as commenters have recognized. Securus suggests that while “the Commission cannot compel correctional agencies to provide such information, the Commission could facilitate the voluntary submission of such information by creating a simple and straightforward template by which correctional agencies could submit information on the costs they incur.” The Commission has not previously considered undertaking the design of a template given its inability to compel the submission of facility cost data by correctional institutions. However, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should consider doing so. Apart from creating a template, what categories of cost information should correctional institutions submit and how can the Commission best work with providers and correctional institutions to encourage the submission of reliable and consistent cost data? If we engage in a voluntary collection, how should we evaluate the data received to determine if it is a representative sample appropriate for use in this regulatory context? Are there other sources of data or methods of collection that we should consider?
18. To the extent commenters support a uniform additive, should we make the interim $0.02 per minute additive adopted in today's Order permanent? Why or why not? If $0.02 per minute would not be a reasonable permanent uniform additive, are there data that the Commission could rely on that would support adopting a different amount? For example, a limited survey conducted by Pay Tel's outside consultant, which consisted of only 30 correctional facilities, reported an average cost to facilities of $0.08 per minute for allowing the provision of IPCS. The Commission gave no weight to this survey in the
19. Ancillary service charges have long been a source of detrimental practices in the IPCS market and imposing constraints on such fees has been an integral part of the Commission's attempts to ensure just and reasonable IPCS rates. The Commission has taken steps on several occasions to set limits on ancillary service charges and associated practices. Most recently, in the
20. We propose retaining, for the same reasons the Commission articulated in the
21. However, to be thorough, we seek comment on HomeWAV's request that we reinstate automated payment fees and third-party financial transaction fees as permissible ancillary service charges. Automated payment fees include a wide variety of fees assessed by IPCS providers for most, if not all, financial transactions with consumers. Third-party financial transaction fees include credit card processing fees and fees for transfers from third-party commissary accounts. We seek comment on whether these two ancillary charges should be reinstated and on the appropriate regulatory treatment of ancillary service charges generally.
22. In comments to HomeWAV's Petition for Reconsideration, Securus questions if the Commission contemplated whether the number of transactions would increase due to the removal of minimum deposit amounts and account funding fees, and what impact the potential increase of transactions would have on overall costs that would need to be recovered. Pay Tel adds that prohibiting these two ancillary service charges “will encourage behavior that increases . . . costs—and under the new rate structure, these costs will not be recoverable.” HomeWAV further asserts that “imposing all associated [automated payment fees and third-party financial transaction fee] costs solely on the provider” could “lead to operational disruptions and compromise the long-term sustainability of providers.”
23. We seek comment on whether providers are able to recover their costs of providing account funding services without being able to charge separate fees—under the rate caps set by the Commission in the
24. If either fee or both fees should be reinstated, at what amount should the related fee cap or caps be set, and why? The Commission previously established a $3.00 cap on automated payment fees and a $5.95 cap on third-party financial transaction fees. Should we reimpose the same caps on these two fees previously imposed or should we set different caps? At what level would a cap or caps allow providers to recover their costs? At what level would a cap or caps be just and reasonable for consumers? Subsequent to its petition, HomeWAV advocates in favor of $3.00 “payment processing fees.” We seek comment on this suggestion. Should the Commission use the cost data providers report in a subsequent data collection to calculate different, cost-based caps for one or more of the two fees if necessary to reflect any increased usage rates providers are experiencing? Would setting fee caps based on those data overstate costs, if fees are reinstated and demand for the services is reduced?
25. While HomeWAV requests reinstatement of automated payment fees and third-party transaction fees, other providers suggest different fees should also be reinstated. For example, NCIC proposes reinstating certain transaction fees, including a live agent fee and a single call fee, but also proposes the elimination of certain other transaction fees. We seek comment on whether any other fees should be reinstated, and we request that any proposals for reinstating other ancillary service charges address the issues raised here with regard to automated payment fees and third-party transaction fees. We seek comment specifically on alternative proposals made by NCIC. NCIC's alternative proposals include suggesting the establishment of a $3.00 funding fee for automated, web, and app payments, a $5.95 funding fee for payments making use of a live agent, a $0.25 funding fee for single calls or a ban on single call service, and deposit limits for minimums set at $5.00 and maximums set at $100.00. NCIC proposes to re-establish single-call fees, albeit at the rate of $0.25 per call and provides the option to ban single-call services outright. We also seek comment on the potential burden of such costs.
26. If the Commission were to reinstate one or more ancillary service charges, it will need sufficiently reliable cost and demand data on each of the types of service charges that is reinstated in order to determine the relevant costs for each such charge. What changes, if any, to the Commission's reporting requirements, including to a future mandatory data collection and to its ongoing IPCS Annual Reports, should we consider to more accurately capture up-to-date ancillary service costs and demand, including the costs incurred when consumers fund their IPCS accounts?
27. We also seek comment on how automated payment fees and third-party financial transaction fees could be reinstated without unduly burdening consumers. Commenters have previously voiced concerns that automated payment fees and third-party financial transaction fees were often exploited, and consumers were charged both fees for a single transaction, effectively allowing providers to double
28. We also seek comment as to whether there are any similarly effective alternatives to reinstating automated payment fees and third-party financial transaction fees. For example, Securus suggests that the Commission allow IPCS providers to establish a minimum deposit amount. We seek comment on this proposal. Is this a reasonable alternative that will change consumer incentives and reduce provider costs? What amount would be appropriate as a potential minimum deposit limit and why? Securus suggests $10, but others suggest lower minimums. How should the Commission calculate a minimum deposit amount if it chooses this alternative approach? For example, would a minimum deposit limit of $10 provide enough stability to provider costs to offset the burden of prohibiting these types of fees? Conversely, we also seek comment on the burden that a minimum deposit amount would impose on families of incarcerated people and IPCS users. Commenters are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits to providers, IPCS users and their families, of any alternative approaches to fee reinstatement.
29.
30. The Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of rule and policy change proposals in the
31.
32.
33.
34.
35. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with § 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We direct all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to use a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission. We also strongly encourage parties to track the organization set forth in the
36.
37.
38.
39. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
40. In the
41. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt a permanent rate additive to account for correctional facility costs related to the provision of IPCS and on how to structure such a rate additive. The Commission also asks whether a permanent rate additive should be uniform across all rate tiers or whether it should vary by correctional facility type and/or size. Further, the Commission asks how it can obtain updated, relevant data on correctional facilities' costs given that facilities are not regulated entities subject to data retention and accounting requirements. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should make the interim $0.02 per-minute uniform rate additive permanent.
42. The Commission also seeks comment on how it should address site commission payments made by IPCS providers to the facilities they serve. Specifically, the Commission proposes to retain the prohibition on site commission payments and seeks comment on the extent to which its adoption of an industry-wide, per-minute rate additive, either uniform or non-uniform, would eliminate any need for site commission payments. The Commission asks whether facilities could use a rate additive to recover their used and useful costs of allowing access to IPCS in lieu of, or in addition to, site commission payments. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on whether, if the Commission were to permanently allow providers to pay site commissions, it should cap or otherwise limit to the amount or type of site commissions providers may pay. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate timeframe for compliance with any site commissions reforms that may be adopted in response to the
43. The Commission also seeks comment on its proposal to retain the prohibition on ancillary service charges adopted in the
44. The proposed actions are authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i)-(j), 201(b), 218, 220, 225, 255, 276, 403, 617, and the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, Public Law 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156 (2022).
45. 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 Small Business Act. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must
46. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by our actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
47. The rules proposed in the
48. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
49. In the
50. The Commission anticipates that all IPCS providers, including those that are small entities, will be subject to any rules adopted in response to the
51. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(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 and 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.”
52. In the
53. In evaluating the proposals in the
54. None.
55. Accordingly,
56.
57.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 5, 2026. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 5, 2026. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding; whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by January 5, 2026 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on an extension with a revision of a currently approved information collection for the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) Phase 1 and Phase 2. The application periods for ERP Phase 1 and Phase 2 have ended; however, the collection is continuing because additional information may be needed to verify compliance with program eligibility requirements.
We will consider comments that we receive by February 3, 2026.
We invite you to submit comments on this notice. You may submit comments by this method:
You may also send comments to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Copies of the information collection may be requested by contacting Kathy Sayers.
For specific questions related to collection activity, contact Kathy Sayers; (202) 720-6870; email:
FSA is announcing plans to extend and revise a currently approved information collection that supports ERP Phase 1 and Phase 2. ERP was authorized by Division B, Title I, of the Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act (Pub. L. 117-43), and provided assistance for crop, tree, bush, and vine losses that resulted from wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, winter storms, freeze (including a polar vortex), smoke exposure, excessive moisture, and qualifying drought occurring in calendar years 2020 and 2021 (87 FR 30164; 88 FR 1862). The application period has ended for ERP Phase 1 and Phase 2 and payments have been issued.
The Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance
Producers who are determined to be compliant based on FSA or RMA data will be notified of the determination by mail, and no other action will be required. If FSA is not able determine a producer's compliance based on available data, FSA will notify the producer by mail that they must submit supporting documentation to verify their compliance in order to retain their ERP payment. These producers will also be notified of FSA's final determination of compliance or noncompliance.
FSA is revising the estimated respondents and burden hours for this collection to reflect the number of ERP participants and responses associated with these compliance activities. FSA is also removing the forms previously included under this collection and the corresponding respondent and burden hour estimates because the time period to submit the forms has ended. All participants who received an ERP payment have already filed the required forms.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hour is the estimated average time per response multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us:
(1) 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;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Evaluate the quality, utility, and clarity of the information technology; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who respond through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses where provided, will be made a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of newspapers of record.
This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by the ranger districts, national forests and grasslands, and regional office of the Rocky Mountain Region to publish legal notices. The intended effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public which newspapers the Forest Service will use to publish notices of proposed actions and notices of decision. This will provide the public with constructive notice of Forest Service proposals and decisions, provide information on the procedures to comment, object or appeal, and establish the date that the Forest Service will use to determine if comments or objections were timely.
Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers will begin on the date of this publication and continue until further notice.
Scarlett Vallaire, Regional Administrative Review Coordinator, Rocky Mountain Region, 1617 Cole Blvd., Bldg. 17, Lakewood, CO 80401.
Scarlett Vallaire, Regional Administrative Review Coordinator, by telephone at 801-989-6605 or by email at
The administrative procedures at 36 CFR parts 218 and 219 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR parts 218 and 219. In general, the notices will identify: the decision or project, by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or objections. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment or objection period. The newspapers to be used are as follows:
Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and those portions of South
Forest Supervisor decisions:
Canyon Lakes District Ranger decisions:
Pawnee District Ranger decisions:
Boulder District Ranger decisions:
Clear Creek District Ranger decisions:
Sulphur District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor decisions:
Bearlodge District Ranger decisions:
Mystic District Ranger decisions:
Hell Canyon District Ranger decisions:
Northern Hills District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor decisions:
Grand Valley District Ranger decisions:
Paonia District Ranger decisions:
Gunnison District Ranger decisions:
Norwood District Ranger decisions:
Ouray District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor decisions:
Laramie District Ranger decisions:
Douglas District Ranger decisions:
Brush Creek-Hayden District Ranger decisions:
Hahns Peak-Bears Ears District Ranger decisions:
Yampa District Ranger decisions:
Parks District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor decisions:
Bessey District Ranger decisions:
Pine Ridge District Ranger decisions:
Fall River District Ranger decisions:
Wall District Ranger decisions:
Fort Pierre District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor decisions:
San Carlos District Ranger decisions:
South Platte District Ranger decisions:
Leadville District Ranger decisions:
Salida District Ranger decisions:
South Park District Ranger decisions:
Pikes Peak District Ranger decisions:
Cimarron District Ranger decisions:
Comanche District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor decisions:
Columbine District Ranger decisions:
Pagosa District Ranger decisions:
Dolores District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions:
Forest Supervisor decisions:
Aspen-Sopris District Ranger decisions:
Blanco District Ranger decisions:
Dillon District Ranger decisions:
Eagle-Holy Cross District Ranger decisions:
Rifle District Ranger decisions:
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of Meeting.
The ASC may reorder the agenda to accommodate the needs of members or staff.
The meeting will be open to the public via live webcast only. Visit the agency's homepage (
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual 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 District of Columbia Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a business meeting via Zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss and vote on the draft addendum on Access to Services for Students with Disabilities in D.C. Public Schools.
Friday, January 16, 2026, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Mallory Trachtenberg, DFO, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested members of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral comments as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Mallory Trachtenberg at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via the file sharing website,
U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment on the proposed revision of the National Survey of Children's Health, prior to the submission of the information collection request (ICR) to OMB for approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before February 3, 2026.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Christine Flanagan Borman, Survey Director, by way of phone (301-763-4315) or email (
Sponsored primarily by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Health Resources Services Administration's Maternal and Child Health Bureau (HRSA MCHB), the National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) is designed to produce data on the physical and emotional health of children under 18 years of age who live in the United States. For each year of the NSCH annual survey, there are a variety of partnering agencies that sponsor supplemental content on the NSCH. Partnering agencies that have
The NSCH collects information on factors related to the well-being of children, including access to health care, in-home medical care, family interactions, parental health, school and after-school experiences, and neighborhood characteristics. The goal of the 2026 NSCH is to provide HRSA MCHB, the supplemental sponsoring agencies, states, and other data users with the necessary data to support the production of national estimates yearly and state- or region-based estimates with pooled samples on the health and well-being of children, their families, and their communities as well as estimates of the prevalence of and impact on children with special health care needs. The MCHB sponsored NSCH sample plus the separately sponsored state-based oversamples will be approximately 400,000 addresses for the 2026 NSCH.
NSCH is seeking clearance to make the following changes:
•
•
•
•
Besides the proposed changes listed above, the 2026 NSCH will proceed with the current design outlined in the previous OMB ICR package, including the use of incentives. Response rates for the unconditional monetary incentive group continues to show a statistically significant difference over the control group that did not receive an unconditional monetary incentive. As part of the initial screener mailing, 90% will include $5 and 10% will not receive an incentive. The incentive assignment to each sampled address will still be random as was done in prior cycles and approved by OMB. In the final screener mailing, a subset of approximately 10,000 households with children that started the web instrument but did not finish will receive a final web push invite with a secondary unconditional incentive in an attempt to have the household log back into the web instrument and finish the survey. For those households that are eligible for an initial paper topical mailing, this package will also include an additional $5 incentive. Additional incentives and mailing strategies may be used to both reduce nonresponse bias and improve response rates, including email and telephone reminders, per request of the sponsor and as funding allows. We will continue to make modifications to data collection strategies based on modeled information about paper or internet response preference. Results from prior survey cycles will continue to be used to inform the decisions made regarding future cycles of the NSCH.
From prior cycles of the NSCH, using American Association for Public Opinion Research definitions of response, we can expect for the 2026 NSCH an overall screener completion rate to be about 40.1% and an overall topical completion rate to be about 26.3%.
The 2026 NSCH plan for the web push data collection design includes approximately 70% of the production addresses receiving an initial invite with instructions on how to complete an English or Spanish-language screener questionnaire via the web. This group will receive two web survey invitation letters requesting their participation in the survey prior to receiving up to two additional paper screener questionnaires in the second and third follow-up mailings. Households that decide to complete the web-based survey will be taken through the screener questionnaire to determine if they are eligible for one of three topical instruments. Households that list at least one child who is 0 to 17 years old in the screener are directed into a topical questionnaire immediately after the last screener question. If a household in the web push treatment group decides to complete the paper screener, the household will receive an
The 2026 NSCH plan for the mixed-mode data collection design includes up to 30% of the production addresses receiving a paper screener questionnaire in the initial mailing with instructions on how to complete an English or Spanish language screener questionnaire via the web as well. This group will receive both a web survey invitation letter along with a mailed paper screener questionnaire with either the initial invitation or the first follow-up and each additional nonresponse follow-up mailing. Households that decide to complete the web-based survey will follow the same screener and topical selection path as the web push. Households that choose to complete the paper screener questionnaire rather than completing the survey on the internet and that have eligible children will be mailed a paper topical questionnaire upon receipt of their completed paper screener at the Census Bureau's National Processing Center. If a household in the mixed-mode group chooses to complete the paper screener instead of completing the web-based screener via the internet, then the household will receive an additional topical questionnaire incentive.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated 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 may 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 application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Foreign Trade Zone of Central Texas, Inc., grantee of FTZ 183, requesting subzone status for the facilities of Applied Materials, Inc., located in Austin and Pflugerville, Texas. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on December 3, 2025.
The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information Section” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general
The EDR collects economic data for the groundfish trawl fleet established by Amendment 80 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area. Amendment 80 primarily allocates several Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands non-pollock trawl groundfish fisheries among fishing sectors, and facilitates the formation of harvesting cooperatives among vessels in the non-American Fisheries Act (non-AFA) Trawl Catcher/Processor Cooperative Program. This program established a limited access privilege program for the non-AFA trawl catcher/processor sector.
Data collected through the EDR includes labor information, revenues received, capital and operational expenses, and other operational or financial data. NMFS and the Council use this to assess the economic effects of Amendment 80 on vessels or entities regulated by the non-AFA Trawl Catcher/Processor Cooperative Program, and impacts of major changes in the groundfish management regime, including allocation of prohibited species catch species and target species to harvesting cooperatives.
The EDR is submitted annually by each person who held an Amendment 80 Quota Share permit or was an owner or leaseholder of an Amendment 80 vessel, or was an owner or leaseholder of a vessel named on a License Limitation Program groundfish license with catcher/processor vessel and trawl gear designations and endorsed for the GOA during a calendar year. The EDR requirements are located at 50 CFR 679.94.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region (GARFO), NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The EFP would allow federally permitted fishing vessels to fish outside fishery regulations in support of exempted fishing activities proposed by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF). Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
Comments must be received on or before December 22, 2025.
You may submit written comments by email:
Christine Ford, Fishery Management Specialist,
The MA DMF submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict, to conduct trials of on-demand fishing gear that use no surface buoys and to test the ability of gear marking systems to consistently locate gear. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:
This EFP would allow federally permitted vessels to test on-demand gear in seasonal Restricted Areas that do not allow the use of persistent vertical lines under the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP). This project would allow up to 50 lobster trap vessels to replace up to 20 of their existing trawls with modified trawls in the ALWTRP Restricted Areas. Modified gear would replace both traditional end lines with one or two on-demand units; trawls would have no persistent vertical lines (fully ropeless). Participants will use privately owned on-demand gear purchased with their own funds or purchased through reimbursements provided by an on-demand grant program operated by MA DMF. Participants will only be allowed to use on-demand systems that are currently approved for use in the restricted areas under the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) EFP, based on their gear team's reliability standards. MA DMF will record each participants' brand of approved on-demand gear, and consult with them to confirm they know how to use the gear and marking system, either via training from the manufacturer, from participation in another EFP, or through training by MA DMF.
The goals of this project are to provide Federal lobster permit holders in Massachusetts with access to seasonal Restricted Areas, to test the efficacy of methods that alert other fishers to the presence of gear on the bottom, and to provide policy makers with information about the operational benefits and constraints of fishing without vertical lines. The project objectives are to:
• Provide participants with additional fishing opportunities through access to seasonal Restricted Areas;
• Collect data on the deployment and retrieval of on-demand gear, usage of gear location marking systems, and any occurrences of gear conflicts or gear deployment failures;
• Provide support and training for participating fishers on the use of on-demand technologies;
• Trial gear location marking systems that promote interoperability for fishers and reduce the potential for gear conflict;
• Collect timing data on hauling efficiency of on-demand versus traditional fishing gear; and
• Provide feedback to on-demand manufacturers to increase performance under commercial fishery conditions.
This permit would only exempt vessels from the specified Federal regulations in Federal waters. It would not exempt the vessels from any requirements imposed by any state, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, or any other applicable laws. The applicant would be responsible for obtaining all required state authorizations. Other than gear markings, all trap/pot trawls would be consistent with the regulations of the management area where the vessel is fishing and would be fished in accordance with the participating vessels' standard operations (number and length of trips, soak times, trap limits,
Participants would be required to virtually mark the location of each end of their trawls using the gear-marking technology associated with the on-demand system they were fishing. All gear-marking would be integrated with the EarthRanger gear location cloud-based database so that all EarthRanger users would be able to see all set on-demand gear within 5 miles (8.05 km). MA DMF would also have access to all on-demand set locations through EarthRanger.
MA DMF would provide standardized data collection sheets to all participants. Data deemed confidential, including but not limited to on-demand specific deployment locations and catch information, may be collected but will not be made public.
MA DMF proposes the following best practices and risk reduction measures:
• All vessels would report all right whale sightings to NMFS via
• All vessels would retrieve on-demand vertical lines as quickly as possible to minimize time in the water column;
• All vessels would adhere to current approach regulations—a 500-yard (457.2-meter) buffer zone created by a surfacing right whale—and must depart immediately at a safe and slow speed, in accordance with current regulations;
• If any large whale species came within 500 yards (457.2 meters) of a participating vessel during hauling, fishing would immediately cease, by
• All vessels would provide mandatory, weekly gear loss reports; MA DMF would provide monthly gear conflict/loss reports to the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (GARFO);
• All vessels would operate within a 10-knot (18.52 km) speed limit when transiting Restricted Areas or when whales are observed;
• EarthRanger web access, the ER Buoy app, or an equivalent application will be utilized for identifying any on-demand gear currently set within the work areas;
• Stowed hauling lines in on-demand units will contain a unique colored marking consisting of 12″ of yellow twine above each regional ALWTRP marking;
• A unique flag will be flown by each vessel within ALWTRP vertical line closure areas for enforcement recognition;
• All participants would carry a MA DMF scientist on a subset of trips to collect additional data and oversee trial performance;
• No floating groundline would be used on research trawls, including where otherwise legally allowed between the first trap and anchor or on-demand unit; and
• Law enforcement agencies will be notified of project participants and activities in advance of the project start date.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Pacific Council) will hold an online meeting of its Ad Hoc Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fisheries Innovation Workgroup (FIW) to discuss procedures to facilitate the development of new HMS gears and achieve the goals of the HMS Roadmap. This meeting is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Tuesday, December 9, 2025, from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., Pacific Standard Time or until business for the day has been completed.
The meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements, will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Kerry Griffin, Pacific Council; telephone: 503-820-2409.
The purpose of this meeting is to continue discussion of the HMS Roadmap, the HMS exempted fishing permit (EFP) process, and EFP performance goals and metrics. The FIW will also discuss any guidance provided at the November 2025 Council meeting and plan for next steps.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document 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.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of application for transshipment permit; request for comments.
NMFS publishes for public review and comment information regarding a permit application for transshipment of farmed salmon from aquaculture operations in Maine waters to processing plants in Canada by Canadian flagged vessels. The application for a transshipment permit is submitted under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). This action is necessary for NMFS to make a determination on whether to approve the permit application.
Written comments must be received by December 19, 2025.
Written comments on this action, identified by RTID 0648-XF356 should be sent to Jasmine Prat in the NMFS Office of International Affairs, Trade, and Commerce by email at
Jasmine Prat by email at
Section 1824(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1824(d)) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to issue a transshipment
Section 1824(d)(3)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides that an application to transship from U.S. waters to another country using non-U.S. vessels may not be approved until the Secretary determines that no owner or operator of a vessel of the United States which has adequate capacity to perform the transportation for which the application is submitted has indicated an interest in performing the transportation at fair and reasonable rates. NMFS is publishing this notice as part of its effort to make such a determination with respect to the application described below.
NMFS received an application from True North Salmon Limited Partnership, Kelly Cove Salmon Limited, and 697002 NB, Inc., requesting authorization to transfer salmon from U.S. farm pens in Maine waters to five Canadian vessels for the purpose of transporting the salmon to Blacks Harbour, Canada for processing. The transshipment operations will occur within the boundaries of the State of Maine, and within 12 nautical miles from Maine's seaward boundary. NMFS issued permits for the same vessels for use in calendar year 2025. Those permits expire December 31, 2025.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of standard prices and fee percentage.
NMFS publishes standard prices and fee percentages for cost recovery for the Amendment 80 Program, the American Fisheries Act (AFA) Program, the Aleutian Islands Pollock (AIP) Program, and the Western Alaska Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program in the Bering Sea Aleutian Islands (BSAI) management area. The fee percentages for 2025 are 1.55 percent for the Amendment 80 Program, 0.36 percent for the AFA inshore cooperatives, 0 percent for the AIP program, and 1.19 percent for the CDQ Program. This notice is intended to provide the 2025 standard prices and fee percentages to calculate the required payment for cost recovery fees due by December 31, 2025.
The standard prices and fee percentages are valid on December 5, 2025.
Dana Whitely, Fee Coordinator, 907-586-7231.
Section 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) authorizes and requires that NMFS collect cost recovery fees for limited access privilege programs and the CDQ Program. Cost recovery fees include NMFS' actual costs directly related to its management, data collection, and enforcement of the programs. Section 304(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that cost recovery fees not exceed 3 percent of the annual ex-vessel value of fish harvested under any program subject to a cost recovery fee and that the fee be collected either at the time of landing, filing of a landing report, or sale of such fish during a fishing season or in the last quarter of the calendar year in which the fish is harvested.
NMFS manages the Amendment 80 Program, AFA Program, and AIP Program as limited access privilege programs. On January 5, 2016, NMFS published a final rule to implement cost recovery for these three limited access privilege programs and the CDQ program (81 FR 150). The designated representative (for the purposes of cost recovery) for each program is responsible for submitting the fee payment to NMFS on or before December 31 of the year in which the landings were made. The total dollar amount of the fee due is determined by multiplying the NMFS published fee percentage by the ex-vessel value of all landings under the program made during the fishing year. NMFS publishes this notice of the fee percentages for the Amendment 80, AFA, AIP, and CDQ programs in the
The fee liability is based on the ex-vessel value of fish harvested in each program. For purposes of calculating cost recovery fees, NMFS uses a standard ex-vessel price (standard price) for each species. A standard price is determined using information on landings purchased (volume) and ex-vessel value paid (value). For most groundfish species, NMFS annually summarizes volume and value information for landings of all fishery species subject to cost recovery to estimate a standard price for each species. The standard prices are described in U.S. dollars per pound for landings made during the year. The standard prices for all species in the Amendment 80, AFA, AIP, and CDQ programs are provided in table 1. Each landing made under each program is multiplied by the appropriate standard price to arrive at an ex-vessel value for each landing. These values are summed together to arrive at the ex-vessel value of each program (fishery value).
Annually, NMFS calculates the applicable fee percentage for each of the four programs according to the factors and methods described at 50 CFR 679 under §§ 679.33(c)(2) for CDQ, 679.66(c)(2) for AFA, 679.67(c)(2) for AIP, and 679.95(c)(2) for Amendment 80. NMFS determines the fee percentage that applies to landings made during the year by dividing the total costs directly related to the management, data collection, and enforcement of each program (direct program costs) during the year by the fishery value. NMFS captures direct program costs through an established accounting system that allows staff to track labor, travel, contracts, and procurement costs. For 2025, the direct program costs for each program were tracked from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025 (the end of the fiscal year). The Amendment 80 Program was a primary focus for software development in 2025, resulting in increased contract costs. However, these increases were offset by reductions in other billable costs and a 16% increase in fishery and value when compared to 2024. This results in a decreased fee percentage; from the 2024 fee percentage of 1.86 to the 2025 fee percentage of 1.55. AFA fishery value declined by 17% when compared to 2024. When combined with a 20% increase in direct costs, this results in an increase from the 2024 fee percentage of 0.24 to the 2025 fee percentage of 0.36. The CDQ fishery value declined by 4.7% when compared to 2024, however direct program costs declined by 18%, resulting in a decrease from the 2024 fee percentage of 1.38 to the 2025 fee percentage of 1.19. The 2025 percentage for the AIP Program is zero because there was no AIP fishery in 2025, thus no associated harvest.
NMFS will provide an annual report that summarizes direct program costs for each of the programs in early 2026. NMFS calculates the values for each fishery as described earlier under the Standard Prices section of this notice.
The Amendment 80 Program allocates total allowable catches (TACs) of groundfish species, other than Bering Sea pollock, to identified trawl catcher/processors fishing in the BSAI. The Amendment 80 Program allocates a portion of the BSAI TACs of six species: Atka mackerel, Pacific cod, flathead sole, rock sole, yellowfin sole, and Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch. In recent years, participants in the Amendment 80 sector have established a cooperative to harvest these allocations. Each Amendment 80 cooperative is responsible for payment of the cost recovery fee for fish landed under the Amendment 80 Program. Cost recovery requirements for the Amendment 80 Program are at § 679.95.
For Amendment 80 species, other than rock sole, NMFS annually summarizes volume and value information for landings of all fishery species subject to cost recovery in order to estimate a standard price for each fishery species. Regulations specify that for rock sole, NMFS shall calculate a separate standard price for two periods, January 1 through March 31 and April 1 through October 31, which has historically accounted for a substantial difference in estimated rock sole prices during the first quarter of the year relative to the remainder of the year. The volume and value information are obtained from the First Wholesale Volume and Value Report submitted by catcher/processors that harvested Amendment 80 or CDQ species, and the Pacific Cod Ex-Vessel Volume and Value Report submitted by shoreside processors and motherships that processed landings of BSAI or CDQ Pacific cod.
Using the fee percentage formula described generally above, the estimated percentage of direct program costs to fishery value for the 2025 calendar year is 1.55 percent for the Amendment 80 Program. For 2025, NMFS applies the fee percentage to each Amendment 80 species landing that was debited from an Amendment 80 cooperative quota allocation between January 1 and December 31 to calculate the Amendment 80 fee liability for each Amendment 80 cooperative. The 2025 fee payments must be submitted to NMFS on or before December 31, 2025. Payment must be made in accordance with the payment methods set forth in § 679.95(a)(3)(iv).
The AFA Program allocates the Bering Sea directed pollock fishery TAC to three sectors: catcher/processor, mothership, and inshore. Each sector has established cooperatives to harvest the sector's exclusive allocation. In 2025, each cooperative for the inshore sector is responsible for paying the fee for Bering Sea pollock landed under the AFA Program. Cost recovery requirements for the AFA sectors are found at § 679.66.
NMFS calculates the standard price for pollock using the most recent annual value information reported to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the Commercial Operator's Annual Report and compiled in the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Gross Earnings data. Due to the time required to compile the data, there is a 1-year delay between the gross earnings data year and the fishing year to which it is applied. For example, NMFS used 2024 gross earnings data to calculate the standard price for 2025 pollock landings.
Under the fee percentage formula described above, the estimated percentage of direct program costs to fishery value for the 2025 calendar year is 0.36 percent for the AFA inshore sector. To calculate the 2025 fee liabilities, NMFS applies the respective fee percentages to the landings of Bering Sea pollock debited from each cooperative's fishery allocation that occurred between January 1 and December 31. The 2025 fee payments must be submitted to NMFS on or before December 31, 2025. Payment must be made in accordance with the payment methods set forth in § 679.66(a)(4)(iv).
The AIP Program allocates the Aleutian Islands directed pollock fishery TAC to the Aleut Corporation, consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-199) and implementing regulations. Annually, prior to the start of the pollock season, the Aleut Corporation provides NMFS with the identity of its designated representative for harvesting the Aleutian Islands directed pollock fishery TAC. The same individual is responsible for the submission of all cost recovery fees for pollock landed under the AIP Program. Cost recovery requirements for the AIP Program are at § 679.67.
NMFS calculates the standard price for pollock using the most recent annual value information reported to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for the Commercial Operator's Annual Report and compiled in the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission Gross Earnings data for Aleutian Islands pollock. As explained above, due to the time required to compile the data, there is a 1-year delay between the gross earnings data year and the fishing year to which it is applied.
For the 2025 fishing year, the Aleut Corporation did not select any participants to harvest or process the Aleutian Islands directed pollock fishery TAC, and most of that TAC was reallocated to the Bering Sea directed pollock fishery TAC. Since there was no fishery for the AIP Program in 2025, the fee percentage is zero.
The CDQ Program was implemented in 1992 to provide access to BSAI fishery resources to villages located in Western Alaska. Section 305(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act identifies 65 villages eligible to participate in the CDQ Program and the six CDQ groups to represent these villages. CDQ groups receive exclusive harvesting privileges of the TACs for a broad range of crab species, groundfish species, and halibut. NMFS implemented a CDQ cost recovery program for the BSAI crab fisheries in 2005 (70 FR 10174, March 2, 2005) and published the cost recovery fee percentage for the 2024/2025 crab fishing year on July 28, 2025 (90 FR 35508). This notice provides the cost recovery fee percentage for the CDQ Program with respect to groundfish and halibut. Each CDQ group is subject to cost recovery fee requirements and the designated representative of each CDQ group is responsible for submitting payment for their CDQ group. Cost recovery requirements for the CDQ Program are at § 679.33.
For most CDQ groundfish species, NMFS annually summarizes volume and value information for landings of all fishery species subject to cost recovery in order to estimate a standard price for each fishery species. The volume and value information are obtained from the First Wholesale Volume and Value Report and the Pacific Cod Ex-Vessel Volume and Value Report. For CDQ halibut and fixed-gear sablefish, NMFS calculates the standard prices using information from the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Ex-Vessel Volume and Value Report, which collects information on both IFQ and CDQ volume and value.
Using the fee percentage formula described above, the estimated percentage of direct program costs to fishery value for the 2025 calendar year is 1.19 percent for the CDQ Program. For 2025, NMFS applies the calculated CDQ fee percentage to all CDQ groundfish and halibut landings made between January 1 and December 31 to calculate the CDQ fee liability for each CDQ group. The 2025 fee payments must be submitted to NMFS on or before December 31, 2025. Payment must be made in accordance with the payment methods set forth in § 679.33(a)(3)(iv).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The MAFMC's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee will hold a public meeting.
The meeting will be held on Friday, December 12, 2025, from 9:30 a.m.-11 a.m. For agenda details, see
The meeting will be held via webinar. Connection information will be posted to the Council's calendar prior to the meeting at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
The MAFMC's Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Monitoring Committee will meet via webinar Friday, December 12, 2025, from 9:30 a.m. until 11 a.m. The purpose of this meeting is for the Monitoring Committee to provide advice regarding the framework adjustment action on Atlantic mackerel that would set 2026-2027 specifications/management measures and may adjust the stock's rebuilding approach. This meeting was originally intended for November 2025 but had to be rescheduled.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed renewal of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before February 3, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by “Registration under the Commodity Exchange Act,” Collection Number 3038-0023, by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Christopher W. Cummings, Market Participants Division, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5445 or
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
With respect to the proposed collection of information, the Commission invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a reinstatement without change of a previously approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 3, 2026.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Yeh, 202-987-1588.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Science, Department of Energy.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on its Request for Information (RFI) regarding Partnerships for Transformational Artificial Intelligence Models. The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, think tanks, investors, research organizations, and other stakeholders on how DOE should best structure and enable partnerships to curate DOE scientific data across the National Laboratory complex for use in artificial intelligence (AI) models. This RFI also seeks input on using this data to develop self-improving AI models for science and engineering to advance scientific discovery, energy, and national security.
Responses to the RFI must be received by Wednesday, January 14, 2026.
Interested parties are to submit comments electronically to
Questions may be addressed to Hal Finkel, Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, (301) 903-1304, or by email at
In accordance with Section 50404 of
Take notice that Rye Development, LLC, on behalf of Neptune Pumped Storage 2, LLC (Neptune Pumped Storage), permittee for the proposed Soldier Camp Pumped Storage Project No. 15311, has requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on February 15, 2024, and would have expired on January 31, 2028.
The preliminary permit for Project No. 15311 will remain in effect until the close of business, thirty days from the date of this notice. But, if the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.
New applications for this site may not be submitted until after the permit surrender is effective.
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:
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
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the Schoolfield Hydroelectric Project No. 2411 (project). The project is located on the Dan River in the City of Danville and Pittsylvania County, Virginia. Commission staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
Any comments should be filed on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 2, 2026.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202)502-6595 or
For further information, contact Claire Rozdilski at (202) 502-8259 or by email at
By letter filed December 9, 2022, Columbia Mills Hydro, LLC, pursuant to 18 CFR 4.94(g), informed the Commission that it is the new owner of the exemption from licensing for the Moomaws Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 8005, originally issued June 21, 1984. The project is located on the Maury River in the City of Buena Vista, Virginia. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.
Columbia Mills Hydroelectric, LLC is located at 841 Shelley Road, Raleigh, NC 27609.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on November 21, 2025, Rio Grande LNG, LLC, Rio Grande LNG Train 4, LLC and Rio Grande LNG Train 5, LLC (RGLNG Entities), 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300, Houston, Texas 77002 filed an application under section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization for the Production Increase Project (Project). The Project consists of an amendment to the authorizations granted by the Commission in Docket Nos. CP16-454-000 and CP24-70-000 which authorized the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal on the north embankment of the Brownsville Ship Channel in Cameron County, Texas. Specifically, RGLNG Entities propose to increase the Rio Grande LNG Terminal's liquefaction production capacity from 5.4 million tons per annum (MTPA) per train to approximately 6.03 MTPA per train, resulting in a total production capacity for the Rio Grande LNG Terminal of 30.15 MTPA. The Project would not involve construction of any new facilities, nor any modification of authorized facilities, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions regarding the proposed project should be directed to Lisa Tonery, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, by phone at (212) 506-3710, or by email at
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file comments on the project, you can protest the filing, and you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 23, 2025. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, contact the Office of Public Participation (OPP) at (202) 502-6595 or
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments may include statements of support or objections, to the project as a whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Pursuant to sections 157.10(a)(4)
To ensure that your comments or protests are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 23, 2025.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments or protests to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-31-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website at
(2) You may file your comments or protests electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments or protests by mailing them to the following address below. Your written comments must reference the Project docket number (CP26-31-000).
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1 and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Persons who comment on the environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding. For instructions on how to intervene, see below.
Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses, municipalities, and other entities,
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP26-31-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below. Your motion to intervene must reference the Project docket number CP26-31-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at Lisa M. Tonery, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, by phone at (212) 506-3710, or by email (with a link to the document) at
All timely, unopposed
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from OPP at (202) 502-6595 or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.
Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e) (1) (v).
The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. Each filing may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has adopted the United States Navy's Final Supplement EIS No. 20250113 filed 08/06/2025 with the Environmental Protection Agency. The NMFS was a cooperating agency on this project. Therefore, republication of the document is not necessary.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau (Bureau) announces that due to prospective applicants' inability to access the Commission's Licensing and Management System (LMS) during the recent partial lapse in government funding and therefore prepare and file applications as previously scheduled, it is revising the dates for the Class A, LPTV, and TV translator major modification and LPTV/TV translator new station filing opportunities previously announced in its (
December 11, 2025, 6:00 p.m. ET, December 18, 2025, 6:00 p.m. ET, January 29, 2026, 6:00 p.m. ET, March 12, 2026, 6:00 p.m. ET, March 19, 2026, 12:01 a.m. ET
None.
Mark Colombo (technical questions),
This is a synopsis of the Media Bureau's document, (
On September 3, 2025, the Bureau issued its September 2025 PN announcing a phased approach permitting Class A television, LPTV, and TV translator stations to resume filing major modification applications and allowing for the filing of new LPTV and TV translator station applications. In light of prospective applicants' inability to access the Commission's LMS during the recent partial lapse in government funding—and therefore prepare and file applications as previously scheduled—the Bureau is revising the dates for the filing opportunities previously announced in the September 2025 PN. Except for the revised dates announced below, all processes and procedures previously announced by the Bureau in the September 2025 PN pertaining to these filing opportunities remain the same. The freeze on all major change applications implemented by the Bureau on September 3, 2025 in the September 2025 PN, remains in effect until it is lifted pursuant to the revised schedule.
On December 11, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. ET a temporary application filing freeze will be implemented on all minor change applications (including displacement applications) for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations. Minor change applications filed once the freeze is imposed will be dismissed and need to be re-filed after the freeze is lifted.
On December 18, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. ET the major modification filing freeze will be lifted to permit Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations to file major change applications, on a first-come, first-served basis. Facility relocations are limited to no more than 121.0 kilometers (km). Major change applications submitted during this filing opportunity must meet the 121.0 km distance limit and otherwise comply with the Commission's part 73 and 74 rules. All other applications will be dismissed. The filing freeze on all minor change applications (including displacement applications) for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations will also be lifted.
On January 29, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. ET a temporary application filing freeze will be implemented for all major change applications for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations. Major change applications filed once the freeze is imposed will be dismissed and need to be re-filed after the freeze is lifted.
On March 12, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. ET a temporary application filing freeze will be implemented for all minor change applications (including displacement applications) for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations. Minor change applications filed once the freeze is imposed will be dismissed and need to be re-filed after the freeze is lifted.
On March 19, 2026 at 12:01 a.m. ET the major modification filing freeze will be lifted, without limit or restriction, to permit the filing of Class A, LPTV and TV translator major change applications and acceptance of applications for new LPTV and TV translators stations, on a first-come, first-served basis . The freeze on all minor change applications (including displacement applications) for Class A, LPTV, and TV translator stations will also be lifted.
This action is taken by the Acting Chief, Media Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by §§ 0.61 and 0.283 of the Commission's rules. 47 CFR 0.61 and 0.283.
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 February 3, 2026. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Benjami W. McDonough, Deputy Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than December 22, 2025.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Announcement of meeting.
Please take notice that the Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has scheduled a
This closed Commission meeting will occur on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern time.
Federal Trade Commission Building, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
April J. Tabor, Secretary of the Commission (phone: 202-326-3310), Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The Commission will be meeting in closed session to consider a non-adjudicative law enforcement matter. It has not scheduled any adjudicative items for discussion at this meeting.
On December 2, 2025, Commissioners Ferguson and Meador were recorded as voting in the affirmative to close this meeting for a non-adjudicative matter. By these votes, the Commission approved withholding from this meeting notice such information as is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c).
The Commission has determined that the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), (7)(A), and (10), and 552b(d)(4) and that the public interest does not require the meeting to be open to the public.
The General Counsel has certified that the meeting may properly be closed for the above agenda matter, citing the following relevant exemptive provisions: 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (4), (7)(A), and (10).
Commission employees and consultants and the stenographer or court reporter preparing any necessary verbatim transcript may attend the closed meeting to the extent permitted under Rule 4.15(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is seeking public comment on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for information collection requirements in its “Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule” (“Used Car Rule” or “Rule”), which applies to used vehicle dealers. That clearance expires on February 28, 2026.
Comments must be filed by February 3, 2026.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Elizabeth Scott, (312) 960-5609, Attorney, Midwest Region, Federal Trade Commission, 230 South Dearborn Street, Suite 3030, Chicago, IL 60604.
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, Federal agencies must obtain OMB approval for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” includes agency requests or requirements to submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. 44 U.S.C. 3502(3); 5 CFR 1320.3(c). As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing paperwork clearance for the Used Car Rule, 16 CFR part 455 (OMB Control Number 3084-0108).
The Used Car Rule promotes informed purchasing decisions by requiring that used car dealers display a form called a “Buyers Guide” on each used car offered for sale that, among other things, discloses information about warranty coverage, and other information to assist purchasers. The Rule has no recordkeeping or reporting requirements. The FTC seeks clearance for the Rule's disclosure requirements and the estimated PRA burden for those requirements.
As explained in more detail below, this total is based on estimates of the number of new car and used car dealers that sell used cars (47,057
The Rule requires that used car dealers display a one-page, double-sided Buyers Guide on each used car that they offer for sale. The component tasks associated with the Rule's required display of Buyers Guides include: (1) ordering and stocking Buyers Guides; (2) entering data on Buyers Guides; (3) displaying the Buyers Guides on vehicles; (4) revising Buyers Guides as necessary; and (5) complying with the Rule's requirements for sales conducted in Spanish.
1.
2.
Staff estimates that dealers sell approximately fifty percent of used cars “as is” and the other half under warranty. Therefore, staff estimates that the overall time required to enter data on Buyers Guides consists of 643,333 hours for used cars sold without a warranty (38,600,000 vehicles × 50% × 2 minutes per vehicle) and 965,000 hours for used cars sold under warranty (38,600,000 vehicles × 50% × 3 minutes per vehicle) for a cumulative estimated total of 1,608,333 hours.
3.
4.
5.
Calculations from United States Census Bureau surveys indicate that approximately 13.4 percent of the United States population speaks Spanish at home, and 8.4 percent of the population speak English less than very well.
6.
1.
2.
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the disclosure, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are necessary, including whether the resulting information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) how to improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the disclosure requirements; and (4) how to minimize the burden of providing the required information to consumers.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 3, 2026. Write “Used Car Rule, PRA Comment, FTC File No. [P137606]” on your comment. Your comment, including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Used Car Rule, PRA Comment, FTC File No. [P137606]” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before February 3, 2026. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled the 2025 National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey (NBCUS). The NBCUS gathers information from blood collection centers and acute healthcare facilities about blood collections and transfusions in the United States.
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 3, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2025-0882 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. 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;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
2025 National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey—New—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The 2025 National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey will request information from community-based blood collection centers, hospital-based blood collection centers, and transfusing hospitals. Respondents will be asked to provide information on blood and blood component collections and transfusions in the United States during 2025.
The NBCUS is an HHS/OASH funded project conducted biennially. Since 2013, in close collaboration with OASH, the NBCUS has been performed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which has the requisite technical and scientific resources to conduct the survey. The information collected has previously been used to support public health emergencies and inform public policy as well as inform the blood community about the current national blood supply and demand.
Respondents will include transfusing hospitals, hospital blood banks, and community-based blood banks. The response rates for the 2023 NBCUS were 96.2% (51/53) for community-based blood collection facilities, 90.3% (65/72) for hospital-based blood collection facilities, and 85.7% (2195/2561) for transfusing hospitals. Based on the previous iterations of the NBCUS, we expect an overall response rate of almost 85% across all types of facilities. Proposed changes include adjustments to answer options to make them more straightforward, removal of policy questions that were required of blood centers by the end of 2023, defining a blood shortage, and addition of a few new questions. New questions included information about bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections found in blood, length of time any blood shortage lasted, cold storage platelets, pathogen reduced cryoprecipitated units.
CDC will take over NBCUS data collection activities from HHS/OASH and requests OMB approval for an estimated 4,612 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on January 8, 2025 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR CSS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0469, Exp. 1/31/2026)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In 2022, the most recent year for which complete incidence information is available, more than 1.8 million were diagnosed with cancer. In 2023, approximately 610,000 people died of cancer. It is estimated that 17 million Americans are currently alive with a history of cancer. In the U.S., state/territory-based central cancer registries are the only method for systematically collecting and reporting population-based information about cancer incidence and outcomes such as survival. These data are used to measure the changing incidence and burden of each cancer; identify populations at increased or increasing risk; target preventive measures; and measure the success or failure of cancer control efforts in the U.S.
In 1992, Congress passed the Cancer Registries Amendment Act which established the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR). The NPCR provides support for state/territory-based cancer registries that collect, manage, and analyze data about cancer cases. The state/territory-based cancer registries report information to CDC through the National Program of Cancer Registries Cancer Surveillance System (NPCR CSS), (OMB Control No. 0920-0469).
The NPCR CSS allows CDC to collect, aggregate, evaluate, and disseminate cancer incidence data at the national level. The NPCR CSS is the primary source of information for the U.S. Cancer Statistics, which CDC has released annually since 2002. The latest U.S. Cancer Statistics data release in 2025 provided cancer statistics for 100% of the U.S. population from cancer registries in the United States. Prior to the publication of U.S. Cancer Statistics, cancer incidence data at the national level were available for only 14% of the population of the United States. The NPCR CSS also allows CDC to monitor cancer trends over time and describe geographic variation in cancer incidence throughout the country. NPCR also provides population-level data, such as incidence data by race, ethnicity, and other demographic and tumor characteristics and reporting data on rare cancers. These activities and analyses further support CDC's planning and evaluation efforts for state and national cancer control and prevention. In addition, datasets are available for secondary analysis.
Respondents are NPCR-supported central cancer registries (CCR) in 46 U.S. states, three territories, and the District of Columbia. Fifty CCRs submit data elements specified for the Standard NPCR CSS Report. Each CCR is asked to transmit two data files to CDC per year. The first NPCR CSS Standard file, submitted in January, is a preliminary report consisting of one year of data for the most recent year of available data. CDC evaluates the preliminary data for completeness and quality and provides a report back to the CCR. The second NPCR CSS Standard file, submitted in November, contains cumulative cancer incidence data from the first diagnosis year for which the cancer registry collected data with the assistance of NPCR funds (
In this Revision, Data definitions will be updated to reflect changes in national standards for cancer diagnosis and coding. No changes to the total estimated annualized burden hours or number of respondents are anticipated. The burden for each file transmission is estimated at two hours per response. Because cancer incidence data are already collected and aggregated at the state level, the additional burden of reporting the information to CDC is small. All information is transmitted to CDC electronically. Participation is required as a condition of the cooperative agreement with CDC.
CDC requests OMB approval for a total of 200 estimated annualized burden hours for the Standard NPCR CSS Report. Approval is requested for three years and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled STI Surveillance Network (SSuN). This information collection request is designed to strengthen national and local surveillance capacity for incident, new, and emerging sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by collecting information on patients at risk for STIs and providing more accurate estimates of the burden of disease, incidence of STIs, trends and impact of STIs at the population level.
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 3, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2025-0752 by either of the following methods:
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. 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;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
The STI Surveillance Network (SSuN), (OMB Control No. 0920-1072, Exp. 09/30/2026)—Revision—National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC is requesting a Revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR) titled The STI Surveillance Network (SSuN) for a period of three years. The Revision submitted for this ICR reflects changes to the title of the currently approved ICR, inclusion of Doxycycline Post-exposure Prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) data elements, deletion of multiple data elements no longer required, and an updated anonymous patient clinic survey.
The purpose of the STI Surveillance Network (SSuN) is to enhance national capacity for STI surveillance. While U.S. jurisdictions voluntarily report STI cases to the CDC via the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS), these reports often lack essential patient demographics and detailed information on risk behaviors, treatment, co-infections, preventive services, and sexual networks.
SSuN enhances CDC's STI surveillance efforts by:
1. Providing comprehensive behavioral and demographic data on STI cases not available from standard case-based surveillance.
2. Monitoring trends in STI and HIV co-infection, screening, prevention interventions, and healthcare access among patients with gonorrhea or other STIs.
3. Providing an additional sentinel monitoring system for emerging health threats like mpox.
These data help public health authorities better understand STI trends, assess disease burden inequalities, and monitor treatment outcomes and adverse health effects among STI patients.
Data will be transmitted through CDC's Secure Access Management System (SAMS) by the 15 state and local health jurisdictions (eight jurisdictions funded for both Strategy A and B, four Strategy A only jurisdictions, and three Strategy B only jurisdictions) funded to conduct SSuN activities.
The revised project, SSuN Cycle 5 (2024-2029), comprises 15 US local/state health departments. SSuN recipients are funded to conduct either or both of the two core SSuN Strategies: Sentinel surveillance in specialty sexual health clinics (Strategy A) and Enhanced population-based surveillance for persons diagnosed with gonorrhea and adult syphilis (Strategy B). In Strategy A, data is abstracted from existing electronic medical records at 16 participating STI clinics across 12 funded jurisdictions, utilizing information already collected during routine clinical care. This reflects a total of 384 burden hours. These data are sent to the 12 funded health jurisdictions, where they are formatted and deduplicated by data managers into standardized formats. Records are also matched with the jurisdiction's HIV surveillance registry, providing data on HIV co-infection not available from
The second core data collection activity, Strategy B, includes: (1) abstraction, recoding, and reporting of all gonorrhea and syphilis cases in the collaborating jurisdiction; (2) enhanced investigations of a random sample of diagnosed individuals; and (3) Health Department abstraction and registry matching for a complete census of reported cases. Enhanced investigations include clinical data abstraction from providers, registry matching, and brief demographic and behavioral interviews. SSuN recipients implement data collection protocols that provide uniformly coded data on demographics, risk factors, clinical care, laboratory data, and healthcare-seeking behaviors, which are compiled into a national dataset after quality assurance at the CDC. For Activity 1, data managers at participating health jurisdictions are responsible for transmitting validated datasets case datasets to CDC every other month, resulting in 2,640 burden hours. In 2023, there were 187,833 cases of gonorrhea diagnosed and reported across the 11 Strategy B SSuN jurisdictions. Approximately 7%, or 13,148 gonorrhea cases were randomly sampled for enhanced investigation. Over past cycles, approximately 50% of patients contacted for investigations responded; we estimate this will result in 1,083 burden hours for patients with gonorrhea.
The estimated burden hours for this revised collection decreases from the previously approved 7,510 to 7,237 due to decreases in the number of participating clinical sites and expected number of interviews conducted by funded jurisdictions, a result of declines in reported gonorrhea cases. CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 7,237 annual burden hours. There are no additional costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Fellowship Management System (FMS). The Fellowship Management System is an information technology platform through which CDC invites and manages applications to CDC fellowship programs from potential fellows and host sites. FMS also is used by some programs to monitor fellows' progress.
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 3, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2025-0915 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7118; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. 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;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Fellowship Management System (FMS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0765, Exp. 03/31/2026)—Revision—National Center for State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Infrastructure and Workforce (NCSTLTIW), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC's Division of Workforce Development (DWD) requests a three-year Revision to continue the use of the CDC Fellowship Management System (FMS) to collect data under the approved OMB Control No. 0920-0765. The mission of DWD is to provide leadership in public health training and education, and manage innovative, evidence-based programs to prepare the health workforce to meet public health challenges of the 21st century. Professionals in public health, epidemiology, medicine, economics, information science, veterinary medicine, nursing, public policy, and other related disciplines seek opportunities, through CDC fellowships, to broaden their knowledge and skills to improve the science and practice of public health. CDC fellows are assigned to state, tribal, local, and territorial public health agencies; federal government agencies, including CDC and Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) operational divisions; and, in some cases, non-governmental organizations.
CDC uses FMS to collect, process, and manage data from nonfederal applicants seeking training or public health support services through CDC fellowships. FMS is used by CDC to electronically receive fellowship applications, receive fellowship host site proposals, and, for some programs, track completion of fellowship activities. FMS is a flexible, modern, secure, and robust electronic information system able to meet the unique needs of each CDC fellowship. The system is critical to efficient data and program management for CDC and essential for reducing burden and providing a high-quality user experience for respondents. FMS is key to CDC's ability to protect the public's health by facilitating training opportunities that strengthen the public health workforce.
The proposed Revision has two purposes: (1) streamline the fellowship management functions housed within FMS; and (2) update the time and respondent burdens. For the first purpose, all functions related to tracking fellowship alumni, and many functions related to tracking fellows' activities during their programs, are proposed for removal from the system. These functions are currently unnecessary, and in some cases, duplicative of other data management and collection processes. Embedding them in the new FMS platform was deemed not cost effective at this time. No other changes to the content of the FMS Application or Host Site Modules, or to the number and kind of fellowship programs that use this system, are included in this Revision request. However, the final information collection forms submitted as part of the 30-day
For the second purpose related to burden changes, this Revision proposes a modest decrease in total time burden. This is the result of more comprehensive estimations for fellow and host site applicants' respondent and time burdens, along with the changes related to streamlining the functions housed in the system. CDC determined that a thorough review of application submission trends and a series of pilot tests to better estimate time burden were warranted for this revision. The estimated burden per response for this revision request reflects the empirical results of application trends and pilot testing. For the FMS Application and Host Site Modules, the burdens based on the pilot test and feedback led to significant decreases in annual respondents and significant increases in estimated time burden per respondent. The time burden increases are conservative and more realistic and do not represent an increase in actual number or kind of questions asked. Below the detailed changes in time and respondents are outlined.
Across these burden changes, compared to the currently approved burden of 13,477 hours annually, the new proposed burden is 12,655 hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Resources and Services Database of the CDC National Prevention Information Network (NPIN). The NPIN Resources and Services Database contains entries on approximately 13,100 organizations and is the most comprehensive listing of HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB resources and services available throughout the country, and is available to the American public.
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 3, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2025-0717 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. 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;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Resources and Services Database of the National Prevention Information Network (NPIN) (OMB Control No. 0920-0255, Exp. 3/31/2026)—Revision—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC requests approval of a Revision for the Resources and Services Database of the National Prevention Information Network (NPIN) information collection, currently approved under OMB Control No. 0920-0255. The National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and Tuberculosis Prevention (NCHHSTP) has the primary responsibility within the CDC and the U.S. Public Health Service for the prevention and control of HIV infection, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and tuberculosis (TB), as well as for community-based HIV prevention activities, syphilis, and TB elimination programs. NPIN serves as the U.S. reference, referral, and distribution service for information on HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STDs, and TB, supporting NCHHSTP's mission to link Americans to prevention, education, and care services. NPIN is a critical member of the network of government agencies, community organizations, businesses, health professionals, educators, and human services providers that educate the American public about the grave threat to public health posed by HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STDs, and TB, and provides services for persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
The NPIN Resources and Services Database contains entries on approximately 13,100 organizations and is the most comprehensive listing of HIV/AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB resources and services available throughout the country. The American public can also access the NPIN Resources and Services database through the NPIN website. More than 616,557 unique visitors and more than 1,045,160 page views are recorded annually.
To accomplish CDC's goal of continuing efforts to maintain an up-to-date, comprehensive database, NPIN plans each year to add up to 1,200 newly identified organizations and to verify those organizations currently described in the NPIN Resources and Services Database each year. Organizations will be given the option to complete and submit an electronic version of the questionnaire by visiting the NPIN website.
CDEC requests OMB approval for an estimated 1,449 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) Special Exposure Cohort Petitions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on July 28, 2025, to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA) Special Exposure Cohort Petitions. (OMB Control No. 0920-0639, Exp. 01/31/2026)—Extension—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
On October 30, 2000, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA), 42 U.S.C. 7384-7385 [1994, supp. 2001] was enacted. The Act established a compensation program to provide a lump sum payment of $150,000 and medical benefits as compensation to covered employees suffering from designated illnesses incurred as a result of their exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica while in the performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its vendors, contractors and subcontractors. This legislation also provided for payment of compensation for certain survivors of these covered employees. This program has been mandated to be in effect until Congress ends the funding.
Among other duties, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was directed to establish and implement procedures for considering petitions by classes of nuclear weapons workers to be added to the “Special Exposure Cohort” (the “Cohort”). In brief, EEOICPA authorizes HHS to designate such classes of employees for addition to the Cohort when NIOSH lacks sufficient information to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation doses of the employees, and if HHS also finds that the health of members of the class may have been endangered by the radiation dose the class potentially incurred. HHS must also obtain the advice of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the “Board”) in establishing such findings. On May 28, 2004, HHS issued a rule that established procedures for adding such classes to the Cohort (42 CFR part 83). The rule was amended on July 10, 2007.
The HHS rule authorizes a variety of respondents to submit petitions. Petitioners are required to provide the information specified in the rule to qualify their petitions for a complete evaluation by HHS and the Board. HHS has developed two forms to assist the petitioners in providing this required information efficiently and completely. Form A is a one-page form to be used by EEOICPA claimants for whom NIOSH has attempted to conduct dose reconstructions and has determined that available information is not sufficient to complete the dose reconstruction. Form B, accompanied by separate instructions, is intended for all other petitioners. Forms A and B can be submitted electronically as well as in hard copy. Respondent/petitioners should be aware that HHS is not requiring respondents to use the forms. Respondents can choose to submit petitions as letters or in other formats, but petitions must meet the informational requirements stated in the rule. NIOSH expects, however, that all petitioners for whom Form A would be appropriate will actually use the form, since NIOSH will provide it to them upon determining that their dose reconstruction cannot be completed and encourage them to submit the petition. NIOSH expects the large majority of petitioners for whom Form B would be appropriate will also use the form, since it provides a simple, organized format for addressing the informational requirements of a petition.
NIOSH will use the information obtained through the petition for the following purposes: (a) identify the petitioner(s), obtain their contact information, and establish that the petitioner(s) is qualified and intends to petition HHS; (b) establish an initial definition of the class of employees being proposed to be considered for addition to the Cohort; (c) determine whether there is justification to require HHS to evaluate whether or not to designate the proposed class as an addition to the Cohort (such an evaluation involves potentially extensive data collection, analysis, and related deliberations by NIOSH, the Board, and HHS); and (d) target an evaluation by HHS to examine relevant potential limitations of radiation monitoring and/or dosimetry-relevant records and to examine the potential for related radiation exposures that might have endangered the health of members of the class.
Finally, under the rule, petitioners may contest the proposed decision of the Secretary to add or deny adding classes of employees to the cohort by submitting evidence that the proposed decision relies on a record of either factual or procedural errors in the implementation of these procedures. NIOSH estimates that the average time to prepare and submit such a challenge is five hours. Because of the uniqueness of this submission, NIOSH is not providing a form. The submission will typically be in the form of a letter to the Secretary.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 43 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents unless a respondent/petitioner chooses to purchase the services of an expert in dose reconstruction, an option provided for under the rule.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled the National Syndromic Surveillance Program (NSSP). The NSSP promotes and advances development of a syndromic surveillance system for the timely exchange of syndromic data.
CDC must receive written comments on or before February 3, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2025-0849 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M.Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. 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;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
National Syndromic Surveillance Program (OMB Control No. 0920-0824, Exp. 3/31/2026)—Revision—Office of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology (OPHDST), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Syndromic surveillance uses syndromic data and statistical tools to detect, monitor, and characterize unusual activity for further public health investigation or response. Syndromic data include electronic extracts of electronic health records (EHRs) from patient encounter data from emergency departments, urgent care, ambulatory care, and inpatient healthcare settings, as well as laboratory data. Though these data are being captured for different purposes, they are monitored in near real-time as potential indicators of an event, a disease, or an outbreak of public health significance. On the national level, these data are used to improve nationwide situational awareness and enhance responsiveness to hazardous events and disease outbreaks to protect America's health, safety, and security.
The BioSense Program was created by congressional mandate as part of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 and was launched by the CDC in 2003. The BioSense Program has since been
CDC requests a three-year approval for a Revision for NSSP (OMB Control No. 0920-0824, Expiration Date 3/31/26). This Revision includes a request for approval to continue to receive onboarding data from state, local and territorial public health departments about healthcare facilities in their jurisdiction; registration data needed to allow users access to the BioSense Platform tools and services; and data sharing permissions so that state, local and territorial health departments can share data with other state, local and territorial health departments and CDC.
NSSP features the BioSense Platform and a collaborative Community of Practice. The BioSense Platform is a secure integrated electronic health information system that CDC provides, primarily for use by state, local and territorial public health departments. It includes standardized analytic tools and processes that enable users to rapidly collect, evaluate, share, and store syndromic surveillance data. NSSP promotes a Community of Practice in which participants collaborate to advance the science and practice of syndromic surveillance. Health departments use the BioSense Platform to receive healthcare data from facilities in their jurisdiction, conduct syndromic surveillance, and share the data with other jurisdictions and CDC.
The BioSense Platform provides the ability to analyze healthcare encounter data from EHRs, as well as laboratory data. All EHR and laboratory data reside in a cloud-enabled, web-based platform that has Authorization to Operate from CDC. The BioSense Platform sits in the secure, private Government Cloud which is simply used as a storage and processing mechanism, as opposed to on-site servers at CDC. This environment provides users with easily managed on-demand access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources such as networks, servers, software, tools, storage, and services, with limited need for additional IT support. Each site (
NSSP has three different types of information collection:
(1) Collection of onboarding data about healthcare facilities needed for state, local, and territorial public health departments to submit EHR data to the BioSense Platform;
(2) Collection of registration data needed to allow users access to the BioSense Platform tools and services; and
(3) Collection of data sharing permissions so that state and local health departments can share data with other state and local health departments and CDC.
Healthcare data shared with CDC can include: (1) EHR data received by state and local public health departments from facilities including hospital emergency departments and inpatient settings, urgent care, and ambulatory care; (2) mortality data from state and local vital statistics offices; laboratory tests ordered and their results from a national private sector laboratory company; and (3) EHR data from the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (DMATs).
Respondents include state, local, and territorial public health departments. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate. The only burden incurred by the health departments is for submitting onboarding data about facilities to CDC, submitting registration data about users to CDC, and setting up data sharing permissions with CDC. The estimated annual burden is 54 hours. This is significantly lower than the previous three-year period because we have achieved high levels of participation with all states, one territory, and nearly 84% of emergency departments having been onboarded.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by February 3, 2026.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
The information collections (ICs) for RNHCIs enable CMS to ensure these facilities comply with health and safety requirements under Title 42 Code of Regulations (CFR) Section 403, Subpart G. The specific ICs associated with burdens are as follows: IC-1: §§ 403.724(a)(2) & (a)(3)—Sign, Date & Notarize election statement; IC-2: § 403.724(a)(4)—Copy & Submit Election Statement to CMS; IC-3: § 403.730(a)—Provide Patients Notice of Rights; IC-4: § 403.736(a)—Provide Discharge Plan.
The previous iteration of this package included an estimated annual burden of 1,943 hours and an annual cost of $79,998. For this iteration, the total annual hourly burden is revised to 824 hours, with an annual burden cost of $38,113. There is no collection instrument.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for Public Comments.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, seeks Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a 3-year extension to the existing data collection for the ORR-6 Performance Report forms (OMB #0970-0036, expiration December 31, 2025) with minor changes to the instructions. The minor proposed changes remove parts of the instructions that are no longer relevant due to expired program funding and clarify existing instructions.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, ACF is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of additional draft and revised draft product-specific guidances. The draft guidances provide product-specific recommendations on, among other things, the design of bioequivalence (BE) studies to support abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). In the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by February 3, 2026 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Joseph Kotsybar, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 3623A, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-1062,
In the
As described in that guidance, FDA adopted this process to develop and disseminate product-specific guidances and provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to consider and comment on those guidances. Under that process, draft guidances are posted on FDA's website and announced periodically in the
FDA is announcing the availability of new draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
FDA is announcing the availability of revised draft product-specific guidances for industry for drug products containing the following active ingredients:
For a complete history of previously published
These draft guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). These draft guidances, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on, among other things, the product-specific design of BE studies to support ANDAs. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
As we develop final guidance on this topic, FDA will consider comments on costs or cost savings the guidance may generate, relevant for Executive Order 14192.
While these guidances contain no collection of information, they do refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 for investigational new drugs have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 for applications for FDA approval to market a new drug and in 21 CFR part 320 for bioavailability and bioequivalence requirements have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDDK.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the National Institute Of Diabetes And Digestive And Kidney Diseases, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute Environmental Health Sciences.
The meeting will be partially open to the public as indicated below, with
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The intramural programs and projects as well as the grant applications and/or contract proposals 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 and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Registration is not required to attend the open portion of this meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Persons listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
Any member of the public interested in presenting oral comments to the committee may notify the Contact Person listed on this notice at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Interested individuals and representatives of an organization may submit a letter of intent, a brief description of the organization represented and a short description of the oral presentation. Only one representative of an organization may be allowed to present oral comments and presentations may be limited to five minutes. Both printed and electronic copies are requested for the record. In addition, any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
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
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS, we) are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments, which NPS must receive on or before February 3, 2026.
Written comments and suggestions on the information collection requirements should be submitted by the date specified above in
Alexis Abernathy, National Register of Historic Places, at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
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.
(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.
The NPS is responsible for administering the National Register. Nominations for listing historic properties come from State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), from Federal Preservation Officers (FPO) for properties owned or controlled by the United States Government, and from Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO) for properties on Tribal lands. Private individuals and organizations, local governments, and Tribes often initiate this process and prepare the necessary documentation. Regulations at 36 CFR part 60 and 63 establish the criteria and guidelines for listing and for determining the eligibility of properties.
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
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Information Collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS, we) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 3, 2026.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer (ADIR-ICCO), National Park Service, 13461 Sunrise Valley Drive, (MS-263) Reston, VA 20191 (mail); or to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Bryan Faehner, Stewardship and Science Coordinator, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Directorate, National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Mail stop 2254, Washington, DC 20240 (mail);
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.
(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.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
November 26, 2025.
Kenneth Gatten III (202-708-1447), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective May 1, 2025, the Commission established a schedule for the conduct of the subject proceeding (90 FR 18701, May 1, 2025). Due to the lapse in appropriations and ensuing cessation of Commission operations, the Commission is revising its schedule as follows: the staff report will be placed in the nonpublic record on November 26, 2025; comments are due on December 2, 2025.
For further information concerning this proceeding, see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf Wahoo Fitness L.L.C. on December 3, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain bicycle trainers and components thereof. The complaint names as a respondent: JetBlack Cycling Pty Ltd. of Australia. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3862”) 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. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf Superior Communications Inc. on December 3, 2025. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of entitled certain screen protectors, screen protector systems, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents: Belkin International, Inc. of El Segundo, CA. and Belkin Inc. of El Segundo, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, members of the public, and interested government agencies are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3861”) 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. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
On November 25, 2025, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Second Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Second Consent Decree resolves Lowe's Home Centers, LLC's (“Lowe's”) violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. 2682(c) and 2686(b), and EPA's Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart E (“RRP Rule”), as well as Lowe's violations of a 2014 Consent Decree that resolved earlier violations of the RRP Rule. The proposed Second Consent Decree requires Lowe's to implement management systems that will improve its compliance (and its subcontractors' compliance) with the RRP Rule. Lowe's will also pay a $12.5 million penalty.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Second Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the proposed Second Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974,
Submit comments within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. The proposed system will take effect at the end of that period if no significant adverse comments are received.
Submit comments to Stayce Hoult, Privacy Act Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001, 757-864-3292, or
NASA Privacy Act Officer, Stayce Hoult, 256-544-7705, or
This system of records notice (SORN) is modified to incorporate Routine Use section with two additional routine uses (1) as mandated by Executive Order 14249, Protecting America's Bank Account Against Fraud, Waste and Abuse and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) M-25-32, “Preventing Improper Payments and Protecting Privacy Through Do Not Pay” and (2) providing for additional coverage and extra clarity. It also updates the Privacy Act Officer and contact information. Finally, it is also modified to make editorial changes.
Core Financial Management Records, NASA 10CFMR.
This system is categorized in accordance with OMB Circular A-11 as a Special Management Attention Major Information System. A security plan for this system has been established in accordance with OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources.
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812.
• Director, Agency Financial Systems Office, Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001.
• IS90/Associate Chief Information Officer, Applications Division, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812.
Any disclosures of information will be compatible with the purpose for which the Agency collected the information. The following are routine uses:
1. Furnish data to the Department of Treasury for financial reimbursement of individual expenses, such as travel, books, and other miscellaneous items.
2. Process payments and collections in which an individual is reimbursing the Agency.
3. Ongoing administration and maintenance of the records, which is performed by authorized NASA employees, both civil servants and contractors.
4. To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
In addition, information may be disclosed under the following NASA Standard Routine Uses:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to NASA employees.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Records in this system are maintained on electronic media.
Records are retrieved from the system by name or SSN (Tax ID).
Records are stored in the NASA Applications & Platform Services (APS) database and managed, retained and dispositioned in accordance with NASA Records Retention Schedules, Schedule 9, Items 11 and 16.
Electronic records are maintained on secure NASA servers and protected in accordance with all Federal standards and those established in NASA regulations at 14 CFR 1212.605. Additionally, server and data management environments employ infrastructure encryption technologies both in data transmission and at rest on servers. Electronic messages sent within and outside of the Agency that convey sensitive data are encrypted and transmitted by staff via pre-approved electronic encryption systems as required by NASA policy. Approved security plans are in place for information systems containing the records in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) and OMB Circular A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources. Only authorized personnel requiring information in the official discharge of their duties are authorized access to records through approved access or authentication methods. Access to electronic records is achieved only from workstations within the NASA Intranet or via a secure Virtual Private Network (VPN) connection that requires two-factor hardware token authentication or via employee PIV badge authentication from NASA-issued computers. Non-electronic records are secured in locked rooms or locked file cabinets.
In accordance with 14 CFR part 1212, Privacy Act—NASA Regulations, information may be obtained by contacting in person or in writing the system or subsystem manager listed above at the location where the records are created and/or maintained. Requests must contain the identifying data concerning the requester,
In accordance with 14 CFR part 1212, Privacy Act—NASA Regulations, information may be obtained by contacting in person or in writing the system or subsystem manager listed above at the location where the records are created and/or maintained. Requests must contain the identifying data concerning the requester,
In accordance with 14 CFR part 1212, Privacy Act—NASA Regulations, information may be obtained by contacting in person or in writing the system or subsystem manager listed above at the location where the records are created and/or maintained. Requests must contain the identifying data concerning the requester,
None.
• (15-115, 80 FR 246, pp. 79937-79947).
• (15-068, 80 FR 193, pp. 60410-60411).
• (11-091, 76 FR 200, pp. 64112-64114).
U.S. National Science Foundation.
Notice of Modified Systems of Records.
The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is amending the routine uses for two existing systems of records: NSF-13, Fellowship Payroll, and NSF-65, NSF Electronic Payment
The routine uses described in this notice will take effect on January 5, 2026, unless modified by a subsequent notice to incorporate comments received from the public. Submit comments on or before January 5, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number “NSF-2025-OGC-0003” by any one of the following methods:
•
•
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
NSF-13, Fellowship Payroll, contains records about fellows under certain NSF fellowship programs being paid directly by the government. NSF-65, NSF Electronic Payment File, contains records about individuals who receive electronic payment from NSF for goods or services. NSF is proposing to amend a routine use applicable to both of these systems to expressly provide for disclosure of information to the U.S. Department of Treasury's Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments of Federal funds. The Do Not Pay Initiative, 31 U.S.C. 3354, includes multiple resources to help the Federal Government, and certain State agencies, review payment and award eligibility for purposes of identifying and preventing improper payments. NSF is proposing these amendments to ensure compliance with Executive Order 14249 (Mar. 25, 2025), and in accordance with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-25-32 (Aug. 20, 2025). The updated routine uses are compatible with the purpose of the original collection of the information.
In NSF-13, NSF is modifying the Authorities section to remove references to guidance documents and to add the following to the list of authorities relevant to the system: the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019.
In NSF-65, NSF is modifying the list of categories of individuals covered by the system to include individual grantees or individuals who receive payments from NSF pursuant to a grant. This change clarifies that information about grantees needed to make payment is also contained in this system of records. NSF is also modifying the Authorities section of NSF-65 to include the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, and 31 U.S.C. 7701, regarding Taxpayer Identifying Numbers. NSF is also modifying the purpose statement in NSF-65 to expressly state that the purpose includes making appropriate electronic payments.
In addition, NSF is making non-substantive formatting changes to the systems of records to align with the requirements of OMB Circular A-108 and for consistency with other NSF SORNs.
Fellowship Payroll, NSF-13.
Unclassified.
National Science Foundation (NSF) headquarters, Virginia.
Director, Division of Financial Management, NSF headquarters, Virginia.
42 U.S.C. 1861; the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, and the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, Public Law 116-117.
This system enables the NSF to maintain data regarding the payment of fellowship payroll in a single location and ensures that appropriate payments are made.
Individuals participating in certain NSF Fellowship Programs being paid directly by the federal government (Fellows).
Copies of the fellowship award letter, acceptance form, starting certificates, and records of stipend payments.
Information is obtained from Fellows.
The following NSF standard routine uses apply:
1. Members of Congress. Information from a system may be disclosed to congressional offices in response to inquiries from the congressional offices made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
2. Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Compliance. Information from a system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or the Office of Management and Budget in order to obtain advice regarding NSF's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.
3. Counsel. Information from a system may be disclosed to NSF's legal representatives, including the Department of Justice and other outside counsel, where the agency is a party in litigation or has an interest in litigation and the information is relevant and necessary to such litigation, including when any of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation: (a) NSF, or any component thereof; (b) any NSF employee in his or her official capacity; (c) any NSF employee in his or her individual capacity, where the Department of Justice has agreed to, or is considering a request to, represent the employee; or (d) the United States, where NSF determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its components.
4. National Archives, General Services Administration. Information from a system may be disclosed to representatives of the General Services
5. Response to an Actual or Suspected Compromise or Breach of Personally Identifiable Information. NSF may disclose information from the system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) NSF suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) NSF has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals; NSF (including its information systems, programs, and operations); the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with NSF efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. Furthermore, NSF may disclose information from the system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when NSF determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in: (1) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
6. Courts. Information from a system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or other agencies in the event of a pending court or formal administrative proceeding, when the information is relevant and necessary to that proceeding, for the purpose of representing the government, or in the course of presenting evidence, or the information may be produced to parties or counsel involved in the proceeding in the course of pre-trial discovery.
7. Contractors. Information from a system may be disclosed to contractors, agents, experts, consultants, or others performing work on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity for NSF and who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities for NSF.
8. Audit. Information from a system may be disclosed to government agencies and other entities authorized to perform audits, including financial and other audits, of the agency and its activities.
9. Law Enforcement. Information from a system may be disclosed, where the information indicates a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law, including any rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, to appropriate Federal, State, or local agencies responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing such statute, rule, regulation, or order.
10. Disclosure When Requesting Information. Information from a system may be disclosed to Federal, State, or local agencies which maintain civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary, to obtain information relevant to an agency decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
11. To the news media and the public when: (1) A matter has become public knowledge, (2) the NSF Office of the Director determines that disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of NSF or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of NSF's officers, employees, or individuals covered by this system, or (3) the Office of the Director determines that there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, except to the extent that the Office of the Director determines in any of these situations that disclosure of specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In addition, information may be disclosed:
12. To the U.S. Department of the Treasury for the purpose of issuing the payment directly to the financial account of the payee.
13. To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally-recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally-funded program.
14. To financial institutions for the purpose of direct deposit.
Records are stored in paper and/or on electronic digital media.
Records are retrieved alphabetically by last name of Fellow, supplier number, or award number.
Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) approved records schedules.
Records are protected by administrative, technical, and physical safeguards administered by NSF.
Follow the Requesting Access to Records procedures found at 45 CFR part 613.
Follow the procedures found at 45 CFR part 613.
Follow the Requesting Access to Records procedures found at 45 CFR part 613.
None.
81 FR 37645 (June 10, 2016); 72 FR 46520 (Aug. 20, 2007); 62 FR 59895 (Nov. 5, 1997).
NSF Electronic Payment File, NSF-65.
Unclassified.
National Science Foundation (NSF) headquarters, Virginia.
Director, Division of Financial Management, NSF headquarters, Virginia.
The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134, and the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, Public Law 116-117; 31 U.S.C. 7701.
This system enables NSF to comply with the mandatory electronic payment
Employees of NSF, former employees, individual grantees or vendors, or other individuals who will or do receive electronic payment from NSF for goods and services or pursuant to grant funding.
Name, address, Social Security Number, and payee banking information.
Information is obtained from individuals or payees.
The following NSF standard routine uses apply:
1. Members of Congress. Information from a system may be disclosed to congressional offices in response to inquiries from the congressional offices made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
2. Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Compliance. Information from a system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or the Office of Management and Budget in order to obtain advice regarding NSF's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.
3. Counsel. Information from a system may be disclosed to NSF's legal representatives, including the Department of Justice and other outside counsel, where the agency is a party in litigation or has an interest in litigation and the information is relevant and necessary to such litigation, including when any of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation: (a) NSF, or any component thereof; (b) any NSF employee in his or her official capacity; (c) any NSF employee in his or her individual capacity, where the Department of Justice has agreed to, or is considering a request to, represent the employee; or (d) the United States, where NSF determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its components.
4. National Archives, General Services Administration. Information from a system may be disclosed to representatives of the General Services Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) during the course of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
5. Response to an Actual or Suspected Compromise or Breach of Personally Identifiable Information. NSF may disclose information from the system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) NSF suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) NSF has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals; NSF (including its information systems, programs, and operations); the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with NSF efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm. Furthermore, NSF may disclose information from the system to another Federal agency or Federal entity, when NSF determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in: (1) Responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
6. Courts. Information from a system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or other agencies in the event of a pending court or formal administrative proceeding, when the information is relevant and necessary to that proceeding, for the purpose of representing the government, or in the course of presenting evidence, or the information may be produced to parties or counsel involved in the proceeding in the course of pre-trial discovery.
7. Contractors. Information from a system may be disclosed to contractors, agents, experts, consultants, or others performing work on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity for NSF and who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities for NSF.
8. Audit. Information from a system may be disclosed to government agencies and other entities authorized to perform audits, including financial and other audits, of the agency and its activities.
9. Law Enforcement. Information from a system may be disclosed, where the information indicates a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law, including any rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, to appropriate Federal, State, or local agencies responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing such statute, rule, regulation, or order.
10. Disclosure When Requesting Information. Information from a system may be disclosed to Federal, State, or local agencies which maintain civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary, to obtain information relevant to an agency decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
11. To the news media and the public when: (1) A matter has become public knowledge, (2) the NSF Office of the Director determines that disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of NSF or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of NSF's officers, employees, or individuals covered by this system, or (3) the Office of the Director determines that there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, except to the extent that the Office of the Director determines in any of these situations that disclosure of specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In addition, information may be disclosed:
12. To the U.S. Department of the Treasury for the purpose of issuing the payment directly to the financial account of the payee, for reporting income paid in accordance with reporting requirements.
13. To the U.S. Department of the Treasure when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally-recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally-funded program.
14. To financial institutions for the purpose of direct deposit.
Records are stored on electronic digital media.
Records are retrieved by the payment recipient's assigned identification number in the system.
Records are maintained and disposed of in accordance with National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) approved records schedules.
Records are protected by administrative, technical, and physical safeguards administered by NSF.
Follow the Requesting Access to Records procedures found at 45 CFR part 613.
Follow the procedures found at 45 CFR part 613.
Follow the Requesting Access to Records procedures found at 45 CFR part 613.
None.
81 FR 37645 (June 10, 2016); 72 FR 46520 (Aug. 20, 2007); 63 FR 55901 (Oct. 19, 1998).
National Science Foundation.
Notice of a new system of records.
The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is establishing a new agency system of records in connection with its online Standard Application Process (SAP) for collecting and maintaining requests from researchers or other individuals applying for access to confidential data assets from participating federal agencies and units for evidence-building, statistical purposes.
This system notice is effective as of December 5, 2025. The routine uses described in this notice will take effect on January 5, 2026, unless modified by a subsequent notice to incorporate comments received from the public. Submit comments on or before January 5, 2026.
U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number “NSF-2025-OGC-0004” by any one of the following methods:
•
•
•
If you wish to submit general questions about this new system of records, please contact John Finamore, Chief Statistician for the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, NSF, at
NSF is publishing this new system of records notice (SORN) for the system entitled, “Standard Application Process (NSF-83),” to support the collection and maintenance of requests submitted by researchers and other individuals for access to confidential data assets held by certain federal agencies and units comprising the United States Federal Statistical System, as required by section 303(a) of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (the Act), 44 U.S.C. 3583.
The NSF National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), as one of the Federal Statistical System agencies, has been designated by OMB to carry out the PMO responsibilities for the SAP, which includes the establishment of this Privacy Act system of records to support the SAP. The SAP marks an important milestone for the federal statistical system. For the first time, primary statistical agencies and units have coordinated and agreed to use the same application (
Applications with the SAP must be for a statistical purpose and will be reviewed by the agency or agencies with ownership of the data. Applicants can use the SAP to apply for access to data from multiple agencies for the same project and track the application as it moves through the review process. The SAP collects information about individuals, as needed to assess or determine whether their requests for access to data can be granted, consistent with applicable privacy and confidentiality restrictions under Federal law, which will vary from agency to agency (for example, an agency may need to know citizenship status in cases where data access is legally limited to U.S. citizens). Participating agencies each have their own data security training which covers the handling of Personally Identifiable Information within their agencies. For
This SORN describes below what records about individuals are to be collected and maintained in the system (
The system does not duplicate any other existing NSF or Government-wide systems of records under the Privacy Act. In accordance with subsection (r) the Privacy Act, at 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-108, in addition to publication in the
Standard Application Process (SAP), NSF-83.
Unclassified.
U.S. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2415 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22314. System records may be stored by NSF's SAP Portal contractor location(s) and/or government-certified cloud storage.
Division Director, NCSES, NSF.
Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA), Public Law 107-347, t. V, as amended by the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, codified in relevant part at 44 U.S.C. 3583; NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861
The information contained within the SAP Portal is used by participating agencies for the purposes listed below:
1. To evaluate and make determinations on applications requesting access to confidential data assets held by participating agencies.
2. To collect information to conduct an initial evaluation of applicant suitability for access to confidential data assets.
3. To contact applicants for additional information related to their applications and suitability evaluations.
4. To fulfill the public reporting obligations set forth in 44 U.S.C. 3583(a)(6), as described further in Routine Use 15 below.
This system contains information about individuals who have requested access to confidential data assets held by federal agencies participating in the SAP and federal agency personnel involved in the application review process.
1. Application Data—Application information including, but not limited to, personal information and demographics, such as name, email address, phone number, institutional affiliations, citizenship status, U.S. residency status, security clearance status, and information about the purpose for which the applicant will use the data (project proposals).
2. Application Review Data—Evaluations from agency and other required reviewers, as listed in the SAP application; application determination (approve or reject).
3. Appeals Review Data—Evaluations from agency reviewers and an appeals determination.
Application information is obtained from the applicant. Records relating to application and appeal determinations are obtained from the reviewing agencies.
The following NSF standard routine uses apply:
1. Members of Congress. Information from a system may be disclosed to congressional offices in response to inquiries from the congressional offices made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
2. Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Compliance. Information from a system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or the Office of Management and Budget in order to obtain advice regarding NSF's obligations under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.
3. Counsel. Information from a system may be disclosed to NSF's legal representatives, including the Department of Justice and other outside counsel, where the agency is a party in litigation or has an interest in litigation and the information is relevant and necessary to such litigation, including when any of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation: (a) NSF, or any component thereof; (b) any NSF employee in his or her official capacity; (c) any NSF employee in his or her individual capacity, where the Department of Justice has agreed to, or is considering a request to, represent the employee; or (d) the United States, where NSF determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its components.
4. National Archives, General Services Administration. Information from a system may be disclosed to representatives of the General Services Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) during the course of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
5. Response to an Actual or Suspected Compromise or Breach of Personally Identifiable Information. NSF may disclose information from the system to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) NSF suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) NSF has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals; NSF (including its information systems, programs, and operations); the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with NSF efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or
6. Courts. Information from a system may be disclosed to the Department of Justice or other agencies in the event of a pending court or formal administrative proceeding, when the information is relevant and necessary to that proceeding, for the purpose of representing the government, or in the course of presenting evidence, or the information may be produced to parties or counsel involved in the proceeding in the course of pre-trial discovery.
7. Contractors. Information from a system may be disclosed to contractors, agents, experts, consultants, or others performing work on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, job, or other activity for NSF and who have a need to access the information in the performance of their duties or activities for NSF.
8. Audit. Information from a system may be disclosed to government agencies and other entities authorized to perform audits, including financial and other audits, of the agency and its activities.
9. Law Enforcement. Information from a system may be disclosed, where the information indicates a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law, including any rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, to appropriate Federal, State, or local agencies responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing such statute, rule, regulation, or order.
10. Disclosure When Requesting Information. Information from a system may be disclosed to Federal, State, or local agencies which maintain civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary, to obtain information relevant to an agency decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
11. To the news media and the public when: (1) A matter has become public knowledge, (2) the NSF Office of the Director determines that disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of NSF or is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of NSF's officers, employees, or individuals covered by this system, or (3) the Office of the Director determines that there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, except to the extent that the Office of the Director determines in any of these situations that disclosure of specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
In addition to the above standard routine uses, information may be routinely disclosed to:
12. Application reviewers. Records may be disclosed to designated reviewers from participating federal agencies for the evaluation of applicants and project proposals as part of individual agency application review processes. Records may also be disclosed to other federal agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants and project proposals as part of joint application review processes.
13. Confidential data program staff. Records may be disclosed to staff from participating federal agencies responsible for managing their confidential data program in order to administer the program and fulfill data security requirements for providing data access to approved applicants in accordance with their agency policies and procedures.
14. Participating agency contractors. Records may be disclosed to contractor staff both at NSF and other participating federal agencies responsible for maintaining and operating the SAP Portal and/or involved in conducting reviews.
15. Public reporting. Records may be disclosed to the extent necessary and appropriate to fulfill the public reporting requirements set forth at 44 U.S.C. 3583(a)(6), which include:
a. For each application, the statistical agencies or units involved, the requested data assets, the project proposed duration (where applicable), and the requested method of access, along with an application number.
b. For each approved application, the title, abstract, approval data, and proposed duration of the project, and the name of the principal investigator and other persons requesting access.
c. For each application, whether it was approved or rejected, and the rationale for the determination, except for portions, if any, exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552.
Records are stored in electronic digital media.
Records are retrieved by the applicant's name or by an application number.
This System of Records is governed by one or more general and/or NSF-specific records retention schedules approved by NARA. These schedules can be found at
Records are protected by administrative, technical, and physical safeguards administered by the SAP Portal contractor with oversight and management by NSF. The following auditing measures/controls and technical safeguards are in place to prevent exposure or misuse of information by authorized users (
a. The user interface application logs all actions (
b. The ingest application logs all user actions, along with their email address and user trace information.
c. These logs are read-only and are backed up to prevent tampering.
For access to any system records not routinely available to subject individuals through the SAP portal, such individuals must follow the procedures found at 45 CFR part 613.
Follow the procedures found at 45 CFR part 613.
See 45 CFR part 613.
None.
None.
Weeks of December 8, 15, 22 and 29, 2025 and January 5 and 12, 2026. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 8, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 15, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 22, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of December 29, 2025.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 5, 2026.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 12, 2026.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory 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.
None. See Section III for summary proceedings.
1.
2.
This Notice will be published in the
United States Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a modified system of records.
RRB-7, Applications for Unemployment Benefits and Placement Service under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act is used to store application data for railroad workers who apply for unemployment benefits and placement service.
This system of records notice (SORN) will become effective upon its publication, except for the routine uses that have been modified as part of this modification, which will be effective at the end of a public comment period of 30 days from the date of publication. Please submit written comments on or before January 5, 2026.
Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Mr. Chad Peek, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone 312-751-3389 or email at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-108, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has completed a review of its Privacy Act systems of records and proposes to modify a current RRB system of records titled RRB-7, Applications for Unemployment Benefits and Placement Service under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. The proposed modification to the system of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) adds the following categories of users to its Routine Uses section: Congressional representatives, contractors working for the federal government, law enforcement, other federal agencies and entities pertaining to breach notification, National Archives, and attorney representatives.
By Authority of the Board.
RRB-7, Applications for Unemployment Benefits and Placement Service under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
Unclassified.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Office of Programs—Director of Policy and Systems, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Section 12(l) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 362(l)).
The purpose of this system of records is to be used as an individual's UI file. The records contained in the file are pertinent to the individual's claim for unemployment benefits under the RUIA.
Individuals who have applied for unemployment benefits and employment service.
Name, address, account number, age, sex, education, employer, occupation, rate of pay, reason not working and last date worked, personal interview record, results of investigations, and electronic mail address.
Individual applicant or their authorized representative, present and former employers, state and federal departments of employment security, Social Security Administration, and labor organizations.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside RRB as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual if that individual would not be denied access to the information.
b. Disclosure may be made to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for RRB, to the extent necessary to accomplish an RRB function related to this system of records.
c. Disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating, enforcing, or prosecuting a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the disclosure would be to an agency engaged in functions related to the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, or if disclosure would be clearly in the
d. To another federal agency or federal entity, when the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
e. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board has determined that because of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
f. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration or other federal government agencies for records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
g. Disclosure of non-medical information in this system of records may be made to the attorney representing such individual upon receipt of a written letter or declaration stating the fact of representation, if that individual would not be denied access to the information. Medical information may be released to an attorney when such records are requested for the purpose of contesting a determination either administratively or judicially.
h. Selected information may be disclosed to prospective employers for potential job placement.
i. In the event the Board has determined to designate a person to be the representative payee of an incompetent beneficiary, disclosure of information concerning the benefit amount and other similar information may be made to the representative payee from the record of the individual.
j. Beneficiary identification and entitlement information may be released to third party contacts to determine if the inability of the beneficiary or potential beneficiary to understand or use benefits exists, and to determine the suitability of a proposed representative payee.
k. A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter, provided that disclosure would be clearly in the furtherance of the interest of the subject individual.
l. Beneficiary identification, entitlement, and benefit rate information may be released to the Treasury Department to control for reclamation and return of outstanding benefit payments, to issue benefit payments, reconcile reports of non-delivery and to ensure delivery of payments to the correct address or account of the beneficiary or representative payee.
m. Information may be referred to the U.S. Postal Service for investigation of alleged forgery or theft of railroad unemployment or sickness benefit checks.
n. Beneficiary identification, entitlement, and benefit rate information may be released to the Social Security Administration, Bureau of Supplemental Security Income, and to federal, state, and local welfare or public aid agencies to assist them in processing applications for benefits under their respective programs.
o. The last addresses and employer information may be disclosed to Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the Parent Locator Service.
p. Identifying information such as full name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, employee identification number, and date last worked, may be released to any last employer to verify entitlement for benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
q. Pursuant to a request from an employer covered by the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, information regarding the Board's payment of unemployment or sickness benefits, the methods by which such benefits are calculated, entitlement data and present address will be released to the requesting employer for the purposes of determining entitlement to and rates of private supplemental pension, sickness or unemployment benefits and to calculate estimated benefits due.
r. Information from the record of the individual concerning their benefit or anticipated benefit and concerning the method of calculating that benefit may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization of which the individual is a member, if the disclosure is made at the request of, and on behalf of, the individual.
s. Records may be disclosed in a court proceeding relating to any claims for benefits by the beneficiary under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act and may be disclosed during an administrative appeal to individuals who need the records to prosecute or decide the appeal or to individuals who are requested to provide information related to an issue involved in the appeal.
t. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
Paper records will be stored in file cabinets or at approved National Archives and Records Administration records centers. Electronic records are maintained on computer servers, computer hard drives, electronic databases, email, and FedRAMP approved cloud information systems.
Information from the system will be retrievable by Social Security number.
In routine cases, held for three years after the end of the benefit year in which it originated. In those with adverse activities (claims denied), held for five years after end of benefit year in which originated. At end of both periods, files are destroyed in accordance with NIST guidance.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974), individuals have the right to access and contest records maintained about them. To access or amend your records, submit a written request to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) with:
1. Your identifying information
2. A description of the record you wish to access
The RRB may request proof of identity. To correct a record, specify the change and provide justification. If denied, you can submit a statement of disagreement to be included with the record.
For additional instructions, see the Record Access Procedures and Notification Procedures sections.
Requests for information regarding an individual's record should be in writing addressed to the System Manager identified above, including the full name and Social Security number and claim number of the individual. Before information about any record is released, the System Manager may require the individual to provide proof of identity or require the requester to furnish an authorization from the individual to permit release of information.
None.
System of Records Notice revision from previous September 30, 2014
United States Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a modified system of records.
RRB-1, Social Security Benefit Vouchering System is used to administer, certify, and voucher Social Security benefit payments.
This system of records notice (SORN) will become effective upon its publication, except for the routine uses that have been modified as part of this modification, which will be effective at the end of a public comment period of 30 days from the date of publication. Please submit written comments on or before January 5, 2026.
Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Mr. Chad Peek, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone 312-751-3389 or email at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-108, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has completed a review of its Privacy Act systems of records and proposes to modify a current RRB system of records titled, RRB-1, Social Security Benefit Vouchering System. The proposed modification to the system of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) adds the following categories of users to its Routine Uses section: Congressional representatives, contractors working for the federal government, law enforcement, other federal agencies and entities pertaining to breach notification, National Archives, and attorney representatives.
By Authority of the Board.
RRB-1, Social Security Benefit Vouchering System.
Unclassified.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Office of Programs—Director of Policy and Systems, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Section 7(b)(2) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(2)).
Records in the Social Security Vouchering System are maintained to administer Title II of the Social Security Act with respect to payment of benefits to individuals with 10 or more years or at least five years after 1995 of railroad service and their families.
Applicants after December 31, 1974, for benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act who have completed ten years or at least five years after 1995 of creditable service in the railroad industry, the spouse and/or divorced spouse or survivor of such an individual.
Name, address, Social Security number, claim number, type and amount of benefit, suspension and termination information, and electronic mail address.
Individual applicant or his or her authorized representative, the Social Security Administration, other record systems maintained by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside RRB as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual if that individual would not be denied access to the information.
b. Disclosure may be made to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for RRB, to the extent necessary to accomplish an RRB function related to this system of records.
c. Disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating, enforcing, or prosecuting a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the disclosure would be to an agency engaged in functions related to the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, or if disclosure would be clearly in the furtherance of the interest of the subject individual.
d. To another federal agency or federal entity, when the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
e. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
f. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration or other federal government agencies for records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
g. Disclosure of non-medical information in this system of records may be made to the attorney representing such individuals upon receipt of a written letter or declaration stating the fact of representation, if that individual would not be denied access to the information. Medical information may be released to an attorney when such records are requested for the purpose of contesting a determination either administratively or judicially.
h. Benefit rate information may be disclosed to primary beneficiaries regarding secondary beneficiaries (or vice versa) when the addition of such beneficiary affects either the entitlement or benefit payment.
i. In the event the Board has determined to designate a person to be the representative payee of an incompetent beneficiary, disclosure of information concerning the benefit amount and other similar information may be made to the representative payee from the record of the individual.
j. Benefit rates, names and addresses may be released to the Department of Treasury to control for reclamation and return of outstanding benefit payments, to issue benefit payments, act on reports of non-receipt, to ensure delivery of payments to the correct address of the beneficiary or representative payee or to proper financial organization, and to investigate alleged forgery, theft or unlawful negotiation of railroad retirement for Social Security benefit checks or improper diversion of payments directed to a financial organization.
k. Beneficiary's name, address, check rate and date plus supporting evidence may be released to the U.S. Postal Service for investigation of alleged forgery or theft of railroad retirement or Social Security benefit checks.
l. Beneficiary identifying information, effective date, benefit rates, and months paid may be furnished to the Veterans Benefits Administration for the purpose of assisting that agency in determining eligibility for benefits or verifying continued entitlement to and the correct amount of benefits payable under programs which it administers.
m. Benefit rates and effective dates may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration, Bureau of Supplemental Security Income, and to federal, state and local welfare or public aid agencies to assist them in processing applications for benefits under their respective programs.
n. Last addresses information may be disclosed to the Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the Parent Locator Service.
o. Benefit rates, entitlement and other necessary information may be released to the Department of Labor in conjunction with payment of benefits under the Federal Coal Mine and Safety Act.
p. Pursuant to a request from an employer covered by the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act or from an organization under contract to an employer or employers, information regarding the Board's payment of benefits, the methods by which such benefits are calculated, entitlement data and present address may be released to the requesting employer or the organization under contract to the employer or employers for the purposes of determining entitlement to and the rates of private supplemental pension benefits and to calculate estimated benefits due.
q. Information from the record of the individual concerning their benefit or anticipated benefit and concerning the method of calculating that benefit may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization of which the individual is a member, if the disclosure is made at the request of, and on behalf of, the individual.
r. Records deemed relevant and necessary may be disclosed in a court proceeding relating to any claims for benefits by the beneficiary under the Railroad Retirement Act and may be disclosed during an administrative appeal to individuals who need the records to prosecute or decide the appeal or to individuals who are requested to provide information relative to an issue involved in the appeal.
s. For payments made after December 31, 1983, beneficiary identifying information, address, amounts of benefits paid and repaid, beneficiary
t. Beneficiary identifying information, entitlement data, and benefit rates relevant and necessary may be released to the Department of State and embassy and consular officials, to the American Institute in Taiwan, and to the Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Office, Philippines, to aid in ensuring the continued payment of beneficiaries living abroad.
u. Entitlement data and benefit rates relevant and necessary may be released to any court, state, agency, or interested party, or to the representative of such court, state agency, or interested party, in connection with contemplated or actual legal or administrative proceeding concerning domestic relations and support matters.
v. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
Paper records will be stored in file cabinets or at approved National Archives and Records Administration records centers. Electronic records are maintained on computer servers, computer hard drives, electronic databases, email, and FedRAMP approved cloud information systems.
Information from the system will be retrievable by Social Security number and name.
The claim folder is destroyed 25 years after the date it is received in the center. Accounts receivable listings and check writing operations daily activity listings are transferred to the Federal Records Center 1 year after date of issue and are destroyed 6 years and 3 months after receipt at the center. Other paper listings are destroyed 1 year after the date of issue. Changes of address source documents are destroyed after 1 year.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974), individuals have the right to access and contest records maintained about them. To access or amend your records, submit a written request to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) with:
1. Your identifying information.
2. A description of the record you wish to access.
The RRB may request proof of identity. To correct a record, specify the change and provide justification. If denied, you can submit a statement of disagreement to be included with the record.
For additional instructions, see the Record Access Procedures and Notification Procedures sections.
Requests for information regarding an individual's record should be in writing addressed to the System Manager identified above, including the full name, Social Security number and claim number of the individual. Before information about any record will be released, the System Manager may require the individual to provide proof of identity or require the requester to furnish an authorization from the individual to permit release of information.
None.
System of Records Notice revision from previous September 30, 2014
United States Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a Modified System of Records.
RRB-18, Miscellaneous Payments paid/posted to the General Ledger by the Financial Management Integrated System (FMIS) is used to process and track non-payroll payments made by RRB—primarily travel reimbursements and employee expenses.
This system of records notice (SORN) will become effective upon its publication, except the routine uses that have been modified as part of this modification, which will be effective at the end of a public comment period of 30 days from the date of publication. Please submit written comments on or before January 5, 2026.
Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Mr. Chad Peek, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone 312-751-3389 or email at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
By Authority of the Board.
RRB-18, Miscellaneous Payments paid/posted to the General Ledger by the Financial Management Integrated System (FMIS).
Unclassified.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Section 7(b)(6) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(6)); sec. 12(l) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 362(l)).
The system is used to pay the operating expenses of the agency to vendors for goods and services. Employees are reimbursed for travel expenses and miscellaneous expenses related to the performance of their jobs. Payments are made within federal limits and applicable guidelines.
Vendors who supply goods and services to the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board and employees of the agency who are reimbursed for travel and miscellaneous expenses.
Vendor invoice payments, travel vouchers, miscellaneous reimbursement vouchers, and electronic mail address.
Employees travel records, memoranda from bureau directors and office heads. Form G-409 Request for Reimbursement of Commuting Expenses and Form G-753 Application for Reimbursement of Medical and/or Eye Examination Fees. Vendor invoice records.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside RRB as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual if that individual would not be denied access to the information.
b. Disclosure may be made to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for RRB, to the extent necessary to accomplish an RRB function related to this system of records.
c. Disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating, enforcing, or prosecuting a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the disclosure would be to an agency engaged in functions related to the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, or if disclosure would be clearly in the furtherance of the interest of the subject individual.
d. To another federal agency or federal entity, when the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
e. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
f. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration or other federal government agencies for records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
g. Disclosure of non-medical information in this system of records may be made to the attorney representing such individual upon receipt of a written letter or declaration stating the fact of representation, if that individual would not be denied access to the information. Medical information may be released to an attorney when such records are requested for the purpose of contesting a determination either administratively or judicially.
h. Identifying information and check amount may be released to the Treasury Department to issue checks.
i. Identifying information, check number, date and amount may be released to the U.S. Postal Service for investigation of alleged forgery or theft of reimbursement checks.
j. To the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian
Paper records will be stored in file cabinets or at approved National Archives and Records Administration records centers. Electronic records are maintained on computer servers, computer hard drives, electronic databases, email, and FedRAMP approved cloud information systems.
Information from the system will be retrievable by name.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974), individuals have the right to access and contest records maintained about them. To access or amend your records, submit a written request to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) with:
1. Your identifying information
2. A description of the record you wish to access
The RRB may request proof of identity. To correct a record, specify the change and provide justification. If denied, you can submit a statement of disagreement to be included with the record.
For additional instructions, see the Record Access Procedures and Notification Procedures sections.
Requests for information regarding an individual's record should be addressed in writing to the System Manager identified above, including the full name, Social Security number and claim number of the individual. Before information about any record will be released, the System Manager may require the individual to provide proof of identity or require the requester to furnish an authorization from the individual to permit release of information.
None.
System of Records Notice revision from previous September 30, 2014
United States Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a modified system of records.
RRB-6, Unemployment Insurance Record File is used to administer, manage, and verify unemployment and sickness benefits.
This system of records notice (SORN) will become effective upon its publication, except for the routine uses that have been modified as part of this modification, which will be effective at the end of a public comment period of 30 days from the date of publication. Please submit written comments on or before January 5, 2026.
Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Mr. Chad Peek, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone 312-751-3389 or email at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-108, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has completed a review of its Privacy Act systems of records and proposes to modify a current RRB system of records titled RRB-6, Unemployment Insurance Record File. The proposed modification to the system of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) adds the following categories of users to its Routine Uses section: Congressional representatives, contractors working for the federal government, law enforcement, other federal agencies and entities pertaining to breach notification, National Archives, and attorney representatives.
By Authority of the Board.
RRB-6, Unemployment Insurance Record File.
Unclassified.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Office of Programs—Director of Policy and Systems, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Section 12(l) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 362(l)).
This system of records is used for filing general information about applicants for RUIA benefits. If an applicant files for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, some of the information in this file will be also placed in the claimants UI file.
Claimants for unemployment benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) and their respective employers.
Development file containing letters from claimants, report of Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act fraud investigations and supporting evidence, erroneous payment investigations, protest and appeal requests and responses and electronic mail address.
Individual claimant or their authorized representative, employers, State employment and unemployment claims records, federal, and Social Security Administration employer compensation reports.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside RRB as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
a. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual if that individual would not be denied access to the information.
b. Disclosure may be made to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for RRB, to the extent necessary to accomplish an RRB function related to this system of records.
c. Disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating, enforcing, or prosecuting a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the disclosure would be to an agency engaged in functions related to the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, or if disclosure would be clearly in the furtherance of the interest of the subject individual.
d. To another federal agency or federal entity, when the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
e. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
f. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration or other federal government agencies for records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
g. Disclosure of non-medical information in this system of records may be made to the attorney representing such individuals upon receipt of a written letter or declaration stating the fact of representation, if that individual would not be denied access to the information. Medical information may be released to an attorney when such records are requested for the purpose of contesting a determination either administratively or judicially.
h. Beneficiary identifying information may be released to third party contacts to determine if the inability of the beneficiary or potential beneficiary to understand or use benefits exists, and to determine the suitability of a proposed representative payee.
i. Benefit rate, name and address may be released to the Treasury Department to control for reclamation and return of outstanding benefit checks, to issue benefit checks, reconcile reports of non-delivery, and to ensure delivery of payments to the correct address or account of the beneficiary or representative payee.
j. Beneficiary's name, address, payment rate, date and number, plus supporting evidence may be released to the U.S. Postal Service for investigation of alleged forgery or theft of railroad unemployment or sickness benefit payments.
k. Identifying information such as full name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, employee identification number, and date last worked, may be released to any last employer to verify entitlement for benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
l. Pursuant to a request from an employer covered by the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, information regarding the Board's payment of unemployment or sickness benefits, the methods by which such benefits are calculated, entitlement data and present address may be released to the requesting employer for the purposes of determining entitlement to and rates of private supplemental pension, sickness or unemployment benefits and to calculate estimated benefits due.
m. Benefit rates and effective dates may be released to the Social Security Administration, Bureau of Supplemental Security Income, and to federal, state and local welfare or public aid agencies to assist them in processing applications for benefits under their respective programs.
n. In the event the Board has determined to designate a person to be the representative payee of an incompetent beneficiary, disclosure of information concerning the benefit amount and other similar information may be made to the representative payee from the individual record.
o. The last addresses and employer information may be disclosed to the Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the Parent Locator Service.
p. Information from the record of the individual concerning their benefit or anticipated benefit and concerning the method of calculating that benefit may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization of which the individual is a member, if the disclosure is made at the request of, and on behalf of, the individual.
q. Records deemed relevant and necessary may be disclosed in a court proceeding relating to any claims for benefits by the beneficiary under the
r. Beneficiary identifying and claim period information may be furnished to states for the purpose of notifying the RRB whether claimants were paid state unemployment or sickness benefits and whether wages were reported for them.
s. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
Paper records will be stored in file cabinets or at approved National Archives and Records Administration records centers. Electronic records are maintained on computer servers, computer hard drives, electronic databases, email, and FedRAMP approved cloud information systems.
Information from the system will be retrievable by Social Security number and name.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974), individuals have the right to access and contest records maintained about them. To access or amend your records, submit a written request to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) with:
1. Your identifying information.
2. A description of the record you wish to access.The RRB may request proof of identity. To correct a record, specify the change and provide justification. If denied, you can submit a statement of disagreement to be included with the record.
For additional instructions, see the Record Access Procedures and Notification Procedures sections.
Requests for information regarding an individual's record should be in writing addressed to the System Manager identified above, including the full name, Social Security number and claim number of the individual. Before information about any record is released, the System Manager may require the individual to provide proof of identity or require the requester to furnish an authorization from the individual to permit release of information.
None.
System of Records Notice revision from previous September 30, 2014
United States Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a modified system of records.
RRB-22, Railroad Retirement, Survivor, and Pensioner Benefit System is used to manage records related to railroad retirement, survivor, and pensioner benefits.
This system of records notice (SORN) will become effective upon its publication, except for the routine uses that have been modified as part of this modification, which will be effective at the end of a public comment period of 30 days from the date of publication. Please submit written comments on or before January 5, 2026.
Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Mr. Chad Peek, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone 312-751-3389 or email at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-108, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has completed a review of its Privacy Act systems of records and proposes to modify a current RRB system of records titled RRB-22, Railroad Retirement, Survivor, and Pensioner Benefit System. The proposed modification to the system of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) adds the following categories of users to its Routine Uses section: Congressional representatives, contractors working for the federal government, law enforcement, other federal agencies and entities pertaining to breach notification, National Archives, and attorney representatives.
By Authority of the Board.
RRB-22, Railroad Retirement, Survivor, and Pensioner Benefit System.
Unclassified.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Office of Programs—Director of Policy and Systems, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Section 7(b)(6) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (U.S.C. 231f(b)(6)).
Records in this system of records are maintained to administer the benefit provisions of the Railroad Retirement Act, sections of the Internal Revenue Code related to the taxation of railroad retirement benefits, and Title XVIII of the Social Security Act as it pertains to Medicare coverage for railroad retirement beneficiaries.
Applicants for retirement and survivor benefits, (spouses, divorced spouses, widows, surviving divorced spouses, children, students, parents, grandchildren), and individuals who filed for lump-sum death benefits and/or residual payments.
Information pertaining to the payment or denial of an individual's claim for benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act: Name, address, Social Security number, claim number, proofs of age, marriage, relationship, death, military service, creditable earnings and service months (including military service), entitlement to benefits under the Social Security Act, programs administered by the Veterans Benefits Administration, or other benefit systems, rates, effective dates, medical reports, correspondence and telephone inquiries to and about the beneficiary, suspension and termination dates, health insurance effective date, option, premium rate and deduction, direct deposit data, employer pension information, citizenship status and legal residency status (for annuitants living outside the United States), electronic mail address, and tax withholding information (instructions of annuitants regarding number of tax withholding exemptions claimed and additional amounts to be withheld, as well as actual amounts withheld for tax purposes).
Individual applicants or their representatives, railroad employers, other employers, physicians, labor organizations, federal, state and local government agencies, attorneys, funeral homes, congressmen, schools, foreign government.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside RRB as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual if that individual would not be denied access to the information.
Disclosure may be made to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for RRB, to the extent necessary to accomplish an RRB function related to this system of records.
Disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating, enforcing, or prosecuting a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the disclosure would be to an agency engaged in functions related to the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, or if disclosure would be clearly in the furtherance of the interest of the subject individual.
To another federal agency or federal entity, when the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration or other federal government agencies for records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Disclosure of non-medical information in this system of records may be made to the attorney representing such individuals upon receipt of a written letter or declaration stating the fact of representation, if that individual would not be denied access to the information. Medical information may be released to an attorney when such records are requested for the purpose of contesting a determination either administratively or judicially.
Beneficiary identifying information may be disclosed to third party contacts to determine if the inability of the beneficiary or potential beneficiary to understand or use benefits exists, and to determine the suitability of a proposed representative payee.
In the event the Board has decided to designate a person to be the representative payee of an incompetent beneficiary, disclosure of information concerning the benefit amount and other similar information may be made to the representative payee from the individual record.
Entitlement and benefit rates relevant and necessary may be released to primary beneficiaries regarding secondary beneficiaries (or vice versa) when the addition of such beneficiary affects either entitlement or benefit payment.
Identifying information such as full name, address, date of birth, Social Security number, employee identification number, and date last worked, may be released to any last employer to verify entitlement for
Beneficiary identifying information, address, check rates, number and date may be released to the Department of the Treasury to control for reclamation and return of outstanding benefit payments, to issue benefit payments, act on report of non-receipt, to ensure delivery of payments to the correct address of the beneficiary or representative payee or to the proper financial organization, and to investigate alleged forgery, theft or unlawful negotiation of railroad retirement benefit checks or improper diversion of payments directed to a financial organization.
Beneficiary identifying information, address, check rate, date, number and other supporting evidence may be released to the U.S. Postal Service for investigation of alleged forgery or theft of railroad retirement or Social Security benefit checks.
Beneficiary identifying information, entitlement data, medical evidence and related evaluatory data and benefit rate may be released to the Social Security Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to correlate actions with the administration of Title II and Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Beneficiary identifying information, including Social Security number, and supplemental annuity amounts may be released to the Internal Revenue Service, for tax purposes.
Beneficiary identifying information, entitlement, benefit rates, medical evidence and related evaluatory data, and months paid may be furnished to the Veterans Benefits Administration for the purpose of assisting that agency in determining eligibility for benefits or verifying continued entitlement to and the correct amount of benefits payable under programs which it administers.
Beneficiary identifying information, entitlement data and benefit rates relevant and necessary may be released to the Department of State and embassy and consular officials, the American Institute in Taiwan, and to the Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Office, Philippines, to aid in the development of applications, supporting evidence, and the continued eligibility of beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries living abroad.
Beneficiary identifying information, entitlement, benefit rates and months paid may be released to the Social Security Administration (Bureau of Supplemental Security Income), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to federal, state and local welfare or public aid agencies to assist them in processing applications for benefits under their respective programs.
The last addresses and employer information may be released to the Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the Parent Locator Service.
Beneficiary identifying information, entitlement, rate and other pertinent data may be released to the Department of Labor in conjunction with payment of benefits under the Federal Coal Mine and Safety Act.
Medical evidence may be released to Board-appointed medical examiners to carry out their functions.
Information obtained in the administration of Title XVIII (Medicare) which may indicate unethical or unprofessional conduct of a physician or practitioner providing services to beneficiaries may be released to Professional Standards Review Organizations and State Licensing Boards.
Information necessary to study the relationship between benefits paid by the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board and civil service annuities may be released to the Office of Personnel Management.
Pursuant to a request from an employer covered by the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, or from an organization under contract to an employer or employers, information regarding the Board's payment of retirement benefits, the methods by which such benefits are calculated, entitlement data and present address may be released to the requesting employer or the organization under contract to an employer or employers for the purposes of determining entitlement to and rates of private supplemental pension, sickness or unemployment benefits and to calculate estimated benefits due.
Information from the record of the individual concerning their benefit or anticipated benefit and concerning the method of calculating that benefit may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization of which the individual is a member, if the disclosure is made at the request of, and on behalf of, the individual.
Records deemed relevant and necessary may be disclosed in a court proceeding relating to any claims for benefits by the beneficiary under the Railroad Retirement Act and may be disclosed during an administrative appeal to individuals who need the records to prosecute or decide the appeal or to individuals who are requested to provide information relative to an issue involved in the appeal.
The amount of a residual lump-sum payment and the identity of the payee may be released to the Internal Revenue Service for tax audit purposes.
The amount of any death benefit or annuities accrued but unpaid at death and the identity of such payee may be released to the appropriate state taxing authorities for tax assessment and auditing purposes.
Beneficiary identifying information, including but not limited to name, address, Social Security number, payroll number and occupation, the fact of entitlement and benefit rate may be released to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to enable that agency to determine and pay supplemental pensions to qualified railroad retirees.
Medical records may be disclosed to vocational consultants in administrative proceedings.
Date employee filed application for annuity to the last employer under the Railroad Retirement Act for use in determining entitlement to continued major medical benefits under insurance programs negotiated with labor organizations.
Information regarding the determination and recovery of an overpayment made to an individual may be released to any other individual from whom any portion of the overpayment is being recovered.
Certain identifying information about annuitants, such as name, Social Security number, claim number, and date of birth, as well as address, year and month last worked for a railroad, last railroad occupation, application filing date, annuity beginning date, identity of last railroad employer, total months of railroad service, sex, disability onset date, disability freeze onset date, and cause and effective date of annuity termination may be furnished to insurance companies for administering group life and medical insurance plans negotiated between certain participating railroad employers and railway labor organizations.
For payments made after December 31, 1983, beneficiary identifying information, address, amounts of benefits paid and repaid, beneficiary withholding instructions, and amounts withheld by the RRB for tax purposes may be furnished to the Internal Revenue Service for tax administration purposes.
Last address and beneficiary identifying information may be furnished to railroad employers for the purpose of mailing railroad passes to retired employees and their families.
Entitlement data and benefits rates may be released to any court, state agency, or interested party, or to the representative of such court, state agency, or interested party, in connection with contemplated or actual legal or administrative proceedings concerning domestic relations and support matters.
Identifying information about annuitants and applicants may be furnished to agencies and/or companies from which such annuitants and applicants are receiving or may receive worker's compensation, public pension, or public disability benefits to verify the amount by which Railroad Retirement Act benefits must be reduced, where applicable.
Disability annuitant identifying information may be furnished to state employment agencies for the purpose of determining whether such annuitants were employed during times they receive disability benefits.
Identifying information about Medicare-entitled beneficiaries who may be working may be disclosed to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for the purposes of determining whether Medicare should be the secondary payer of benefits for such individuals.
Disclosure of information in claim folders is authorized for bonafide researchers doing epidemiological/mortality studies approved by the RRB who agree to record only information pertaining to deceased beneficiaries.
Identifying information for beneficiaries, such as name, SSN, and date of birth, may be furnished to the Social Security Administration and to any State for the purpose of enabling the Social Security Administration or State through a computer or manual matching program to assist the RRB in identifying female beneficiaries who remarried but who may not have notified the RRB of their remarriage.
An employee's date last worked, annuity filing date, annuity beginning date, and the month and year of death may be furnished to AMTRAK when such information is needed by AMTRAK to decide whether to award a travel pass to either the employee or the employee's widow.
The employee's Social Security number may be disclosed to an individual eligible for railroad retirement benefits on the employee's earnings record when the employee's Social Security number would be contained in the railroad retirement claim number. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
Paper records will be stored in file cabinets or at approved National Archives and Records Administration records centers. Electronic records are maintained on computer servers, computer hard drives, electronic databases, email, and FedRAMP approved cloud information systems.
Information from the system will be retrievable by Social Security number, claim number and name.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974), individuals have the right to access and contest records maintained about them. To access or amend your records, submit a written request to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) with:
1. Your identifying information
2. A description of the record you wish to access
The RRB may request proof of identity. To correct a record, specify the change and provide justification. If denied, you can submit a statement of disagreement to be included with the record.
For additional instructions, see the Record Access Procedures and Notification Procedures sections.
Requests for information regarding an individual's record should be in writing addressed to the System Manager identified above, including the full name, Social Security number and claim number of the individual. Before information about any record will be released, the System Manager may require the individual to provide proof of identity or require the requester to furnish an authorization from the individual to permit release of information.
None.
System of Records Notice revision from previous May 15, 2015
United States Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a modified system of records.
RRB-42, Overpayment Accounts is used to maintain records related to overpayments.
This system of records notice (SORN) will become effective upon its publication, except for the routine uses that have been modified as part of this modification, which will be effective at the end of a public comment period of
Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Mr. Chad Peek, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone 312-751-3389 or email at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-108, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has completed a review of its Privacy Act systems of records and proposes to modify a current RRB system of records titled RRB-42, Overpayment Accounts. The proposed modification to the system of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) adds the following categories of users to its Routine Uses section: Congressional representatives, contractors working for the federal government, law enforcement, other federal agencies and entities pertaining to breach notification, National Archives, and attorney representatives.
By Authority of the Board.
RRB-42, Overpayment Accounts.
Unclassified.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Section 7(b)(6) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(6)); Section 12(l) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 362(l)); Public Law 97-92 (Joint Resolution); Public Law 97-365 (Debt Collection Act of 1982); Federal Claims Collection Act (31 U.S.C. 3701 et. seq.); Public Law 104-134 (Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996); Public Law 111-204 (Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act); Public Law 113-101 (The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act); 5 U.S.C. 5514, and 20 CFR 361.
The records in this system are created, monitored and maintained to enable the Railroad Retirement Board to fulfill regulatory and statutory fiduciary responsibilities to its trust funds, the individuals to whom it pays salaries or benefits and the federal government as directed under the Railroad Retirement Act, Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, Debt Collection Act of 1982, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and the Digital and Transparency Act of 2014. These responsibilities include accurate and timely determination of debt; sending timely, accurate notice of the debt with correct repayment and rights options; taking correct and timely action when rights/appeals have been requested; assessing appropriate charges; using all appropriate collection tools, releasing required, accurate reminder notices; and correctly and timely entering all recovery, write-off, and waiver offsets to debts.
Individuals or businesses who were overpaid in the salaries or benefits they received from the Railroad Retirement Board. Benefits overpaid are further delineated in the following two categories:
—Individuals or businesses overpaid the following types of annuities or benefits payable under the Railroad Retirement Act: retirement, disability, supplemental, and survivor.
—Individuals overpaid unemployment or sickness insurance benefits payable under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
Name, address, Social Security number, claim number, electronic mail address, whether salary or benefit and if benefit type of benefit previously paid, amount of overpayment, debt identification number, cause of overpayment, source of overpayment, original debt amount, current balance of debt, installment repayment history, recurring accounts receivable administrative offset history, waiver, reconsideration and debt appeal status, general billing, dunning, referral, collection, and payment history, amount of interest and penalties assessed and collected, name of federal agency to which account is referred for collection, date of such referral and amount collected.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside RRB as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follow:
a. Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual if that individual would not be denied access to the information.
b. Disclosure may be made to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for RRB, to the extent necessary to accomplish an RRB function related to this system of records.
c. Disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating, enforcing, or prosecuting a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the disclosure would be to an agency engaged in functions related to the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act,
d. To another federal agency or federal entity, when the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
e. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
f. Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration or other federal government agencies for records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
g. Disclosure of non-medical information in this system of records may be made to the attorney representing such individuals upon receipt of a written letter or declaration stating the fact of representation, if that individual would not be denied access to the information. Medical information may be released to an attorney when such records are requested for the purpose of contesting a determination either administratively or judicially.
h. Benefit overpayment amounts, history of collection actions and efforts, and personally identifiable information (name, address, Social Security number, railroad retirement claim number, etc.) may be disclosed to agencies of the federal government for the purpose of recovering delinquent debts.
i. Federal salary overpayment amounts, history of collection actions and efforts, and personally identifiable information (name, address, Social Security number, etc.) may be disclosed to agencies of the federal government for the purpose of recovering delinquent debts.
j. Personally identifiable information pertaining to delinquent benefit and federal salary overpayments may be disclosed to the Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service (FMS), for the purpose of collecting through cross-servicing and offset of federal payments. FMS may disclose this personally identifiable information to other agencies to conduct computer matching programs to identify and locate delinquent debtors who are receiving federal salaries or benefit payments. FMS may refer these delinquent accounts and disclose pertinent information to other federal agencies and private collection agencies for the purpose of collection.
k. Personally identifiable information may be released to any federal agency for the purpose of enabling such agency to collect debts on the RRB's behalf.
l. Information from the record of the individual concerning their benefit or anticipated benefit and concerning the method of calculating that benefit may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization of which the individual is a member, if the disclosure is made at the request of, and on behalf of, the individual.
m. Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
Paper records will be stored in file cabinets or at approved National Archives and Records Administration records centers. Electronic records are maintained on computer servers, computer hard drives, electronic databases, email, and FedRAMP approved cloud information systems.
Salary overpayments retrievable by Social Security number and name. Benefit overpayments retrievable by Social Security number, Railroad Retirement claim number, name, and debt identification number.
Salary overpayment records are maintained at the General Services Administration under safeguards equal to those of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (see GSA Systems of Records Notice: GSA-PPFM-9).
Benefit overpayment records:
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974), individuals have the right to access and contest records maintained about them. To access or amend your records, submit a written request to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) with:
1. Your identifying information.
2. A description of the record you wish to access.
The RRB may request proof of identity. To correct a record, specify the change and provide justification. If denied, you can submit a statement of disagreement to be included with the record.
For additional instructions, see the Record Access Procedures and Notification Procedures sections.
Requests for information regarding an individual's salary overpayment record should be in writing addressed to the Director, General Services Administration National Payroll Center at the address above. Requests for information regarding an individual's or business' benefit overpayment record should be in writing addressed to the System Manager identified above, including the full name, claim number, and Social Security number of the individual. Before information about any record is released, the System Manager may require the individual to provide proof of identity or require the requester to furnish an authorization from the individual to permit release of information.
None.
System of Records Notice revision from previous September 30, 2014
United States Railroad Retirement Board (RRB).
Notice of a modified system of records.
RRB-21, Railroad Unemployment and Sickness Insurance Benefit System is used to collect, store, and manage information for railroad workers' unemployment claims.
This system of records notice (SORN) will become effective upon its publication, except the routine uses that have been modified as part of this modification, which will be effective at the end of a public comment period of 30 days from the date of publication. Please submit written comments on or before January 5, 2026.
Interested parties may comment on this publication by writing to Ms. Stephanie Hillyard, Secretary to the Board, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Mr. Chad Peek, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone 312-751-3389 or email at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-108, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has completed a review of its Privacy Act systems of records and proposes to modify a current RRB system of records titled RRB-21, Railroad Unemployment and Sickness Insurance Benefit System. The proposed modification to the system of records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) adds the following categories of users to its Routine Uses section: Congressional representatives, contractors working for the federal government, law enforcement, other federal agencies and entities pertaining to breach notification, National Archives, and attorney representatives.
By Authority of the Board.
RRB-21, Railroad Unemployment and Sickness Insurance Benefit System.
Unclassified.
U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Office of Programs—Director of Policy and Systems, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Section 12(l) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (45 U.S.C. 351,
The purpose of this system of records is to carry out the function of collecting and storing information to administer the benefit program under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
Information pertaining to payment or denial of an individual's claim for benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act: Name, address, sex, Social Security number, date of birth, total months of railroad service (including creditable military service), total creditable compensation for base year, last employer and date last worked before applying for benefits, last rate of pay in base year, reason not working, applications and claims filed, benefit information for each claim filed, disqualification periods and reasons for disqualification, entitlement to benefits under other laws, benefit recovery information about personal injury claims and pay for time not worked, medical reports, placement data, correspondence and telephone inquiries to and about the claimant, record of protest or appeal by claimant of adverse determinations made on their claims, and electronic mail address.
Applicant, claimant or his or her representative, physicians, employers, labor organizations, federal, state, and local government agencies, all U.S. Railroad Retirement Board files, insurance companies, attorneys, Congressmen, liable parties (in personal injury cases), funeral homes and survivors (for payment of death benefits).
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside RRB as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
Disclosure may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual if that individual would not be denied access to the information.
Disclosure may be made to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others
Disclosure may be made to the appropriate agency, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating, enforcing, or prosecuting a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto, if the disclosure would be to an agency engaged in functions related to the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, or if disclosure would be clearly in the furtherance of the interest of the subject individual.
To another federal agency or federal entity, when the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
Disclosure may be made to the National Archives and Records Administration or other federal government agencies for records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
Disclosure of non-medical information in this system of records may be made to the attorney representing such individual upon receipt of a written letter or declaration stating the fact of representation, if that individual would not be denied access to the information. Medical information may be released to an attorney when such records are requested for the purpose of contesting a determination either administratively or judicially.
Beneficiary identifying information may be disclosed to third party contacts to determine if incapacity of the beneficiary or potential beneficiary to understand or use benefits exists, and to determine the suitability of a proposed representative payee.
In the event the Board has determined to designate a person to be the representative payee of an incompetent beneficiary, disclosure of information concerning the benefit amount and other similar information may be made to the representative payee from the record of the individual.
Beneficiary identifying information, address, check rate, date and number may be released to the Treasury Department to control for reclamation and return outstanding benefit payments, to issue benefit payments, respond to reports of non-delivery and to insure delivery of check to the correct address or account of the beneficiary or representative payee.
Beneficiary identifying information, address, payment rate, date and number, plus other necessary supporting evidence may be released to the U.S. Postal Service for investigation of alleged forgery or theft of railroad unemployment/sickness benefit payments.
A record from this system of records may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision in the matter, provided that disclosure would be clearly in the furtherance of the interest of the subject individual.
Under Section 2(f), the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board has the right to recover benefits paid to an employee who later receives remuneration for the same period, therefore, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board may notify the person or company paying the remuneration of the Board's right to recovery and the amount of benefits to be refunded.
Under Section 12(o), the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board is entitled to reimbursement of sickness benefits paid on account of the infirmity for which damages are paid, consequently, the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board may send a notice of lien to the liable party, and, upon request by the liable party, advise the amount of benefits subject to reimbursement.
Beneficiary identifying information, rate and entitlement data may be released to the Social Security Administration to correlate actions with the administration of the Social Security Act.
The last addresses and employer information may be released to Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the Parent Locator Service.
Benefit rate, entitlement and periods paid may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration, Bureau of Supplemental Security Income, and to federal, state and local welfare or public aid agencies to assist them in processing applications for benefits under their respective programs.
Beneficiary identifying information, entitlement, rate and other pertinent data may be released to the Department of Labor in conjunction with payment of benefits under the Federal Coal Mine and Safety Act.
s. Information from the record of the individual concerning their benefit or anticipated benefit and concerning the method of calculating that benefit may be disclosed to an official of a labor organization of which the individual is a member, if the disclosure is made at the request of, the individual.
Pursuant to a request from an employer covered by the Railroad Retirement Act or the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, or from an organization under contract to an employer or employers, information regarding the Board's payment of unemployment or sickness benefits, the methods by which such benefits are calculated, entitlement data and present address may be released to the requesting employer or the organization under contract to an employer or employers for the purposes of determining entitlement to and rates of private supplemental pension, sickness or unemployment benefits and to calculate estimated benefits due.
Records deemed relevant and necessary may be disclosed in a court proceeding relating to any claims for benefits by the beneficiary under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act and may be disclosed during an administrative appeal to individuals who need the records to prosecute or
Beneficiary identifying information, entitlement data, benefit rates and periods paid may be released to the Veterans Benefits Administration to verify continued entitlement to benefits.
Identifying information such as full name, Social Security number, employee identification number, date last worked, occupation, and location last worked may be released to any last employer to verify entitlement for benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act.
The amount of unemployment benefits paid, if 10 dollars or more in a calendar year, and claimant identifying information, may be furnished to the Internal Revenue Service for tax administration purposes.
Beneficiary identifying and claim period information may be furnished to states for the purposes of their notifying the RRB whether claimants were paid state unemployment or sickness benefits and whether wages were reported for them. For claimants that a state identifies as having received state unemployment or sickness benefits, RRB benefit information may be furnished the state for the purpose of recovery of the amount of the duplicate payments which is made.
The amount of each sickness benefit that is subject to a tier 1 railroad retirement tax and the amount of the tier 1 tax withheld may be disclosed to the claimant's last railroad employer to enable that employer to compute its tax liability under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
The amount of sickness benefits paid and claimant identifying information, except for sickness benefits paid for an on-the-job injury, may be furnished to the Internal Revenue Service for tax administration purposes.
Entitlement data and benefit rates relevant and necessary may be released to any court, state agency, or interested party, or to the representative of such court, state agency, or interested party in connection with contemplated or actual legal or administrative proceedings concerning domestic relations and support matters.
Identifying information and information about a claim for benefits filed may be disclosed to an employee's base-year railroad employer and the employee's most recent railroad employer, if different, in order to afford that employer or those employers the opportunity to submit information concerning the claim. In addition, after the claim has been paid, if the base year railroad employer appeals the decision awarding benefits, all information regarding the claim may be disclosed to such base-year railroad employer that is necessary and appropriate for it to fully exercise its rights of appeal.
Non-medical information relating to the determination of sickness benefits may be disclosed to an insurance company administering a medical insurance program for railroad workers for purposes of determining entitlement to benefits under that program.
Scrambled Social Security number and complete home address information of unemployment claimants may be furnished to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for use in its Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program.
Records may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury when disclosure of the information is relevant to review payment and award eligibility through the Do Not Pay Working System for the purposes of identifying, preventing, or recouping improper payments to an applicant for, or recipient of, Federal funds, including funds disbursed by a state (meaning a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, a territory or possession of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe) in a state-administered, federally funded program.
Paper records will be stored in file cabinets or at approved National Archives and Records Administration records centers. Electronic records are maintained on computer servers, computer hard drives, electronic databases, email, and FedRAMP approved cloud information systems.
Information from the system will be retrievable by Social Security number, claim number and name.
Under 5 U.S.C. 552a (Privacy Act of 1974), individuals have the right to access and contest records maintained about them. To access or amend your records, submit a written request to the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) with:
1. Your identifying information.
2. A description of the record you wish to access.
The RRB may request proof of identity. To correct a record, specify the change and provide justification. If denied, you can submit a statement of disagreement to be included with the record.
For additional instructions, see the Record Access Procedures and Notification Procedures sections.
Requests for information regarding an individual's record should be in writing addressed to the System Manager identified above, including the full name, Social Security number and claim number of the individual. Before information about any record will be released, the System Manager may require the individual to provide proof of identity or require the requester to furnish an authorization from the individual to permit release of information.
None.
System of Records Notice revision from previous May 15, 2015
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
Rule 22c-1 (17 CFR 270.22c-1) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a) (the “Investment Company Act” or “Act”) enables a fund to choose to use “swing pricing” as a tool to mitigate shareholder dilution. Rule 22c-1 is intended to promote investor protection by providing funds with an additional tool to mitigate the potentially dilutive effects of shareholder purchase or redemption activity and a set of operational standards that allow funds to gain comfort using swing pricing as a means of mitigating potential dilution.
The respondents to amended rule 22c-1 are open-end management investment companies (other than money market funds or exchange-traded funds) that engage in swing pricing. Compliance with rule 22c-1(a)(3) is mandatory for any fund that chooses to use swing pricing to adjust its NAV in reliance on the rule.
While we are not aware of any funds that have engaged in swing pricing,
Rule 22c-1 requires a fund that uses swing pricing to maintain the fund's swing policies and procedures that are in effect, or at any time within the past six years were in effect, in an easily accessible place.
Amortized over a three-year period, we believe that the hour burdens and time costs associated with rule 22c-1, including the burden associated with the requirements that funds adopt policies and procedures, obtain board approval, and periodic review of an annual written report from the swing pricing administrator, and retain certain records and written reports related to swing pricing, will result in an average aggregate annual burden of 113.3 hours, and average aggregate time costs of $130,336.
These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. This collection of information is necessary to obtain a benefit and will not be kept confidential.
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.
Please direct your written comments on this 60-Day Collection Notice to Austin Gerig, Director/Chief Data Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Tanya Ruttenberg via email to
On June 6, 2025, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On July 25, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 3, Fees and Rebates for Regular Orders and All Crossing Orders.
This fee change shall be effective on November 13, 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
MRX proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 3, Fees and Rebates for Regular Orders and All Crossing Orders, to: (1) create a Tier 4 Priority Customer Maker Rebate; and (2)amend note 7 of Options 7, Section 3. Each change is described below.
Today, as set forth in Table 1 of Options 7, Section 3, the Exchange offers 4 tiers of Maker Fees and 4 tiers
At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend the Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Fee of $0.00 per contract to a Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate of $1.00 per contract. The Exchange believes that paying a Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate of $1.00 per contract will attract Non-Penny Priority Customer order flow to MRX and other market participants will be able to interact with that order flow.
Today, at Options 7, Section 3 the Exchange offers a note 7 incentive which provides that Priority Customer orders will not receive any Maker Rebates in Penny Symbols or Taker Rebates in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for trades executed against another Priority Customer order. Instead, the Priority Customer order will be assessed $0.00 per contract.
The Exchange proposes to amend note 7 to add “Non-Penny Symbols” to the current rule text in note 7 so that Priority Customer orders will not receive any Maker Rebates in Penny Symbols and Non-Penny Symbols or Taker Rebates in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for trades executed against another Priority Customer order. Instead, the Priority Customer order will be assessed $0.00 per contract. Because the Exchange proposes to offer a Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate, the Exchange is amending note 7 so as not to pay the new Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate where there is a Priority Customer on both sides of the trade. Today, Priority Customers pay no Maker Fees in Non-Penny Symbols. The Exchange believes that despite not paying the Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate in the event the contra-side of the trade was another Priority Customer, the proposed amendments will attract a greater amount of Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol order flow to MRX.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of eighteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Fee of $0.00 per contract to a Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate of $1.00 per
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Fee of $0.00 per contract to a Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate of $1.00 per contract is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants. An increase in Priority Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts Market Makers and other market participants that may interact with this order flow.
The Exchange's proposal to amend note 7 of Options 7, Section 3 so that Priority Customer orders will not receive any Maker Rebates in Penny Symbols and Non-Penny Symbols or Taker Rebates in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for trades executed against another Priority Customer order is reasonable because Priority Customers pay no Maker Fees in either Penny or Non-Penny Symbols. The Exchange believes that despite not paying a Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate in the event the contra-side of the trade was another Priority Customer, the proposed amendments will attract a greater amount of Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol order flow to MRX. Priority Customers will continue to receive more favorable pricing as compared to other market participants in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols.
The Exchange's proposal to amend note 7 of Options 7, Section 3 so that Priority Customer orders will not receive any Maker Rebates in Penny Symbols and Non-Penny Symbols or Taker Rebates in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for trades executed against another Priority Customer order is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply uniformly to all Priority Customers. The Exchange does not believe it is unfairly discriminatory to apply the proposed changes to only Priority Customers because Priority Customers will continue to receive more favorable pricing in both Penny and Non-Penny Symbols as compared to Non-Customers.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive with other options markets, and will offer market participants with another choice of venue to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The Exchange's proposal to amend the Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Fee of $0.00 per contract to a Tier 4 Priority Customer Non-Penny Symbol Maker Rebate of $1.00 per contract does not impose an undue burden on competition as Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants. An increase in Priority Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts Market Makers and other market participants that may interact with this order flow.
The Exchange's proposal to amend note 7 of Options 7, Section 3 so that Priority Customer orders will not receive any Maker Rebates in Penny Symbols and Non-Penny Symbols or Taker Rebates in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols for trades executed against another Priority Customer order does not impose an undue burden on competition because it will apply uniformly to all Priority Customers. Priority Customers will continue to receive more favorable pricing in Penny and Non-Penny Symbols compared to Non-Priority Customers. Furthermore, Priority Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts Market Makers and other market participants that may trade with this order flow.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 5030 (Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying Securities) to adopt an exception for opening transactions by Market Makers to accommodate closing transactions of other market participants. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 5030 (Withdrawal of Approval of Underlying Securities) to adopt an exception for opening transactions by Market Makers to accommodate closing transactions of other market participants. The Exchange believes that this proposed exception, to allow Market Makers to facilitate closing transactions of market participants, would help market participants close positions in classes that will be delisted by the Exchange, which helps to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that permitting such opening transactions by Market Makers would enhance investor protection and further maintain fair and orderly markets. The Exchange notes that the proposed exception in Rule 5030 is consistent with the listing rules of other options exchanges.
Generally, Rule 5030 is designed to protect investors and maintain orderly markets by establishing criteria for when an underlying security no longer meets the Exchange's listing standards. Rule 5030 provides a mechanism to withdraw approval for securities that no longer meet the Exchange's listing standards, while allowing for limited exceptions to maintain liquidity.
Currently, whenever the Exchange determines that an underlying security previously approved for BOX Transactions
The Exchange is now proposing to amend Rule 5030 to adopt an exception for certain opening transactions by Market Makers. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add language providing that opening transactions by Market Makers executed to accommodate closing transactions of other market participants may be permitted. Under proposed Rule 5030, a Participant that is acting as a Market Maker may enter into an opening transaction in order to facilitate closing transactions of another market participant in option series that are restricted to closing-only transactions. Allowing Market Makers to enter into opening transactions to facilitate closing transactions of other market participants will help market participants close positions in classes that will be delisted by the Exchange, which helps to protect
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt an exception for opening transactions by Market Makers to accommodate closing transactions of other market participants will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because the proposal to permit Market Makers to enter into opening transactions to facilitate closing transactions of other market participants will help market participants close positions in classes that will be delisted by the Exchange, which helps to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes that permitting such opening transactions by Market Makers further supports fair and orderly markets. Currently, in Rule 5030, whenever the Exchange determines that an underlying security previously approved for BOX Transactions does not meet the then current requirements for continuance of such approval or for any other reason should no longer be approved, the Exchange will not open for trading any additional series of options of the class covering that underlying security and may prohibit any opening purchase transactions in series of options of that class previously opened. Current Rule 5030, also provides, however, that, in certain exceptional circumstances, the Exchange may, in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market or for the protection of investors, determine to continue to open additional series of options contracts of the class covering that underlying security. The Exchange believes that the exception proposed herein is consistent with the Act and protects investors and the public interest because permitting Market Makers to submit certain opening transactions will help market participants close positions in classes that will be delisted by the Exchange. The Exchange believes further that permitting such opening transactions by Market Makers is in the interest of all market participants and is consistent with and further supports a Market Maker's duty to maintain fair and orderly markets under Rule 8040. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will adversely affect the quality of the Exchange's markets or lead to a material decrease in liquidity.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, this proposed change is to conform Rule 5030 to similar provisions in listing rules of other options exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition as the proposed changes to Rule 5030 will apply equally to all Market Makers. Allowing Market Makers to enter into opening transactions to facilitate closing transactions of other market participants will help close positions in classes that will be delisted by the Exchange, which helps to protect investors and the public interest and does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. 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, the proposed rule change is consistent with the existing rules of other options exchanges.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The title for the collection of information is: “Rule 204-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.” Rule 204-5 requires an investment adviser to deliver an electronic or paper version of the relationship summary to each retail investor before or at the time the adviser enters into an investment advisory contract with the retail investor. The purpose of the relationship summary is to assist retail investors in making an informed choice when choosing an investment firm and professional, and type of account. Retail investors can use the information required in the relationship summary to determine whether to hire or retain an investment adviser, as well as what types of accounts and services are appropriate for their needs.
We estimate the total collection of information burden for rule 204-5 to be 1,241,670 annual aggregate hours per year, or 124 hours per respondent, for a total annual aggregate monetized cost of $95,678,622, or $9,520 per adviser.
The likely respondents to this information collection are approximately 10,050 investment advisers registered with the Commission that are required to deliver a relationship summary to retail investors pursuant to rule 204-5. We also note that these figures include the 291 registered broker-dealers that are dually registered as investment advisers.
The requirements of this collection of information are mandatory. Responses will not be kept confidential. 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 public may view and comment on this information collection request at:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of SR-BX-2024-048
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of SR-BX-2024-048 related to the adoption of an OTTO Protocol.
The OTTO protocol is a proprietary protocol of Nasdaq, Inc. OTTO would allow Participants and their Sponsored Customers
In connection with adopting the OTTO protocol, SR-BX-2024-048 adopted certain rules which are effective, but not operative.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of SR-BX-2024-048 to a date on or before Q2 2027. This delay would allow the Exchange additional time to code and test the OTTO functionality in light of other technology migrations that are currently underway on other Nasdaq affiliated markets. The Exchange would issue an Options Trader Alert announcing the exact implementation date to Participants at least thirty days prior to implementation.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to delay the implementation of SR-BX-2024-048 to a date on or before Q2 2027 is consistent with the Act because it would allow the Exchange additional time to code and test the OTTO functionality in light of other technology migrations that are currently underway on other Nasdaq affiliated markets. The Exchange would issue an Options Trader Alert announcing the exact implementation date to Participants at least thirty days prior to implementation.
The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange's proposal to delay the implementation of SR-BX-2024-048 to a date on or before Q2 2027 does not impose an undue burden on competition because it will allow BX additional time to code and test the functionality. The new OTTO protocol will not be available to any BX Participant until implementation.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Equity 4, Rule 4702(b)(4)(C) to specify that the “Time-in-Force” Order Attribute of “Immediate-or-Cancel” is not available to Post-Only Orders entered through the CORE FIX protocol. The proposed amendment will not make any other substantive change to the rules.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange's rules provide Participants five Order
Currently, BX Equity 4, Rule 4702(b)(4)(C) specifies that a Post-Only Order with a Time-in-Force of Immediate-or-Cancel (“IOC”)
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the new CORE FIX Order Entry Protocol, including the functionality described in this filing, in an Equity Trader Alert at least 30 days prior to implementation. At present, the Exchange expects that the new CORE FIX functionality will be ready for implementation in the first quarter of 2026, although that time frame is subject to change.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
As a preliminary matter, the Exchange notes that this proposal is not novel. Earlier this year The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC made a similar change to its rulebook when it established CORE FIX on its equities market.
It is consistent with the Act to amend the rulebook to specify the functionality of the new CORE FIX order entry protocol. All that the current filing does is specify that Post-Only Orders with a Time-in-Force of IOC that are submitted through CORE FIX will be rejected, just as they are rejected when entered through RASH or FIX. Participants who wish to avail themselves of the Time-in-Force of IOC for Post-Only Orders may continue to do so by utilizing other order entry protocols for that purpose.
Finally, this proposal is consistent with the Act and is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade because it ensures that the rulebook accurately reflects the functionality of the of Time-in-Force Order Attribute of IOC for Post-Only Orders. Specifying in the rulebook that this Order Attribute is not available for Post-Only Orders entered through CORE FIX will help market participants choose the most appropriate order entry protocol to achieve their trading objectives.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As a general principle, the proposed changes are reflective of the significant competition among exchanges and non-exchange venues for order flow. In this regard, a proposed change that amends and clarifies the Exchange's Rules regarding its Order Types and Order Attributes is pro-competitive because it bolsters the efficiency, functionality, and overall attractiveness of the Exchange in an absolute sense and relative to its peers. Moreover, the proposed change will not unduly burden intra-market competition among various Exchange participants. Participants will experience no competitive impact from this proposal, as the change in this proposal will apply equally to all Participants, and Participants remain free to use other order entry protocols if they wish to continue to avail themselves of the Time-in-Force of IOC for Post-Only Orders.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 20, 2025, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
On July 14, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes amend the Exchange's fee at Equity 7, Section 115 to: (i) raise the fee for Nasdaq WorkX (“WorkX”); and (ii) clarify that this fee is calculated per user, per MPID,
While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed amendments to be operative on December 1, 2025.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's pricing schedule at Equity 7, Section 115, to increase the fee for WorkX and to clarify that the fee is charged on a per user,
WorkX is a web-based application that facilitates trade reporting, compliance monitoring, and workflow on the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed change to its fee for WorkX is reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for trade compliance products, which constrain the Exchange's pricing determinations in that market. The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Currently, WorkX subscribers are assessed a fee of $625 per user, per MPID, per month; under the proposal, the fee will be $725 per user, per MPID, per month. The Exchange believes that the new fee for WorkX, including the clarification that the fee is also assessed per MPID, is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly situated WorkX subscribers.
Furthermore, the increase in the fee for WorkX is reasonable because this fee has not changed since February 2022,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The new fee, and the clarification that the fee is calculated on a per user, per MPID, per month basis, will apply to all subscribers equally. The higher fee is necessary for the Exchange to support its continued investment in improving the WorkX product and in keeping it up to date with the latest FINRA and SEC regulatory requirements. The Exchange notes that the use of WorkX is voluntary. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing providers of third-party products if they deem Nasdaq's products to be insufficient, or if they find products available from other vendors to be more favorable.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE American Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) to exempt Floor Brokers from routing fees. The Exchange also proposes to make a technical change to an existing incentive program. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective November 26, 2025.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule to exempt Floor Brokers from routing fees and to make a technical change to an existing incentive program.
The Exchange currently assesses market participants a Routing Surcharge on orders routed and executed on another exchange.
The Exchange offers a Floor Broker Fixed Cost Prepayment Incentive Program (the “FB Prepay Program”), which is an incentive program that allows Floor Brokers that prepay certain of their annual Eligible Fixed Costs to be eligible for the Rebate Program.
The Exchange proposes to make following technical changes to the table—particularly the column setting forth the Bonus Level(s)—for the QCC Bonus Rebate (new text is italicized and to-be-deleted text is bracketed). The below non-substantive formatting changes are being made to add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule, making it easier to navigate and comprehend. The Exchange is not proposing any changes to any qualifying criteria or rebate amounts.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed change is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
There are currently 18 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.
The Exchange believe the proposal to exempt Floor Brokers from Routing Surcharge is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes that this change will incentivize Floor Brokers to increase (or maintain) their activity in open outcry. The proposed change would exempt Floor Brokers from fees that they otherwise would incur when required to route orders away from the Exchange to honor away market interest, thereby encouraging them to continue to participate in open outcry trading without having to account for such fees. To the extent that this incentive operates as intended it will increase liquidity on the Trading Floor, which benefits all market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable allocation of its fees and is not unfairly discriminatory, as it applies equally to all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange notes that Floor Brokers play a unique and important role in ensuring liquidity is executed on the Trading Floor, which the Exchange believes justifies exempting them from fees assessed to other market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposed technical change to modify the table setting forth the QCC Bonus Rebate—particularly the column setting forth the Bonus Level(s)—is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the changes are non-substantive formatting changes intended only to add clarity and transparency to the Fee Schedule, making it easier to navigate and comprehend.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would continue to encourage the submission of additional liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange's proposed non-substantive formatting changes to modify the table setting forth the QCC Bonus Rebate—particularly the column setting forth the Bonus Level(s)—is not intended to address any competitive issues but to instead add clarity and
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 7, 2025, the Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC (“CAT LLC”), on behalf of the following parties to the National Market System Plan Governing the Consolidated Audit Trail (the “CAT NMS Plan” or “Plan”):
On May 28, 2025, the Participants filed Amendment No. 1 to the Proposed Amendment (“Amendment No. 1”).
On September 11, 2025, to provide sufficient time to consider the changes set forth in Amendment No. 1 and any comments received on Amendment No. 1, the Commission designated a longer period within which to conclude proceedings.
On December 1, 2025, the Participants filed Amendment No. 2 to the Proposed Amendment (“Amendment No. 2”),
During meetings with the Staff subsequent to publication of the Proposed Amendment, CAT LLC agreed to provide additional information responsive to questions received from the Staff regarding (1) the effect of the Proposed Amendment on certain defined terms related to the Financial Accountability Milestones (“FAMs”); (2) how access to the Reference Database would be monitored and documented under the Proposed Amendment; (3) the effect of the Proposed Amendment (if any) on FDID validations; and (4) the process for documenting and reviewing deletions of Name, Address, and YOB
Effective [DATE], “Customer Account Information” as used in the Financial Accountability Milestones (Initial Industry Member Core Equity Reporting; Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting; Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality; and Full Implementation of CAT NMS Plan Requirements) is no longer a defined term and has been superseded by the new defined term “Account Reference Data”.
Effective [DATE], “Customer Identifying Information” as used in the Financial Accountability Milestones (Initial Industry Member Core Equity Reporting; Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting; Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality; and Full Implementation of CAT NMS Plan Requirements) is no longer a defined term and has been superseded by the new defined term “Customer Reference Data”.
Specifically, the Staff noted that the defined term “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” represents one of the FAMs and asked for confirmation regarding whether CAT LLC intends to change the meaning of that term in any way through the addition of the above footnotes.
CAT LLC does not intend to change the meaning of the defined term “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” in any way. As described in the Response Letter, CAT LLC proposes to remove the defined terms “Customer Identifying Information” and “Customer Account Information” from the Plan and to replace those terms in all instances with the new defined terms “Customer Reference Data” and “Account Reference Data” to more accurately reflect the nature of the information that would remain in the Reference Database as a result of implementing the Proposed Amendment. However, CAT LLC recognizes that doing so in the definition of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” would retroactively change the meaning of that defined term because the terms “Customer Reference Data” and “Account Reference Data” refer to a narrower scope of customer-and-account-related information than do the terms “Customer Identifying Information” and “Customer Account Information.” To avoid retroactively changing the meaning of a FAM-related defined term, CAT LLC proposed adding the footnotes described above where the terms “Customer Identifying Information” and “Customer Account Information” appear in the definition of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” in Article I of the Plan to make clear that—even after the implementation of the Proposed Amendment—the terms “Customer Identifying Information” and “Customer Account Information” will continue to be defined as set forth in Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88890 (May 15, 2020) solely for purposes of the FAMs.
To add clarity in light of the Staff's question, and to prevent any potential misinterpretation, CAT LLC proposes removing the phrase “. . . and has been superseded by the new defined term `Account Reference Data'” from the first footnote described above. Similarly, CAT LLC proposes removing the phrase “. . . and has been superseded by the new defined term `Customer Reference Data'” from the second footnote described above. As revised, the two footnotes would read as follows:
Effective [DATE], “Customer Account Information” as used in the Financial Accountability Milestones (Initial Industry Member Core Equity Reporting; Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting;
Effective [DATE], “Customer Identifying Information” as used in the Financial Accountability Milestones (Initial Industry Member Core Equity Reporting; Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting; Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality; and Full Implementation of CAT NMS Plan Requirements) is no longer a defined term.
The Chief Compliance Officer and the Chief Information Security Officer shall have access to daily PII reports that list all users who are entitled for PII access, as well as the audit trail of all PII access that has occurred for the day being reported on.
CAT LLC confirms that following the implementation of the Proposed Amendment, the Plan Processor will record all access to, and all queries of, data stored in the Reference Database in a series of logs that can be used to generate periodic reports in the same way that the Plan Processor currently records and tracks access to the broader CAT System.
To clarify in light of the Staff's question, CAT LLC proposes amending the Proposed Amendment to add the following sentence at the end of Section 4.1.4 of Appendix D:
The Plan Processor must record all access to, and all queries of, data stored in the Reference Database and generate periodic reports of all access to, and all queries of, data stored in the Reference Database.
CAT LLC confirms that FDID validations would not change as a result of implementing the Proposed Amendment. The Plan Processor would continue to perform the same consistency checks that it currently performs today to confirm that all FDIDs reported to the transaction database exist in the Reference Database and were active on the relevant transaction date. These validations are described in more detail in Section 2.4.2.1 of the CAT Reporting Technical Specifications for Industry Members.
To clarify in light of the Staff's question, CAT LLC proposes amending the language from Section 9.1 of Appendix D cited above to state that the Plan Processor:
CAT LLC confirms that the Plan Processor will keep a log documenting all deletions of Customer information from the Reference Database. Those logs will include both the time of and reason for each deletion, and the Plan Processor will provide periodic reports to the Operating Committee for visibility and oversight.
To clarify in light of the Staff's question, CAT LLC proposes adding a sentence to the end of proposed Section 9.5 of Appendix D stating that “CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to document all deletions of Customer information from the Reference Database and provide periodic reports of all such deletions to the Operating Committee.”
Separately, proposed Section 9.5 of Appendix D includes a sentence stating that “[f]or the avoidance of doubt, such data attributes do not constitute records that must be retained under Exchange Act Rule 17a-1.” CAT LLC proposes making a technical revision to make clear that the data attributes listed in proposed Section 9.5 of Appendix D do not constitute records that must be retained “by CAT LLC” under Exchange Act Rule 17a-1.
As revised, proposed Section 9.5 of Appendix D would read as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan, this Appendix D, or the Exchange Act, CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to develop and implement a mechanism to delete from CAIS, or otherwise make inaccessible to regulatory users, the following data attributes: Customer name, Customer address, account name, account address, authorized trader names list, account number, day of birth, month of birth, year of birth, and ITIN/SSN. For the avoidance of doubt, such data attributes do not constitute records that must be retained by CAT LLC under Exchange Act Rule 17a-1. CAT LLC or the Plan Processor shall be permitted to delete any such information that has been improperly reported by an Industry Member to the extent that either becomes aware of such improper reporting through self-reporting or otherwise. CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to document all deletions of Customer information from the Reference Database and provide periodic reports of all such deletions to the Operating Committee.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the Proposed Amendment, as modified by Amendment No. 2, should be approved or disapproved by December 26, 2025. 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.
Additions
“[Customer] Account
“Customer-ID”
“Customer
“
[“PII” means personally identifiable information, including a social security number or tax identifier number or similar information; Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information.]
(a)
(v) The Chief Compliance Officer shall:
(C) in collaboration with the Chief Information Security Officer, and consistent with Appendix D, Data Security, and any other applicable requirements related to data security[,]
(b)
(v) Consistent with Appendices C and D, the Chief Information Security Officer shall be responsible for creating and enforcing appropriate policies, procedures, and control structures to monitor and address data security issues for the Plan Processor and the Central Repository including:
(F) [PII data requirements, including the standards set forth in Appendix D, PII Data Requirements]
(d)
(ii) Subject to Section 6.4(c) and Section 6.4(d)(iii) with respect to Options Market Makers, and consistent with Appendix D, Reporting and Linkage Requirements, and the Technical Specifications, each Participant shall, through its Compliance Rule, require its Industry Members to record and report to the Central Repository the following, as applicable (“
(C) for original receipt or origination of an order, the Firm Designated ID for the relevant Customer, and in accordance with Section 6.4(d)(iv),
(c)
(ii) Extraction of CAT Data shall be consistent with all permission rights granted by the Plan Processor. All CAT Data returned shall be encrypted[, and PII data shall be masked unless users have permission to view the CAT Data that has been requested].
The Plan Processor must provide to the Operating Committee a comprehensive security plan that covers all components of the CAT System, including physical assets and personnel, and the training of all persons who have access to the Central Repository consistent with Article VI, Section 6.1(m). The security plan must be updated annually. The security plan must include an overview of the Plan Processor's network security controls, processes and procedures pertaining to the CAT Systems. Details of the security plan must document how the Plan Processor will protect, monitor and patch the environment; assess it for vulnerabilities as part of a managed process, as well as the process for response to security incidents and reporting of such incidents. The security plan must address physical security controls for corporate, data center, and leased facilities where Central Repository data is transmitted or stored. The Plan Processor must have documented “hardening baselines” for systems that will store, process, or transmit CAT Data [or PII data].
All CAT Data must be encrypted at rest and in flight using industry standard best practices (
[Storage of unencrypted PII data is not permissible. PII encryption methodology must include a secure documented key management strategy such as the use of HSM(s). The Plan Processor must describe how PII encryption is performed and the key management strategy (
If public cloud managed services are used that would inherently have access to the data (
The Plan Processor must provide an overview of how access to [PII and other] CAT Data by Plan Processor employees and administrators is restricted. This overview must include items such as, but not limited to, how the Plan Processor will manage access to the systems, internal segmentation, multi-factor authentication, separation of duties, entitlement management, background checks, etc.
Any login to the system [that is able to access PII data must follow non-PII password rules and] must be [further] secured via multi-factor authentication (“MFA”). The implementation of MFA must be documented by the Plan Processor. MFA authentication capability for all logins is required to be implemented by the Plan Processor.
[PII data must not be included in the result set(s) from online or direct query tools, reports or bulk data extraction. Instead, results will display existing non-PII unique identifiers (
Using the RBAC model described above, access to PII data shall be configured at the PII attribute level, following the “least privileged” practice of limiting access as much as possible.
PII data must be stored separately from other CAT Data. It cannot be stored with the transactional CAT Data, and it must not be accessible from public internet connectivity. A full audit trail of PII access (who accessed what data, and when) must be maintained. The Chief Compliance Officer and the Chief Information Security Officer shall have access to daily PII reports that list all users who are entitled for PII access, as well as the audit trail of all PII access that has occurred for the day being reported on.]
CAT [PII]
[Customer information that includes PII]
The tool must provide a record count of the result set, the date and time the query request is submitted, and the date and time the result set is provided to the users. In addition, the tool must indicate in the search results whether the retrieved data was linked or unlinked (
Access to CAT Data is limited to authorized regulatory users from the Participants and the SEC. Authorized regulators from the Participants and the SEC may access all CAT Data[, with the exception of PII data. A subset of the authorized regulators from the Participants and the SEC will have permission to access and view PII data]. The Plan Processor must work with the Participants and SEC to implement an administrative and authorization process to provide regulator access. The Plan Processor must have procedures and a process in place to verify the list of active users on a regular basis.
A two-factor authentication is required for access to CAT Data. [PII data must not be available via the online targeted query tool or the user-defined direct query interface.]
The Central Repository must provide for direct queries, bulk extraction, and download of data for all regulatory users. Both the user-defined direct queries and bulk extracts will be used by regulators to deliver large sets of data that can then be used in internal surveillance or market analysis applications. The data extracts must use common industry formats.
[Direct queries must not return or display PII data. Instead, they will return existing non-PII unique identifiers (
Extraction of data must be consistently in line with all permissioning rights granted by the Plan Processor. Data returned must be encrypted, password protected and sent via secure methods of transmission. [In addition, PII data must be masked unless users have permission to view the data that has been requested.]
The CAT must capture and store
For legal entities, the CAT must capture
The Plan Processor must maintain valid
The Plan Processor will design and implement a robust data validation process for submitted Firm Designated ID
The Plan Processor will use the [Customer information]
Broker-Dealers will initially submit full account lists for all active accounts to the Plan Processor and subsequently submit updates and changes on a daily basis. In addition, the Plan Processor must have a process to periodically receive full account lists to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the account database. The Central Repository must support account structures that have multiple account owners and associated Customer information (joint accounts, managed accounts, etc.), and must be able to link accounts that move from one CAT Reporter to another (
At a minimum, the following Customer information data attributes must be accepted by the Central Repository:
[Account Owner Name;]
[Account Owner Mailing Address;]
[Account Tax Identifier (SSN, TIN, ITN)]
Market Identifiers (Larger Trader ID, LEI);
Type of Account;
Firm [Identifier Number]
○ The number that the CAT Reporter will supply on all orders generated for the Account;
Prime Broker ID;
Bank Depository ID; and
• Clearing Broker.
The Plan Processor will assign a CAT-Customer-ID for each unique Customer. The Plan Processor will [determine]
Participants and the SEC must be able to use the unique CAT-Customer-ID to track orders from any Customer or group of Customers, regardless of what brokerage account was used to enter the order.
[The Plan Processor must design and implement procedures and mechanisms to handle both minor and material inconsistencies in Customer information. The Central Repository needs to be able to accommodate minor data discrepancies such as variations in road name abbreviations in searches. Material inconsistencies such as two different people with the same SSN must be communicated to the submitting CAT Reporters and resolved within the established error correction timeframe as detailed in Section 8.]
The Central Repository must have an audit trail showing the resolution of all errors. The audit trail must, at a minimum, include the:
CAT Reporter submitting the data;
Initial submission date and time;
Data in question or the ID of the record in question;
Reason identified as the source of the issue[, such as:]
Date and time the issue was transmitted to the CAT Reporter, included each time the issue was re-transmitted, if more than once;
Corrected submission date and time, including each corrected submission if more than one, or the record ID(s) of the corrected data or a flag indicating that the issue was resolved and corrected data was not required; and
Corrected data, the record ID, or a link to the corrected data.
The Plan Processor must develop tools to allow each CAT Reporter to:
• Manage
10.3 CAT Help Desk
CAT Help Desk support functions must include:
• Supporting CAT Reporters with data submissions and data corrections, including submission of
Additions
“
* Effective [DATE], “Customer Account Information” as used in the Financial Accountability Milestones (Initial Industry Member Core Equity Reporting; Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting; Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality; and Full Implementation of CAT NMS Plan Requirements) is no longer a defined term[ and has been superseded by the new defined term “Account Reference Data”].
* Effective [DATE], “Customer Identifying Information” as used in the Financial Accountability Milestones (Initial Industry Member Core Equity Reporting; Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting; Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality; and Full Implementation of CAT NMS Plan Requirements) is no longer a defined term[ and has been superseded by the new defined term “Customer Reference Data”].
The Plan Processor must provide an overview of how access to CAT Data by Plan Processor employees and administrators is restricted. This overview must include items such as, but not limited to, how the Plan Processor will manage access to the systems, internal segmentation, multi-factor authentication, separation of duties, entitlement management, background checks, etc.
Any login to the system must be secured via multi-factor authentication (“MFA”). The implementation of MFA must be documented by the Plan Processor. MFA authentication capability for all logins is required to be implemented by the Plan Processor.
The CAT must capture and store Reference Data in a secure database physically separated from the transactional database. The Plan Processor will maintain certain information attributed to each Customer across all CAT Reporters, and associated accounts from each CAT Reporter. At a minimum, the CAT must capture Transformed Identifiers.
For legal entities, the CAT must capture Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs) (if available).
The Plan Processor must maintain valid Reference Data for each trading day and provide a method for Participants' regulatory staff and the SEC to easily obtain historical changes to that information.
The Plan Processor will use the Transformed Identifier submitted by all broker-dealer CAT Reporters to the CCID Subsystem to assign a unique Customer-ID for each Customer. The Customer-ID must be consistent across all broker-dealers that have an account associated with that Customer. This unique CAT-Customer-ID will not be returned to CAT Reporters and will only be used internally by the CAT.
Broker-Dealers will initially submit full account lists for all active accounts to the Plan Processor and subsequently submit updates and changes on a daily basis. In addition, the Plan Processor must have a process to periodically receive full account lists to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the account database. The Central Repository must support account structures that have multiple account owners and associated Customer information (joint accounts, managed accounts, etc.), and must be able to link accounts that move from one CAT Reporter to another (
Notwithstanding any other provision of the CAT NMS Plan, this Appendix D, or the Exchange Act, CAT LLC shall direct the Plan Processor to develop and implement a mechanism to delete from CAIS, or otherwise make inaccessible to regulatory users, the following data attributes: Customer name, Customer address, account name, account address, authorized trader names list, account number, day of birth, month of birth, year of birth, and ITIN/SSN. For the avoidance of doubt, such data attributes do not constitute records that must be retained by
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 5055 (FLEX Equity Options) to permit FLEX Equity Options on the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (“IBIT”). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 5055 (FLEX Equity Options)
IBIT is an Exchange-Traded Fund (“ETF”) that holds bitcoin and is listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”).
At this time, the Exchange proposes to permit IBIT options to transact as FLEX Equity Options and would require the aggregation of any FLEX and non-FLEX positions in the same underlying ETF for purposes of calculating position and exercise limits on such ETF. Thus, for example, assuming a 250,000-contract position limit for options on IBIT, the Exchange would restrict a market participant from holding positions that could result in the receipt of more than 250,000,000 shares (if that market participant exercised all its IBIT options). The share creation and redemption process available to each ETF is designed to ensure that an ETF's price closely tracks the value of its underlying asset. For example, if a market participant exercised a long call position for 25,000 contracts and purchased 2,500,000 shares of IBIT and this purchase resulted in the value of IBIT shares to trade at a premium to the value of the (underlying) bitcoin held by IBIT, the Exchange believes that other market participants would attempt to arbitrage this price difference by selling short IBIT shares while concurrently purchasing bitcoin. Those market participants (arbitrageurs) would then deliver cash to IBIT and receive shares of IBIT, which would be used to close out any previously established short position in IBIT. Thus, this creation and redemptions process would significantly reduce the potential risk of price dislocation between the value of IBIT shares and the value of bitcoin holdings.
The Exchange understands that FLEX options on ETFs are currently traded in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market by a variety of market participants,
Additionally, the Exchange believes that FLEX IBIT options traded on the Exchange would have three important advantages over the contracts that are traded in the OTC market. First, as a result of greater standardization of contract terms, exchange-traded contracts should develop more liquidity. Second, counterparty credit risk would be mitigated by the fact that the exchange-traded contracts are issued and guaranteed by The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). Finally, the price discovery and dissemination provided by the Exchange and its participant organizations would lead to more transparent markets. The Exchange believes that its ability to offer FLEX IBIT options would aid it in competing with the OTC market and at the same time expand the universe of products available to interested market participants. The Exchange believes that an exchange-traded alternative may provide a useful risk management and trading vehicle for market participants and their customers.
The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and The Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of FLEX IBIT options. The Exchange believes any additional traffic that would be generated from the trading of FLEX IBIT options would be manageable. The Exchange believes Participants will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposed rule change. The Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposed rule change and the effect (if any) of these additional series on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to the Exchange's other options products listed and traded on the Exchange, including non-FLEX IBIT options, will apply to FLEX IBIT options, and that it has the necessary systems capacity to support such options. FLEX options products (and their respective symbols) are integrated into the Exchange's existing surveillance system architecture and are thus subject to the relevant surveillance processes.
The Exchange represents that its existing trading surveillances are adequate to monitor the trading in IBIT
The proposed rule change is designed to allow investors seeking to trade options on IBIT to utilize FLEX IBIT options. The Exchange believes that offering innovative products flows to the benefit of the investing public. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to Participants' evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. Such efforts would be stymied if exchanges were prohibited from offering innovative products such as the proposed FLEX IBIT options. The Exchange believes that introducing FLEX IBIT options would further broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Equity Options (and options on IBIT in general) to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options. The proposed rule change is also designed to encourage market makers to shift liquidity from the OTC market to the Exchange, which, it believes, will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that the proposal to permit FLEX IBIT options would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. The Exchange believes that offering FLEX IBIT options will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of bitcoin and provide a hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with a bitcoin-related product. Moreover, the proposal would broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Equity Options to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options. By trading a product in an exchange-traded environment (that is currently being used in the OTC market), the Exchange would be able to compete more effectively with the OTC market. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that it would lead to the migration of options currently trading in the OTC market to trading to the Exchange. Also, any migration to the Exchange from the OTC market would result in increased market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow. The Exchange also believes that offering FLEX IBIT options may open up the market for options on IBIT to more retail investors. Additionally, offering FLEX IBIT options would serve two primary client types in the capital markets by permitting ETF and structured return issuers to more precisely tailor their settlement style and allow other investors to align their contract durations for calls and puts, as well as settlement-style.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility. The proposed rule change should also result in enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions and heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as issuer and guarantor of FLEX IBIT options. Further, the proposed rule change would result in increased competition by permitting the Exchange to offer products that are currently used in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that offering innovative products flows to the benefit of the investing public. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to evolving needs in the market by constantly improving their offerings. Such efforts would be stymied if exchanges were prohibited from offering innovative products such as the proposed FLEX IBIT options. The Exchange does not believe that allowing FLEX IBIT options would render the marketplace for equity options more susceptible to manipulative practices.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in FLEX IBIT options. Regarding the proposed FLEX IBIT options, the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures currently utilized for FLEX Equity Options listed on the Exchange (as well as for non-FLEX IBIT options). The Exchange would review activity in the underlying Trust when conducting surveillances for market abuse or manipulation in the options on the Trust. In light of surveillance measures related to both options and IBIT (the underlying ETF),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by Nasdaq PHLX that was recently approved by the Commission.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition as all market participants would have the option of utilizing the FLEX IBIT options. The proposed rule change is designed to allow investors seeking option exposure to bitcoin to trade FLEX IBIT options. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposal to permit FLEX IBIT options would broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Equity Options to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition as all market participants would have the option of utilizing the FLEX IBIT options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues. The proposed rule change would support that intermarket competition by allowing the Exchange to offer additional functionality to Participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed FLEX IBIT options will increase the variety of options products available for trading in general and bitcoin-related products in particular and, as such, will provide a valuable tool for investors to manage risk.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period. The Exchange stated that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will ensure fair competition among the exchanges by allowing the Exchange to offer FLEX trading on IBIT options, without delay, to investors seeking a customized option.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal does not raise any novel regulatory issues and waiver will allow the Exchange to offer FLEX trading on IBIT options, without delay, to investors seeking a customized option. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 15, 2025, MIAX Sapphire, LLC (“MIAX Sapphire” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act” or “Exchange Act”)
On September 25, 2025, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 527, Exchange Liability, to provide a one-time payment to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On June 3, 2025, the Exchange experienced system difficulties as a result of the Operational Error, which caused the Exchange's simulation/testing environment to connect to the MIAX Sapphire production ports and inject data into the MIAX Sapphire matching engines in the live trading environment. Upon discovery of this issue, trading in all symbols on the Exchange was halted at 11:49 a.m.
Since the June 3, 2025 Operational Error, Members compiled their trade data showing losses as a result of the Operational Error and the Exchange canceling all trades during the Timeframe. The Exchange reviewed the events of June 3, 2025 with the goal of proposing a fair and equitable payment policy that is consistent with the Exchange Act and MIAX Sapphire's
The Exchange's current limitation of liability rules, described in detail below, limit the maximum amount of compensation Members are able to receive from the Exchange arising out of a system issue that impacts the use or enjoyment of the facilities or services afforded by the Exchange, such as the Operational Error. In the interest of protecting Members and their investor customers,
This type of payment plan is not without precedent. In 2012, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) experienced system difficulties in the Nasdaq halt and imbalance cross process in connection with the initial public offering (“IPO”) of Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”). In response, Nasdaq filed with the Commission a proposal to establish a payment policy providing compensation for impacted investors in excess of Nasdaq's then-applicable limitation of liability rules, which proposal was approved by the Commission.
Exchange Rule 527(a) describes the general limitations on liability of the Exchange, its directors, officers, committee members, limited liability company members, employees or agents. Exchange Rule 527(a) provides, in relevant part, that except as provided in paragraph (b) of Exchange Rule 527 or otherwise expressly provided in the Exchange's rules, neither the Exchange nor its directors, officers, committee members, limited liability company members, employees or agents shall be liable to Members or persons associated therewith for any loss, expense, damages, or other claims arising out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities or services afforded by the Exchange, including the interruption in or failure or unavailability of such facilities or services, or any action taken or omitted in respect to the business of the Exchange. Exchange Rule 527(a) provides limited exceptions to these limitations in connection with Exchange employee acts where the extent of such loss, expense, damages or claims are attributable to the willful misconduct, gross negligence, bad faith or fraudulent or criminal acts of the Exchange or its officers, employees or agents acting within the scope of their authority.
Exchange Rule 527(b) further describes exceptions to the Exchange's general limitation of liability rule that allows for the payment of compensation to Members for Exchange System
Subparagraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of Exchange Rule 527 set forth the limits for claims made by Members, individually and in the aggregate, related to Exchange System issues that impact the use or enjoyment of the facilities of the Exchange. The liability limits provided for in Exchange Rules 527(b)(1)-(3) are as follows: (1) as to any one or more claims made by a single Member growing out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange on a single trading day, the Exchange shall not be liable in excess of the larger of $100,000 or the amount of any recovery obtained by the Exchange under any applicable insurance maintained by the Exchange; (2) as to the aggregate of all claims made by all Members growing out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange on a single trading day, the Exchange shall not be liable in excess of the larger of $250,000 or the amount of the recovery obtained by the Exchange under any applicable insurance maintained by the Exchange; and (3) as to the aggregate of all claims made by all Members growing out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange during a single calendar month, the Exchange shall not be liable in excess of the larger of $500,000 or the amount of the recovery obtained by the Exchange under any applicable insurance maintained by the Exchange.
Exchange Rule 527(c) provides that if all of the claims arising out of the use or enjoyment of the facilities afforded by the Exchange cannot be fully satisfied because, in the aggregate, they exceed the applicable maximum amount of liability provided for in subparagraph (b) of Exchange Rule 527, then such maximum amount shall be allocated among all such claims arising on a single trading day or during a single calendar month, as applicable, based upon the proportion that each claim bears to the sum of all claims. Subparagraph (c) further provides that in order for claims to be included in this allocation, Members must submit written notice of their claim to the Exchange no later than the opening of trading on the next business day following the day on which the use or enjoyment of Exchange facilities giving rise to the claim occurred.
As described above, due to the Operational Error on June 3, 2025, the Exchange determined to cancel all trades executed on MIAX Sapphire
After receipt of all Members' claims over the course of several weeks, Exchange officials reviewed each claimed loss by validating the canceled trade execution prices reported during the Timeframe of the Operational Error and the execution prices of the subsequent replacement trades. For trading losses that resulted from a Member executing the replacement trade on MIAX Sapphire, the Exchange: (A) first validated that the canceled trade took place on MIAX Sapphire during the Timeframe of the Operational Error based on the Member's MPID;
For trading losses that resulted from a Member executing the replacement trade on an away-exchange, the Exchange: (A) first validated that the canceled trade took place on MIAX Sapphire during the Timeframe of the Operational Error based on the Member's MPID; (B) validated the execution price of the canceled trade; and (C) validated the execution price of the replacement trade by comparing such price against the closing or opening price of the option, depending on the time of execution, as well as the size of the replacement trade in comparison to the original trade that was canceled. The measure of loss was calculated based on the difference between the execution price of the canceled trade and the execution price of the replacement trade.
The Exchange determined to use the closing or opening price of the option for replacement trades executed on away-exchanges as an initial check to determine whether the claimed replacement trade execution price was within a reasonable range for that particular option. As described above, the Exchange issued an alert to inform all Members that it would cancel all trades during the Timeframe of the Operational Error on June 3, 2025 at 1:07 p.m. At 1:54 p.m., the Exchange notified Members of the specific trade details for their canceled trades. As a result, the Exchange believes that customers of Members may not have been aware of the Operational Error until a day or two (or longer) following the Operational Error, thereby not executing the replacement trade until that time.
The Exchange now proposes to amend Exchange Rule 527 to provide a one-time payment for Members with claims arising from the Operational Error that the Exchange experienced on June 3, 2025 that exceed the limitations provided for in Exchange Rule 527(b)(1)-(3), including the amount of compensation on a per-Member basis. The modifications proposed in this rule change are not intended to and do not affect the limitations of liability set forth in the Exchange's agreements or Commission-sanctioned rules, or those limitations or immunities that bar claims for damages against MIAX Sapphire as a matter of law. Rather, as noted above, they reflect the Exchange's determination to adopt a fair and equitable payment policy that takes into account the impacts of the Exchange's Operational Error on Members and their investor customers.
The Exchange proposes to establish new paragraph (e), which will state that notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(1)-(3)
Proposed subparagraph (e)(1) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that all claims for compensation under this paragraph (e) shall arise solely from realized trading losses from executions that occurred on the Exchange on June 3, 2025 between 11:18 a.m. and 11:33 a.m. Eastern Time that the Exchange subsequently canceled pursuant to Exchange Rule 523, causing Members to execute a new trade on the Exchange or at an away-exchange to replace the canceled trade. The measure of loss was determined by the Exchange pursuant to the methods set forth in proposed subparagraphs (e)(1)(i)-(ii), described below.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(1)(i) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that for trading losses that resulted from a Member executing the replacement trade on MIAX Sapphire, the Exchange: (A) first validated that the canceled trade took place on MIAX Sapphire during the Timeframe of the Operational Error based on the Member's MPID; (B) validated the execution price of the canceled trade; (C) validated that the replacement trade took place on MIAX Sapphire; and (D) validated the execution price of the replacement trade. The measure of loss was calculated based on the difference between the execution price of the canceled trade and the replacement trade.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(1)(ii) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that for trading losses that resulted from a Member executing the replacement trade on an away-exchange, the Exchange: (A) first validated that the canceled trade took place on MIAX Sapphire during the Timeframe of the Operational Error based on the Member's MPID; (B) validated the execution price of the canceled trade; and (C) validated the execution price of the replacement trade by comparing such price against the closing or opening price of the option, depending on the time of execution, as well as the size of the replacement trade in comparison to the original trade that was canceled. The measure of loss was calculated based on the difference between the execution price of the canceled trade and the replacement trade.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(1)(iii) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide a definition for the term “replacement trade,” as described above.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(2) of Exchange Rule 527 will state that in no event shall the Exchange make any payments on claims pursuant to proposed paragraph (e) until the rule proposal filed with the Commission setting forth the aggregate amount of eligible claims becomes effective and final. The Exchange proposes to make all payments for approved claims in cash.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(3) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that payments to Members under proposed paragraph (e) are contingent upon the submission to the Exchange of an attestation within 14 calendar days after the effective date of the rule proposal described in proposed paragraph (e)(2), detailing the following for each original trade that was cancelled by the Exchange that took place during the Timeframe of the Operational Error and each replacement trade: (A) trade date; (B) execution time; (C) symbol; (D) strike price; (E) expiration date; (F) side (buy or sell); (G) quantity; (H) venue (on MIAX Sapphire or an away-exchange); (I) notional value; and (J) claimed loss amount. Proposed subparagraph (e)(3) of Exchange Rule 527 will also state that failure to provide the required attestation will void the Member's eligibility to receive a payment pursuant to proposed paragraph (e) of Exchange Rule 527. The Exchange will also require each Member to maintain books and records that detail the nature and amount of these losses.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(4) of Exchange Rule 527 will provide that all payments to Members under proposed paragraph (e) will be contingent upon the execution and delivery to the Exchange of a release by the Member of all claims by it or its affiliates
The proposed payment policy proposed herein is a voluntary step taken by the Exchange to provide a substantial and rare payment to its Members and their customers, and participation in the program is likewise voluntary on the part of Members. The Exchange believes this type of occurrence warrants the establishment of a payment plan because, prior to the Operational Error, neither the Exchange nor any of its affiliates experienced a systems issue similar to that of the Operational Error. The Exchange believes that it would be inequitable to approve the Exchange's voluntary program without also allowing it to
The Exchange notes that it has received all claims that apply to the Operational Error and that no new additional claims will be accepted. As described above, immediately following the June 3, 2025 Operational Error, the Exchange's Regulatory Operations Department spoke to each Member to discuss the Operational Error, the Exchange's proposed method of remedying trades based on erroneous simulation/testing environment data and the manner in which Members should submit claims for compensation. The Exchange independently verified each Member's claim and confirmed the loss amount with each Member prior to submitting this rule filing. The Exchange believes its proposal is designed to implement a fair and equitable payment policy that takes into account the impacts of the Operational Error on the investing public and Exchange Members.
The total claims received by the Exchange and validated equal approximately $500,000.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposal to expand its limitation of liability payment policy in this unique set of circumstances will balance several important goals in keeping with the foregoing statutory objectives. First, the Exchange acknowledges that the June 3, 2025 Operational Error had an impact on certain of its Members and their customers. As a result, the Exchange believes that the public interest would be served by a payment policy that quantifies and provides compensation for customer losses that were directly attributable to those system issues in an objectively discernible manner. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the public interest would be served by the Exchange making payments in excess of its limitation of liability rules to fully compensate Members that provided details regarding their claimed losses as a result of the Operational Error in an objectively discernible manner. The Exchange further believes that the public interest would be served by the Exchange providing as a payment the loss differential for the trade execution canceled by MIAX Sapphire and the replacement trade—that is the difference between the price that was expected upon execution on MIAX Sapphire during the Timeframe of the Operational Error and the subsequent execution price for the replacement trade that was actually obtained on the Exchange or at an away-exchange.
Second, the Exchange believes that it is important to recognize the regulatory policy objectives underlying Exchange Rule 527 and ensure that they are not compromised. Hundreds of billions of dollars (or more) of securities transactions are matched through the systems of the Exchange and other exchanges every day. Through the operation of those systems, exchanges provide invaluable services in support of capital formation, price discovery, and investor protection. If exchanges could be called upon to bear all costs associated with system malfunctions and the varying reactions of market participants taken in their wake, the potential would exist for a single catastrophic event to bankrupt one or multiple exchanges, with attendant consequences for investor confidence and macroeconomic stability. Alternatively, the cost of providing exchange services would have to rise dramatically for all investors to cover this material and new risk.
Moreover, if the potential for such catastrophic losses existed, as noted above, it would need to be reflected in the fees charged by exchanges to market participants in a manner that is not currently the case, making trading more expensive for all investors all the time. Rather, as the Commission has recognized, provisions such as Exchange Rule 527 reflect the view that risks associated with system malfunctions should be allocated among all exchange members, rather than being borne solely by the exchange. Indeed, this view is consistently reflected in the limitation of liability rules common among United States exchanges.
The Exchange further believes that, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
As described above, this type of proposal is not without precedent and is based on the payment plan implemented by Nasdaq in 2012 for system difficulties in the Nasdaq halt and imbalance cross process in connection with the IPO of Facebook.
The proposed rule change would not impose any burden on competition. The proposed rule change is designed to promote fairness in the marketplace by providing compensation to Members and their customers that experienced a loss as a result of the June 3, 2025 Operational Error. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not burden intra-market competition because all Members would be subject to the same standards and requirements to receive payments as set forth in proposed Exchange Rule 527(e). The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not burden inter-market competition because the proposed rule change is not designed to address any competitive issues.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit regarding the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposal to amend Exchange Rule 527 to provide a one-time accommodation payment to Members for claims arising from an operation error on June 3, 2025, in excess of the liability limits set forth in Exchange Rule 527 for claims made by Members, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by December 26, 2025. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by January 9, 2026.
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
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 5055 (FLEX Equity Options) to permit FLEX Equity Options on the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust, the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust, and the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 5055 (FLEX Equity Options) to permit the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (“GBTC”), the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (“BTC”), and the Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (“BITB”) (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”) to trade as FLEX Equity Options and to require the aggregation of any FLEX and non-FLEX positions on the same underlying ETF for purposes of calculating position and exercise limits as set forth in Rules 3120 and 3140.
Each Fund is an ETF that holds bitcoin and is listed on NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”).
The Exchange proposes to permit options on each Fund to trade as FLEX Equity Options and would require the aggregation of any FLEX and non-FLEX positions in the same underlying Fund for purposes of calculating the position and exercise limits applicable to each Fund.
The Exchange understands that FLEX options on ETFs are currently traded in the over-the-counter (“OTC”) market by a variety of market participants,
The Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and The Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of FLEX Fund Options. The Exchange believes any additional traffic that would be generated from the trading of FLEX Fund Options would be manageable. The Exchange believes Participants will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposed rule change. The Exchange will monitor the trading volume associated with the additional options series listed as a result of this proposed rule change and the effect (if any) of these additional series on the capacity of the Exchange's automated systems.
The Exchange represents that the same surveillance procedures applicable to the Exchange's other options products listed and traded on the Exchange, including non-FLEX options in each Fund, will apply to FLEX Fund Options, and that it has the necessary systems capacity to support such options. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of options on the Funds and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. FLEX options products (and their respective symbols) are integrated into the Exchange's existing surveillance system architecture and are thus subject to the relevant surveillance processes. The Exchange does not believe that allowing FLEX Fund Options would render the marketplace for non-FLEX options in any of the Funds, or equity options in general, more susceptible to manipulative practices.
The Exchange represents that its existing trading surveillances are adequate to monitor the trading in GBTC, BTC, and BITB, as well as any subsequent trading of FLEX Fund Options on the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange is a member of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”) under the ISG Agreement. ISG members work together to coordinate surveillance and investigative information sharing in the stock, options, and futures markets. For surveillance purposes, the Exchange would therefore have access to information regarding trading activity in GBTC, BTC, and BITB and in other pertinent underlying securities on other exchanges through ISG. In addition, the Exchange has a regulatory services agreement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), pursuant to which FINRA conducts certain surveillances on behalf of the Exchange. Further, pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate regulatory responsibilities to FINRA to conduct certain options-related market surveillances.
The proposed rule change is designed to allow investors seeking to trade options on the Funds to utilize FLEX Fund Options. The Exchange believes that offering innovative products flows to the benefit of the investing public. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to participants' evolving needs by constantly improving their offerings. Such efforts would be stymied if exchanges were prohibited from offering innovative products such as the proposed FLEX Fund Options. The Exchange believes that introducing FLEX Fund Options would further broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Equity Options (and options on the Funds in general) to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options. The proposed rule change is also designed to encourage market makers to shift liquidity from the OTC market to the Exchange, which, it believes, will enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is designed to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it should create greater trading and hedging opportunities and flexibility. The proposed rule change should also result in enhanced efficiency in initiating and closing out positions and heightened contra-party creditworthiness due to the role of OCC as issuer and guarantor of FLEX Fund Options. Further, the proposed rule change would result in increased competition by permitting the Exchange to offer products that are currently used in the OTC market.
The Exchange believes that offering innovative products benefits the investing public. A robust and competitive market requires that exchanges respond to the evolving needs of their members by constantly improving their offerings. Such efforts would be stymied if exchanges were prohibited from offering innovative products such as the proposed FLEX Fund Options. The Exchange does not believe that allowing FLEX Fund Options would render the marketplace for equity options more susceptible to manipulative practices.
Finally, the Exchange represents that it has an adequate surveillance program in place to detect manipulative trading in FLEX Fund Options. Regarding the proposed FLEX Fund Options, the Exchange would use the same surveillance procedures utilized for FLEX Equity Options currently listed on the Exchange (as well as for non-FLEX options on each Fund). In light of surveillance measures related to both options and the underlying Funds,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to a filing submitted by NYSE American that was recently approved by the Commission.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition as all market participants would have the option of utilizing the FLEX Fund Options. The proposed rule change is designed to allow investors seeking option exposure to bitcoin to trade FLEX Fund Options. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposal to permit FLEX Fund Options would broaden the base of investors that use FLEX Equity Options to manage their trading and investment risk, including investors that currently trade in the OTC market for customized options.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition as all market participants would have the option of utilizing the FLEX Fund Options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues. The proposed rule change would support that intermarket competition by allowing the Exchange to offer additional functionality to Participants. The Exchange believes that the proposed FLEX Fund Options will increase the variety of options products available for trading in general and bitcoin-related products in particular and, as such, will provide a valuable tool for investors to manage risk. As such, the Exchange believes that this proposal does not create an undue burden on intermarket competition. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule would bolster intermarket competition by promoting fair competition among individual markets. The Exchange notes that competing options exchanges are free to file similar proposals for FLEX Fund Options.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period. The Exchange stated that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will ensure fair competition among the exchanges by allowing the Exchange to offer FLEX Fund Options, without delay, to investors seeking customized options.
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal does not raise any novel regulatory issues and waiver will allow the Exchange to offer FLEX trading on GBTC, BTC, and BITB options, without delay, to investors seeking a customized option. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend its Legging Order functionality at Options 3, Section 7(k).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange previously filed a rule proposal to align all Complex Order functionality on Phlx to Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”) and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX”) Complex Order functionality.
On Phlx, if a Legging Order is created from a Complex Order with a lower priority (
Recently adopted rule text at Options 3, Section 7(k)(1)
The Exchange will implement this rule change at the same time as the Complex Order Filing.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(iv) to provide that a Legging Order will not be generated if there is already a Legging Order in that options series for a Complex Options Order with higher priority on the same side of the market at the same price is consistent with the Act. The proposed amendment to Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(iv) accounts for Phlx's allocation methodology and removes any ambiguity in the rule as to the System's process of generating Legging Orders. Of note, ISE and MRX bids and offers at the same price on the Complex Order Book are executed in time priority.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Phlx's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(iv) does not impose an undue burden on intra-market competition because the amended rule would be applied in a uniform manner to the generation of all Legging Orders by the System.
Phlx's proposal to amend Options 3, Section 7(k)(2)(iv) does not impose an undue burden on inter-market competition as other options exchanges may adopt Legging Orders and similar rules for the generation of such orders.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
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 prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change 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)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U. S. Small Business Administration.
Notice of Performance Review Board appointment.
Federal law requires each agency to publish a notification of the appointment of individuals who will serve as members of that agency's Performance Review Board (PRB). The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) hereby provides notice that the membership of its PRB, previously published in the
The following individuals have been designated to serve on the PRB for the SBA.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
30-Day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested members of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before January 5, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Interim Agency Clearance Officer at
On August 7, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued the Executive Order entitled: “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” (the “Fair Banking Executive Order”) instructing the SBA, along with federal banking regulators, to end the practice of politicized or unlawful debanking—the practice where banks and financial services providers, both independently and at the direction of federal regulators, freeze or close accounts, deny loans, and refuse services to politically disfavored people and businesses. This information collection is necessary to evidence SBA Lender compliance with this Executive Order.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “New Humans: Memories of the Future” at The New Museum of Contemporary Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Request for comments.
The U.S. Trade Representative must conduct a review of trade in automotive goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and submit a report to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives no later than July 1, 2026. USTR invites comments concerning the operation of the USMCA with respect to automotive goods, including the implementation and enforcement of the USMCA rules of origin for automotive goods, as well as whether the automotive provisions of the USMCA are effective in light of technological and production advances.
January 7, 2026 at 11:59pm EST: Deadline for submission of written comments.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the online USTR portal:
Justin Hoffmann, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Market Access and Industrial Competitiveness at (202) 395-2990 or
On January 29, 2020, the President signed into law the USMCA Implementation Act (Pub. L. 116-113), which implements the USMCA between the United States, the United Mexican States, and Canada attached as an Annex to the Protocol Replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement. The USMCA entered into force on July 1, 2020.
The USMCA includes new rules of origin to claim preferential treatment for automotive goods, including higher Regional Value Content (RVC) thresholds, mandatory requirements to produce core parts in the region, mandatory steel and aluminum purchasing requirements, and a Labor Value Content (LVC) requirement. The USMCA allows vehicle producers to request an alternative staging regime for these requirements that would permit a longer period of transition to help ensure that future production is able to meet the new rules. The standard staging regime is specified under the Automotive Appendix to Chapter 4 of the USMCA, with the exception of Article 8, which specifies provisions relating to the alternative staging regime.
The USMCA Implementation Act and Executive Order 13908 established the Interagency Committee on Trade in Automotive Goods (Committee) to advise the President and the U.S. Trade Representative on the implementation, enforcement and modification of the USMCA provisions related to automotive goods. In addition, the Committee reviews the operation of the USMCA with respect to trade in automotive goods, including the economic effects of the USMCA automotive rules of origin on the U.S. economy, workers and consumers, and the impact of new technology on such rules.
Section 202A(g) of the USMCA Implementation Act requires the U.S. Trade Representative, in consultation with the Committee, to conduct a biennial review of the operation of the USMCA with respect to trade in automotive goods, including:
(a) To the extent practicable, a summary of actions taken by producers to demonstrate compliance with the automotive rules of origin, use of the alternative staging regime, enforcement of such rules of origin, and other relevant matters.
(b) Whether the automotive rules of origin are effective and relevant in light of new technology and changes in content, production processes and character of automotive goods.
USTR submitted its first and second reports to Congress on June 30, 2022 and July 1, 2024. No later than July 1, 2026, USTR will submit the results of the third biennial review to the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and post a public version of the report to its website at
In accordance with the USMCA Implementation Act, USTR and the Committee seek views from producers of automotive goods, labor organizations and other interested parties regarding:
1. The overall operation of the USMCA with respect to automotive goods.
2. Actions taken by automotive and parts producers to demonstrate compliance with the USMCA automotive rules of origin, including:
a. The applicable RVC requirements for passenger vehicles, light trucks, heavy trucks, other vehicles, and parts thereof.
b. The North American steel and aluminum purchase requirements.
c. The LVC requirements.
3. The use of alternative staging regimes by vehicle producers to meet the USMCA automotive rules of origin.
4. Enforcement of the USMCA automotive rules of origin, including the alternative staging regimes and the automotive certification process for steel and aluminum content, LVC, and RVC.
5. Whether the current USMCA automotive rules of origin are effective and relevant in light of new technology and changes in the content, production processes, and character of automotive goods.
6. Any other topics relevant to the trade in automotive goods under the USMCA.
To be assured of consideration, submit written comments using the appropriate docket (USTR-2025-0307) on the portal at
You may upload documents and indicate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information. Any page containing business confidential information (BCI) must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If requesting confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that the information would not customarily be released to the public. Interested persons uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of request to release airport land.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the request to release and sell a 0.52-acre parcel of federally obligated airport property at the Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW), Malden, Missouri.
Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: David Blalock, Airport Manager, City of Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park, 3077 Mitchell Drive, P.O. Box 411, Malden, MO 63863-0411, (573) 276-2279.
Amy J. Walter, Airports Land Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329-2603,
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release a 0.52-acre parcel of airport property at the Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). This is a Surplus Property Airport. The City of Malden requested a release from the FAA to sell the parcel to the current tenant, Lion of Judah. The FAA determined this request to release and sell property at the Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the FAA and the release and sale of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this notice.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (MAW) is proposing the release and sale of a parcel of airport property containing 0.52 acres. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the land at the Malden Regional Airport & Industrial Park (M) being changed from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances in order to sell the land. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement project for general aviation use.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA has determined that the minimum random drug and alcohol testing percentage rates for the period January 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026, will remain at 25 percent of safety-sensitive employees for random drug testing and 10 percent of safety-sensitive employees for random alcohol testing.
Ms. Julia Brady, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Medicine, Drug Abatement Division, Program Policy Branch; Email
If you have questions about how the annual random testing percentage rates are determined, please refer to the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, section 120.109(b) (for drug testing), and 120.217(c) (for alcohol testing).
Similarly, 14 CFR 120.217(c), requires the decision on the minimum annual random alcohol testing rate to be based on the random alcohol test violation rate. If the violation rate remains less than 0.50%, the Administrator may continue the minimum random alcohol testing rate at 10%. In 2024, the random alcohol test violation rate was 0.131%. Therefore, the minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain at 10% for calendar year 2026.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (USDOT).
Notice.
FHWA, in coordination with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), is issuing this Notice of Intent (NOI) to solicit comment and advise the public, agencies, and stakeholders that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared to study potential improvements to Interstate 794 (I-794) in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The study corridor includes approximately 1.5 miles of I-794, including a service interchange referred to as the Lake Interchange, and extends generally from the I-794 and I-43/I-94 system interchange (Marquette Interchange) to the Daniel W. Hoan Bridge. The Study is not considering changes to the main span of the Daniel W. Hoan Bridge and will not impact the core function of the Marquette Interchange.
Comments on this NOI and the Supporting Information Documents must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
This NOI and the Supporting Information Documents are available in the docket referenced above at
All submissions should include the agency name and the docket number that appears in the heading of this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to
Persons interested in receiving study information can join the study contact list available from the study website located at
FHWA, as the lead Federal agency, and WisDOT as joint lead agency, are preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions for the Lake Interchange on I-794 in the city of Milwaukee, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321,
FHWA and WisDOT are committed to public involvement for this study. FHWA and WisDOT also request comments and suggestions on the identification of any relevant information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts to the quality of the human and natural environment. All public comments received in response to this NOI will be considered and potential revisions made to the information presented herein as appropriate.
The purpose of the project is to address deteriorating infrastructure in a manner that improves safety and operations within the study corridor, while also striving to enhance community connectivity and compatibility with local plans and development. The Study is driven by the following project needs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Additional detail on the preliminary purpose and need is included in the NOI's supplemental information documents. The purpose and need may be revised based on consideration of public and agency comments received during the comment period for this NOI and during the development of the Draft EIS.
FHWA and WisDOT are developing a range of alternatives for detailed study in the Draft EIS. The No Build alternative and several build alternatives will be considered. Capacity expansion is not anticipated.
The
The
The
Access to and from the west would be provided at Jackson Street and Van Buren Street. These ramps would be placed on the inside of the mainlines with left-hand service ramps similar to the current configuration. Northbound and southbound freeway access would remain at Lincoln Memorial Drive with new right-hand service ramp configurations that are shifted south to a new intersection at an extended St. Paul Avenue. The existing Broadway, Milwaukee Street, and two Lakefront ramps would be eliminated under this alternative.
New surface street connections and modifications would be required to accommodate the consolidation of freeway access within the Lake Interchange. New street connections include a bidirectional Clybourn Street from Plankinton Avenue to Lincoln Memorial Drive, a St. Paul Avenue extension to Lincoln Memorial Drive, and a “Cass Street” extension from Clybourn Street to Harbor Drive. A new unnamed surface street would connect the Jackson Street and Van Buren Street service ramps with Lincoln Memorial Drive. The surface street network improvements could provide new and improved pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on the surface street network.
The proposed
Access to and from the west would be provided at Jackson Street and Van Buren Street. These ramps would be placed on the outside of the mainlines with service ramps on the right-hand side of the freeway. Northbound and southbound access to I-794 would remain at Lincoln Memorial Drive with right-hand service ramp configurations that are shifted south to a new
The proposed
Regional freeway access would be on the west side of the study corridor at the Marquette Interchange. Eastbound and westbound freeway access would be from a new ramp connecting I-94 to Clybourn Street at 6th Street. Southbound and northbound freeway access would be from reconfigured I-43 and I-43/94 ramps that connect mid-block at 2nd Street. On the east side of the study corridor, reconfigured ramps from the Daniel W. Hoan Bridge would connect to a newly created intersection at Lincoln Memorial Drive near Buffalo Street.
The proposed Freeway Removal alternative would include new surface street connections and roadway modifications to disperse traffic throughout the surface street network. New connections include a divided bidirectional Clybourn Street from 6th Street to Lincoln Memorial Drive, a St. Paul Avenue extension to Lincoln Memorial Drive, and a “Cass Street” extension from Clybourn Street to Harbor Drive. A new moveable Clybourn Street bridge over the Milwaukee River would be required to accommodate the new roadway cross section and to maintain navigability on the river. The new ramp connection from I-94 would require the expansion of the Clybourn and 6th Street intersection and the closure of James Lovell Street at Clybourn Street. Vel R. Phillips Avenue would be reconstructed to accommodate the relocation of the sidetrack for The Hop Operations and Maintenance Facility. Second Street and Plankinton Avenue would be reconstructed, and a connecting road would be built between the two streets to facilitate freeway ramp access to and from I-43 at the surface street network. This would eliminate the 3rd Street connection between Clybourn Street and St. Paul Avenue. The surface street network improvements could provide new and improved pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on the surface street network.
Alternatives may be revised based on the consideration of public and agency comments. The range of reasonable alternatives will be finalized after consideration of comments received during the comment period on this notice and will be documented in the Draft EIS.
FHWA and WisDOT will seek input from the public and agencies during the EIS development process regarding the impacts of the project. The EIS will evaluate the reasonably foreseeable (beneficial or adverse) social, economic, and environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the
The following key resources and issues have been identified for evaluation in the EIS and supporting technical studies:
•
•
The
The
The
•
The
The
The
The Freeway Removal alternative could improve connectivity between business districts in downtown and the Historic Third Ward by expanding the surface street grid and providing improved bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Eliminating the elevated freeway infrastructure to the east of the river could provide the most potential surplus property which could create opportunities for additional economic activity in the study corridor.
•
The
The
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Supplemental information on the purpose and need statement, alternatives, and potential project environmental impacts is provided within the NOI supporting information documents available for review in the docket established for this Study and on the study website as noted in the
Permits and authorizations anticipated for the project include a Section 401 water quality certification and a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Section 9 and Section 10 permits under the Rivers and Harbors Act are also anticipated. FHWA and WisDOT will prepare evaluations under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303) and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (54 U.S.C. 200302), perform consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (54 U.S.C. 300101-307108) concurrently with the NEPA environmental review process, and will consult with USFWS in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
After this NOI is issued, WisDOT will coordinate with the Cooperating and Participating Agencies to develop study documentation and the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is anticipated to be issued in October 2026. The combined Final EIS and Record of Decision is anticipated to be issued in May 2027. Per 23 U.S.C. 139(d)(10), permits and authorizations should be completed by no later than 90 days after the issuance of the Record of Decision. However, for this project WisDOT has requested in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 139(d)(10)(C)(ii) that the 404 permit and 401 water quality certification follow a different timeline because the construction date is not expected until 2030 or later.
Prior to the initiation of the EIS, WisDOT hosted a series of public meetings for the Study. The first public meetings were held on August 1 and 2, 2023, to provide an opportunity for the public to learn about the I-794 study process, draft purpose and need, and preliminary design concepts. A subsequent public meeting on May 29, 2025, presented the four build alternatives described above. WisDOT held the last public meetings prior to the initiation of the EIS on November 4 and 5, 2025, to present preliminary evaluation criteria and traffic analysis results to the public. FHWA and WisDOT hosted an early agency introductory meeting with potential Cooperating and Participating Agencies on August 21, 2025, to brief agencies on the anticipated NEPA milestone schedule, the Study's purpose and need, and alternatives anticipated to be evaluated during the NEPA process. The public and agency scoping process is continuing with the publication of this NOI.
Meetings with the public and Cooperating and Participating Agencies will be held throughout the environmental review process. The draft Coordination Plan for Agency and Public Involvement included within the supporting information documents for the NOI describes how the public and agencies will continue to be engaged during EIS development. The Draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the Public Hearing.
The supporting information documents for the NOI include the preliminary purpose and need statement, preliminary range of alternatives, draft Impact Analysis Methodology Report, and the draft Coordination Plan for Agency and Public Involvement, including the NEPA milestones and permit schedules. With this notice, FHWA and WisDOT request and encourage State, tribal, and local agencies, and the public to review the NOI and the supporting information and submit comments on any aspect of the Study. Specifically, agencies and the public are asked to identify and submit potential alternatives for consideration and any information, such as anticipated significant issues or environmental impacts and analyses relevant to the proposed study for consideration by the Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies in developing the Draft EIS. Any information presented herein, including the purpose and need, alternatives, and anticipated impacts may be revised after consideration of the comments. Comments may be submitted according to the instructions in the
Any questions concerning this proposed action, including comments relevant to alternatives, information, and analyses, should be directed to FHWA or WisDOT at the physical addresses, email addresses, or phone numbers provided in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a new information collection. We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by January 5, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 0433 by any of the following methods:
Bronwen Keiner,
We published a
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 13 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below. Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-2011-0089, FMCSA-2014-0382, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2018-0057, FMCSA-2019-0028, FMCSA-2020-0045, FMCSA-2021-0025, FMCSA-2023-0029, FMCSA-2023-0032, or FMCSA-2023-0033 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-2011-0089, FMCSA-2014-0382, FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2018-0057, FMCSA-2019-0028, FMCSA-2020-0045, FMCSA-2021-0025, FMCSA-2023-0029, FMCSA-2023-0032, or FMCSA-2023-0033), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, any public comments received, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The 13 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 13 applicants have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 13 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified driving record from their State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). The information obtained from each applicant's driving record provides the Agency with details regarding any moving violations or reported crash data, which demonstrates whether the driver has a safe driving history and is an indicator of future driving performance. If the driving record revealed a crash, FMCSA requested and reviewed the related police reports and other relevant documents, such as the citation and conviction information. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety that would be achieved without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and are discussed below.
As of July 5, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0323, FMCSA-2020-0045, FMCSA-2023-0029, FMCSA-2023-0032, or FMCSA-2023-0033. Their exemptions were applicable as of July 5, 2025, and will expire on July 5, 2027.
As of July 12, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0355, FMCSA-2011-0089, FMCSA-2014-0382, FMCSA-2018-0057, FMCSA-2019-0028, or FMCSA-2019-0028. Their exemptions were applicable as of July 12, 2025, and will expire on July 12, 2027.
As of July 30, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), Charles Anthony (ND) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
This driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2021-0025. The exemption was applicable as of July 30, 2025, and will expire on July 30, 2027.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver must (1) remain seizure-free, maintain a stable treatment, and report to FMCSA within 24 hours if they experience a seizure during the 2-year exemption period; (2) submit to FMCSA annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) undergo an annual medical examination by a certified medical examiner, as defined by § 390.5T; (4) provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in their driver's qualification file if they are self-employed; (5) report to FMCSA the date, time, and location of any crashes, as defined in § 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (6) report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 to FMCSA within 7 days of the citation and conviction; and (7) submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the 13 exemption renewal applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), and FMCSA's policy of issuing medical exemptions for a 2-year period to correspond with the medical certificate, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below. Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0381, FMCSA-2019-0031, FMCSA-2023-0033, or FMCSA-2023-0035 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 527-4750;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2014-0381, FMCSA-2019-0031, FMCSA-2023-0033, or FMCSA-2023-0035), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (MEs) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, any public comments received, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 11 applicants have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 11 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified driving record from their State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). The information obtained from each applicant's driving record provides the Agency with details regarding any moving violations or reported crash data, which demonstrates whether the driver has a safe driving history and is an indicator of future driving performance. If the driving record revealed a crash, FMCSA requested and reviewed the related police reports and other relevant documents, such as the citation and conviction information. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety that would be achieved without the exemption.
As of September 10, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following nine individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2023-0033, or FMCSA-2023-0035. Their exemptions were applicable as of September 10, 2025, and will expire on September 10, 2027.
As of September 30, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
Ronald Boogay (NJ) and Tina Farmer (MD).
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0381 or FMCSA-2019-0031. Their exemptions were applicable as of September 30, 2025, and will expire on September 30, 2027.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver must (1) remain seizure-free, maintain a stable treatment, and report to FMCSA within 24 hours if they experience a seizure during the 2-year exemption period; (2) submit to FMCSA annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) undergo an annual medical examination by a certified medical examiner, as defined by § 390.5T; (4) provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in their driver's qualification file if they are self-employed; (5) report to FMCSA the date, time, and location of any crashes, as defined in § 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (6) report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 to FMCSA within 7 days of the citation and conviction; and (7) submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption, as set forth in the initial renewal notice (
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the 11 exemption renewal applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), and FMCSA's policy of issuing medical exemptions for a 2-year period to correspond with the medical certificate, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 11 individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below. Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0116, FMCSA-2019-0028, FMCSA-2019-0031, FMCSA-2019-0033, FMCSA-2019-0034, FMCSA-2022-0046, FMCSA-2023-0035, or FMCSA-2023-0036 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2015-0116, FMCSA-2019-0028, FMCSA-2019-0031, FMCSA-2019-0033, FMCSA-2019-
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (MEs) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, any public comments received, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 11 applicants have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The 11 drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified driving record from their State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). The information obtained from each applicant's driving record provides the Agency with details regarding any moving violations or reported crash data, which demonstrates whether the driver has a safe driving history and is an indicator of future driving performance. If the driving record revealed a crash, FMCSA requested and reviewed the related police reports and other relevant documents, such as the citation and conviction information. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety that would be achieved without the exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of October and are discussed below.
As of October 4, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0116, FMCSA-2019-0028, FMCSA-2019-0031, FMCSA-2019-0033, FMCSA-2019-0034, FMCSA-2022-0046, or FMCSA-2023-0035. Their exemptions were applicable as of October 4, 2025, and will expire on October 4, 2027.
As of October 22, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2023-0036. Their exemptions were applicable as of October 22, 2025, and will expire on October 22, 2027.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver must (1) remain seizure-free, maintain a stable treatment, and report to FMCSA within 24 hours if they experience a seizure during the 2-year exemption period; (2) submit to FMCSA annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) undergo an annual medical examination by a certified medical examiner, as defined by § 390.5T; (4) provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in their driver's qualification file if they are self-employed; (5) report to FMCSA the date, time, and location of any crashes, as defined in § 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (6) report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 to FMCSA within 7 days of the citation and conviction; and (7) submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption, as set forth in the initial renewal notice (
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the 11 exemption renewal applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), and FMCSA's policy of issuing medical exemptions for a 2-year period to correspond with the medical certificate, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for six individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on August 13, 2025. The exemptions expire on August 13, 2027. Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0253, FMCSA-2018-0057, FMCSA-2020-0049, FMCSA-2021-0025, FMCSA-2023-0030, or FMCSA-2023-0033 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 366-4001;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2017-0253, FMCSA-2018-0057, FMCSA-2020-0049, FMCSA-2021-0025, FMCSA-2023-0030, or FMCSA-2023-0033), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view comments, go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews the application, safety analyses, and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption, pursuant to the standard set forth in 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1). The Agency must publish its decision in the
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding seizures and loss of consciousness provides that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control” a CMV (49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)). To assist in applying this standard, FMCSA publishes guidance for medical examiners (MEs) in the form of medical advisory criteria in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 391.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA began granting exemptions, on a case-by-case basis, to individual drivers from the physical qualification standard regarding seizures and loss of consciousness in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) (78 FR 3069). The Agency considers the medical advisory criteria, the 2007 MEP recommendations, any public comments received, and each individual's medical information and driving record in deciding whether to grant the exemption.
The six individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of their exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), in accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.
Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the six applicants have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. The six drivers in this notice remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. In addition, the Agency has reviewed each applicant's certified driving record from their State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). The information obtained from each applicant's driving record provides the Agency with details regarding any moving violations or reported crash data, which demonstrates whether the driver has a safe driving history and is an indicator of future driving performance. If the driving record revealed a crash, FMCSA requested and reviewed the related police reports and other relevant documents, such as the citation and conviction information. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to safely operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety that would be achieved without the exemption.
As of August 13, 2025, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers.
The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2017-0253, FMCSA-2018-0057, FMCSA-2020-0049, FMCSA-2021-0025, FMCSA-2023-0030, or FMCSA-2023-0033. Their exemptions were applicable as of August 13, 2025, and will expire on August 13, 2027.
The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions: each driver must (1) remain seizure-free, maintain a stable treatment, and report to FMCSA within 24 hours if they experience a seizure during the 2-year exemption period; (2) submit to FMCSA annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) undergo an annual medical examination by a certified medical examiner, as defined by § 390.5T; (4) provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in their driver's qualification file if they are self-employed; (5) report to FMCSA the date, time, and location of any crashes, as defined in § 390.5T, within 7 days of the crash; (6) report to FMCSA any citations and convictions for disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR parts 383 and 391 to FMCSA within 7 days of the citation and conviction; and (7) submit to FMCSA annual certified driving records from their SDLA. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition, the driver must meet all the applicable commercial driver's license testing requirements. Each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption, as set forth in the initial renewal notice (
During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
Based on its evaluation of the six exemption renewal applications, FMCSA renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), and FMCSA's policy of issuing medical exemptions for a 2-year period to correspond with the medical certificate, each exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of submission deadline extension.
On September 24, 2025, FRA published in the
For further information concerning this notice, grant application submission, and processing questions, please contact
The full text of the NOFO can be found at
This extension of the NOFO application submission deadline modifies the January 7, 2025 deadline stated in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a new information collection.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. NHTSA is seeking OMB approval for a new information collection to conduct consumer research to enhance the usefulness of vehicle safety rating information and guide the potential redesign of the Government 5-Star Safety Ratings section of the Monroney label (vehicle window sticker). A
Comments must be submitted on or before January 5, 2026.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, including suggestions for reducing burden, should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget at
For additional information or access to background documents, contact Mike Joyce, Marketing Specialist, Office of Communications and Consumer Information (NCO-0200), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W52-238, Washington, DC 20590. Mike Joyce's email address is
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
NHTSA is seeking approval of a new information collection request for four information collections that NHTSA will use as part of a one-time study gather data to enhance the usefulness of the safety rating information provided under the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) and guide the potential redesign of the Government 5-Star Safety Ratings section of the Monroney label.
The one-time research study will include two components. The first component will involve a series of
This collection of information will be voluntary. Respondents will include U.S. adult licensed drivers who are shared or primary decision-makers for their households' vehicle purchasing decisions and who are in the “new vehicle purchasing mindset”—that is, they have purchased a new vehicle in the last six months or plan to do so in the next 12 months. Qualitative reporting will deidentify respondents and no personally identifiable information (PII) will be shared with NHTSA. Reports highlighting findings from the qualitative and quantitative research will be delivered to and maintained by NHTSA.
The purpose of this research is to obtain critical information that will allow NHTSA and NCAP to fulfill a congressional mandate to improve highway traffic safety. NCAP is responsible for providing consumers with important safety information to assist them in their vehicle purchase decisions. The proposed research will gather necessary data to guide the redesign of the Government 5-Star Safety Ratings section of the Monroney label and enhance the usefulness of that safety rating information. This collection of information will allow NHTSA to obtain critical information to assist the agency in fulfilling the 2015 FAST Act's requirement that NHTSA issue a rule to ensure that crash-avoidance information is provided next to crashworthiness information on vehicle windows stickers.
NHTSA received comments on a variety of topics, including the urgent need for a revised safety label and the lack of comparative ratings on the existing safety label. NHTSA also received comments asking about the need to conduct additional research after conducting research in 2022. NHTSA also received comments regarding providing environmental information on the label as well as issues regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. After considering the comments, NHTSA has decided not to make changes to the planned research study and information collection in response to those comments. Detailed responses to the comments are provided in NHTSA's submission to OMB.
For this information collection, NHTSA plans to conduct an initial cognitive test as a pilot to assess the survey instrument and ensure the content is clear, easy to understand and includes the appropriate questions and response options to evaluate concepts for a new design for the section of the window sticker that contains safety information. The research team will partner with a market research recruiter and will use their proprietary database to find and recruit participants to complete the cognitive test. NHTSA estimates that they will be recruited using online outreach (and supplemented with other forms of outreach such as phone or mail as needed). A total of 9 respondents will participate in the qualitative phase (a cognitive test of the survey instrument). Past experience shows that nine interviews serve as a sufficient number for cognitive testing.
For the quantitative phase, 1,000 respondents will complete an online survey with screening questions.
Because the number of respondents and the amount of time required is different for each phase of the research, burden estimates are calculated based on each phase and then summed to create a total.
Based on projections (708 hours) in the table on the previous page, the estimated total annual opportunity cost associated with the information collection request is $32,702 (rounded).
NHTSA does not expect there to be any cost associated with the information collections other than the opportunity cost associated with the time they spend participating in the study.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before December 22, 2025.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: (1) Motor vehicle, (2) Rail freight, (3) Cargo vessel, (4) Cargo aircraft only, (5) Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: (1) Motor vehicle, (2) Rail freight, (3) Cargo vessel, (4) Cargo aircraft only, (5) Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has granted or denied the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before January 5, 2026.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (Department).
Request for information (RFI).
The Department is interested in design concepts and construction and financing proposals for the development of completely new terminals and concourses to replace or build upon the existing main terminal and satellite concourses at Washington Dulles International Airport. This RFI is being conducted to inform and develop potential approaches for entirely new terminal(s) and concourses to replace the existing terminal and concourses. The Department will also accept submissions that propose to retain portions of the existing airport facilities, including, for example, by incorporating all or part of the historic Eero Saarinen-designed main terminal into a new terminal building.
Questions regarding this RFI must be submitted by December 15, 2025. By December 26, 2025, the Department will post on its website answers to questions received. Final submissions are due by January 20, 2026.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit responses to the questions posed in this RFI, along with supporting information, identified by “Washington Dulles Revitalization,” by any of the following methods:
Owen Morgan, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4000. Email:
When people arrive to the Nation's capital from abroad, the airports they see should be inspiring, serving as a symbol of the might and prestige of the United States. Washington, DC's airports should be a source of pride for Americans. Yet they are anything but. Washington Dulles International Airport in particular—the busiest of the three airports servicing the National Capital Region—has fallen into a state of disrepair since it opened its doors in 1962. Once known for its iconic aerofoil-inspired main terminal designed by Eero Saarinen, the airport is now better known for its inefficient system of people movers that deliver passengers as much as a half mile or more away from their gates, its infamous moon-rover-like “mobile lounges,” jet fuel smell in the concourses, and a paltry number of gates at the main terminal. In short, Washington Dulles International Airport is no longer an airport suitable and grand enough for the capital of the United States of America.
On August 28, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order (E.O.) 14344,
The Department, which owns the airport, intends to provide all submissions received under this RFI to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA), which operates the airport under a long-term lease, for MWAA's consideration and potential sponsorship.
Washington Dulles International Airport has served the DC region since its opening in 1962. In 2024, the airport was the 24th largest in the United States by passenger enplanements.
The Secretary of Transportation and MWAA first executed a lease for Ronald Reagan National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport and the surrounding properties in 1987 (“the lease”). Prior to the establishment of MWAA and the lease of both airports to MWAA, the airports had been operated by the Federal Aviation Agency and its predecessor (the Civil Aeronautics Authority). The Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986
The Department seeks responses to the questions posed in this RFI, along with supporting information, developed independently from the current capital improvement plans proposed by MWAA, including the Washington Dulles International Airport Master Plan approved by the MWAA board of directors on July 16, 2025.
The purpose of this RFI is to solicit information for design-construction plans for new terminal(s) and concourses to replace or build upon the existing terminal and concourses at Washington Dulles International Airport that can assist the Department in:
• Learning more about what designs may be suitable and appropriate for the site.
• Gaining a better understanding of what structures could be employed to finance a redesign or design-build of the airport or a major renovation thereof.
• Learning the estimated timeline for completion of such a project.
• Gathering cost information.
The Department may use information obtained through this request to assist, inform, and research paths for new terminals and concourses to replace the existing terminal(s) and concourses using all available resources and authorities. The Department will also accept submissions that propose to retain all or part of the existing airport facilities, including the Eero Saarinen-
DOT requests statements of interest and capability statements from qualified industry partners.
Interested members of the public, including potential vendors, are requested to submit information on the following:
• Company name and address;
• URL of company website (if applicable); and
• Point of contact, including telephone number and email address.
• Are there any detailed renderings or designs sufficient to convey the concept?
• Is there a description of the vision, architecture, and key elements of the concept?
• Is there a design that could retain all or part of the existing airport facilities, including the Eero Saarinen-designed main terminal?
• What are any innovative approaches to financing and delivery methods, such as a Public-Private Partnership (P3), Airport Investment Partnership Program, alternate delivery methods, exceptions to procurement requirements for recipients of Federal financial assistance, or other creative concepts for structure and finance of the design-build?
• What is the expected timing of each phase of design-build and the schedule of activities necessary for a complete redesign and build or major renovation?
• What are the principal factors that could accelerate or delay a design and build of a redesign or major renovation of the airport?
See also the
The ROMs will be used solely for internal informational and planning purposes.
The Department may request clarification to responses directly related to this RFI through direct contact with respondents. Respondents must identify and clearly mark any proprietary information contained in their submissions and must be prepared to provide justification for confidential treatment to the Department of such designations if requested. This proprietary information will be will be treated confidentially by the Department; however, nothing alters the Department's obligations under existing law, including any duties owed by the Department under the Freedom of Information Act. The Department may need the Respondent's justification of the proprietary designation to support withholding the documents or information from public disclosure upon request.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority at 49 U.S.C. 49101
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on October 1, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Licensing, 202-622-2480; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490 or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On October 1, 2025, OFAC determined that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authority listed below.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, Treasury.
Notice.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is publishing the names of one or more persons that have been placed on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) based on OFAC's determination that one or more applicable legal criteria were satisfied. All property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of these persons are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them.
This action was issued on December 3, 2025. See
OFAC: Associate Director for Global Targeting, 202-622-2420; Assistant Director for Sanctions Compliance, 202-622-2490; or
The SDN List and additional information concerning OFAC sanctions programs are available on OFAC's website:
On December 3, 2025, OFAC determined that that the property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction of the following persons are blocked under the relevant sanctions authorities listed below.
1. ESCOBAR CABRERA, Asdrubal Rafael (a.k.a. “El Asdrubal”), Venezuela; DOB 04 Aug 1992; POB Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Cedula No. 21269516 (Venezuela) (individual) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: TREN DE ARAGUA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, “Blocking Property of Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 76 FR 44757 (July 27, 2011), as amended by Executive Order 13863 of March 15, 2019, “Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations,” 84 FR 10255 (March 19, 2019) (E.O. 13581, as amended) for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, “Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism,” 66 FR 49079, as amended by Executive Order 13886 of September 9, 2019, “Modernizing Sanctions To Combat Terrorism,” 84 FR 48041 (E.O. 13224, as amended) for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
2. ESPINAL QUINTERO, Richard Jose (a.k.a. ESPINEL QUINTERO, Richard Jose; a.k.a. “El Coty”), Venezuela; DOB 19 Apr 1996; POB Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Secondary
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. GUERRERO PALMA, Cheison Royer (a.k.a. “Arabe Negro”; a.k.a. “Mexicali”), Chile; DOB 16 Feb 1985; POB Maracay, Aragua, Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Cedula No. 17984659 (Venezuela) (individual) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: TREN DE ARAGUA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. SEVILLA ARTEAGA, Kenffersso Jhosue (a.k.a. MARTINEZ LOPEZ, Jose Daniel; a.k.a. SEVILLA ARTEGA, Kenffersso Jhosue; a.k.a. SEVILLA ATEAGA, Kenferson; a.k.a. “El Flipper”; a.k.a. “Flypper”), Colombia; DOB 29 Apr 1993; POB Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Cedula No. 21098983 (Venezuela); alt. Cedula No. 1047240759 (Colombia) (individual) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: TREN DE ARAGUA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
5. APONTE CORDOVA, Noe Manases (a.k.a. “El Noe”), Venezuela; DOB 30 May 1988; POB Venezuela; nationality Venezuela; citizen Venezuela; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Cedula No. 19554865 (Venezuela) (individual) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: TREN DE ARAGUA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
6. ARAYA NAVARRO, Jimena Romina (a.k.a. “ARAYA, Jimena”; a.k.a. “Rosita”), Venezuela; Colombia; DOB 05 Sep 1983; nationality Venezuela; Gender Female; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Cedula No. 16011070 (Venezuela) (individual) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: TREN DE ARAGUA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
7. LANDAETA HERNANDEZ, Eryk Manuel (a.k.a. “Eryk”), Colombia; DOB 29 Aug 1982; nationality Venezuela; Gender Male; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Cedula No. 15978329 (Venezuela) (individual) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: TREN DE ARAGUA).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(B) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(C) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for having materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, Tren De Aragua, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
1. YAKERA Y LANE SAS (a.k.a. YAKERA YLANE S.A.S.), Cucuta, Norte de Santander, Colombia; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 20 Jun 2019; Organization Type: Wholesale and retail trade; NIT # 901296366-9 (Colombia) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: SEVILLA ARTEAGA, Kenffersso Jhosue).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Kenffersso Jhosue Sevilla Arteaga, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Kenffersso Jhosue Sevilla Arteaga, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
2. ERYK PRODUCCIONES SAS, Bogota, Colombia; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 23 Jun 2023; Organization Type: Creative, arts and entertainment activities; NIT # 901726321-4 (Colombia) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: LANDAETA HERNANDEZ, Eryk Manuel).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Eryk Manuel Landaeta Hernandez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Eryk Manuel Landaeta Hernandez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
3. GLOBAL IMPORT SOLUTIONS S.A., Anaco, Anzoategui, Venezuela; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 20 Jul 2021; Tax ID No. J411408778 (Venezuela) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: ARAYA NAVARRO, Jimena Romina).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jimena Romina Araya Navarro, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Jimena Romina Araya Navarro, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
4. MAIQUETIA VIP BAR RESTAURANT (a.k.a. MAIQUETIA VIP; a.k.a. “DISCOTECA MAIQUETIA VIP”), Cl. 17 Sur #16-54, Bogota, Colombia; Secondary sanctions risk: section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as amended by Executive Order 13886; Organization Established Date 17 Dec 2020; Organization Type: Beverage serving activities; Matricula Mercantil No 3319256 (Colombia) [SDGT] [TCO] (Linked To: LANDAETA HERNANDEZ, Eryk Manuel).
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(ii)(C) of E.O. 13581, as amended, for being owned or controlled by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Eryk Manuel Landaeta Hernandez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13581, as amended.
Designated pursuant to section 1(a)(iii)(A) of E.O. 13224, as amended, for being owned, controlled, or directed by, or having acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, Eryk Manuel Landaeta Hernandez, a person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to E.O. 13224, as amended.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in
Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's website at
Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's website, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the
1. Renters are entitled to the benefits of vigorous competition among landlords. In prosperous times, that competition should limit rent hikes; in harder times, competition should bring down rent, making housing more affordable. RealPage has built a business out of frustrating the natural forces of competition. In its own words, “a rising tide raises all ships.” This is more than a marketing mantra. RealPage sells software to landlords that collects nonpublic information from competing landlords and uses that combined information to make pricing recommendations. In its own words, RealPage “
2. In fact, as RealPage's Vice President of Revenue Management Advisory Services described, “
3. RealPage replaces competition with coordination. It substitutes unity for rivalry. It subverts competition and the competitive process. It does so openly and directly—and American renters are left paying the price.
4. Americans spend more money on housing than any other expense. On average, American households allocate more than one-third of their monthly income to housing. Some purchase a home, while others choose to, or must, rent. A family's selection of an apartment reflects a complex set of values and criteria including comfort, safety, access to schools, convenience, and critically, affordability. To ensure they secure the greatest value for their needs, renters rely on robust and fierce competition between landlords.
5. RealPage distorts that competition. Across America, RealPage sells landlords commercial revenue management software. RealPage develops, markets, and sells this software to enable landlords to sidestep vigorous competition to win renters' business. Many of the largest landlords in the United States, including Greystar, Camden, Cortland, Cushman & Wakefield and Pinnacle, LivCor, and Willow Bridge (collectively, Defendant Landlords), which would otherwise be competing with each other, submit or have submitted on a daily basis their competitively sensitive information to RealPage.
6. Based on this process and algorithm, RealPage provides daily, near real-time pricing “recommendations” back to competing landlords. These recommendations are based on the sensitive information of their rivals. But these are more than just “recommendations.” Because, in its own words, a “rising tide raises all ships,” RealPage monitors compliance by landlords to its recommendations. RealPage also reviews and weighs in on landlords' other policies, including trying to—and often succeeding in—ending renter-friendly concessions (like a free month's rent or waived fees) to attract or retain renters. A significant number of landlords then effectively agree to outsource their pricing function to RealPage with auto acceptance or other settings such that RealPage as a middleman, and not the free market, determines the price that a renter will pay. Competing landlords choose to share their information with RealPage to “eliminate the guessing game” about what their competitors are doing and ultimately take instructions from RealPage on how to make business decisions to “optimize”—or in reality, maximize—rents.
7. Each landlord pays steep fees to license RealPage's software. RealPage's stated goals and value proposition are not a secret. Its executives are blunt: They want landlords to “avoid the race to the bottom in down markets.” Sometimes RealPage is even more direct, acknowledging that its software is aimed at “driving every possible opportunity to increase price” or observing that among landlords, “there is a greater good in everybody succeeding versus essentially trying to compete against one another in a way that actually keeps the entire industry down.”
8. But that is not how the free market works. A free market requires that landlords compete on the merits, not coordinate pricing. Landlords should win renters by offering whatever combination of price and quality they think is most attractive. For example, landlords could lower rents or provide other financial concessions, like free months of rent, or with investments in amenities like gyms, grilling areas, or pools. Put differently, the fear of losing a renter to a competitor should motivate rival landlords to compete vigorously.
9. RealPage's revenue management software ingests on a daily basis nonpublic rental rates, future apartment availability, and changes in competitors' rates and occupancy. As competitor-
10. RealPage allows landlords to manipulate, distort, and subvert market forces. One landlord observed that RealPage's software “can eliminate the guessing game” for landlords' pricing decisions. Discussing a different RealPage product, another landlord said: “I always liked this product because your algorithm uses proprietary data from other subscribers to suggest rents and term. That's classic price fixing. . . .” A third landlord explained, “Our very first goal we came out with immediately out of the gate is that we will not be the reason any particular sub-market takes a rate dive. So for us our strategy was to hold steady and to keep an eye on the communities around us and our competitors.”
11. RealPage's scheme not only distorts competition to the detriment of renters, but also allows it to reinforce its dominant position in the market for commercial revenue management software. By its own account, RealPage controls at least 80 percent of that market. Its dominant position is protected by substantial data advantages due to its massive reservoir of ill-gotten competitively sensitive information from competing landlords. No other revenue management company can match RealPage's access to landlords' nonpublic, competitively sensitive rental data. This is why RealPage acknowledges that it “does not have any true competitors, mainly because our data is based on real lease transaction data.” RealPage's conduct is predatory and exclusionary, which has allowed it to distort the market opportunities for honest providers of revenue management software.
12. At bottom, RealPage is an algorithmic intermediary that collects, combines, and exploits landlords' competitively sensitive information. And in so doing, it enriches itself and compliant landlords, including Defendant Landlords, at the expense of renters who pay inflated prices and honest businesses that would otherwise compete.
13. The United States, and the States of North Carolina, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, acting by and through their respective Attorneys General, bring this action pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act to rid markets of (i) RealPage's and Defendant Landlords' unlawful information-sharing and pricing alignment schemes, and (ii) RealPage's illegal monopoly in commercial revenue management software. In so doing, Plaintiffs seek to restore the free market to deserving individuals, families, and honest businesses.
14. RealPage dominates the market for commercial revenue management software that landlords use to price apartments, controlling at least 80 percent of that market, according to its own estimates. RealPage currently offers three revenue management systems to landlords: YieldStar, AI Revenue Management (AIRM), and Lease Rent Options (LRO). The company's main legacy software, YieldStar, is the product of three acquisitions and subsequent internal development. Its successor, AIRM, uses much of the same codebase as YieldStar, but RealPage claims that AIRM's refined models and forecasting are more precise. RealPage acquired its other revenue management software, LRO, in 2017. RealPage has made plans to sunset both YieldStar and LRO by the end of 2024.
15. Competitively sensitive data collected from competing landlords is a critical input to RealPage's revenue management software. AIRM and YieldStar collect this data, such as rental applications, executed new leases, renewal offers and acceptances, and forward-looking occupancy, and use it to generate price recommendations for the competing landlords. This information is among the most competitively sensitive data a landlord maintains.
16. The exploitation of sensitive data from competing landlords is central to RealPage's approach. As part of pitching its software to landlords, RealPage highlights that its pricing algorithms use their competitors' data sourced directly from “lease transaction data.” RealPage describes this nonpublic data from competitors as one of three “building blocks of price” in AIRM and YieldStar. Landlords thus share their competitively sensitive information with RealPage with the understanding that RealPage's software will use the data to generate recommendations for rivals (and vice versa).
17. RealPage amasses nonpublic, competitively sensitive data from competing landlords through use of its pricing algorithms, other rental property software, and thousands of monthly phone calls. The combined troves of nonpublic, competitively sensitive data are much more granular, sensitive, timely, and comprehensive than alternatives—and far more detailed than any data publicly available to potential renters. RealPage then uses this data in generating competitors' pricing recommendations.
18.
19. Landlords understand that AIRM and YieldStar use their data to recommend prices not just for their own units, but also for competitors. For example, a revenue management director at Greystar testified that she understood that Greystar, and other competing landlords who used AIRM or YieldStar, agreed with RealPage to share their data, which was combined in a single data pool for use by YieldStar and AIRM. An executive at Willow Bridge noted the advantages to using YieldStar at a property if others in the property's submarket—the small geographic area around the property—also used YieldStar because “the shared data between the models at different communities can be a benefit in getting accurate transactional data on a timely basis.”
20. Landlords agree to provide this information for use by their competitors because they understand they will be able to leverage the sensitive information of their rivals in turn. In its pitch to prospective clients, RealPage describes AIRM's and YieldStar's access to competitors' granular, transactional data as a meaningful tool that it claims enables landlords to outperform their properties' competitors by 2-7%. RealPage clients receive training that highlights the role of competitors' transactional data in the price recommendation process.
21.
22.
23. Each landlord using RealPage's OneSite, Business Intelligence, and Performance Analytics with Benchmarking products agrees to share its proprietary data with RealPage and agrees that RealPage's revenue management software can use the data to generate pricing recommendations. The license agreements for these products specifically identify the shared data, such as pricing information, as confidential, nonpublic information. RealPage takes this deeply confidential information and uses it to provide rent recommendations to competitors of these clients.
24. These agreements grant RealPage access to confidential information from over 16 million units across the country, including many that do not use its revenue management products. With respect to Performance Analytics with Benchmarking alone, a RealPage sales representative told a prospective client that “we have over 16 million units of data coming from various source operating systems (PMS) [property management software] into the PAB platform,” making RealPage the top choice for “transactional data benchmarking.” With properties containing approximately 3 million units using AIRM and YieldStar, these additional agreements meaningfully multiply the scale of the transactional data used by AIRM and YieldStar. This gives RealPage greater visibility, including into markets with less penetration by AIRM and YieldStar, granting even initial AIRM and YieldStar adopters in a new market the benefit of access to a significant amount of nonpublic, competitively sensitive information.
25. Landlords understand that AIRM and YieldStar will use data from these products. A revenue management director at Greystar explained that RealPage ingests transactional data from several RealPage products, besides AIRM and YieldStar, for use in revenue management. A property owner requested information from Greystar on which competing properties used revenue management software. In an internal response, the Greystar director noted that RealPage has “access to more transactional history than anyone and [is] pulling data from anyone using RealPage products which includes companies who manually price or use other revenue management firms but leveraging their BI [Business Intelligence] products.”
26. A revenue management executive at Willow Bridge asked RealPage if other specific landlords were using RealPage's non-revenue management products. The landlord's owner client was concerned about the data available to YieldStar because competing properties were unsophisticated and did not use revenue management. This executive wanted to confirm that “YieldStar will be able to leverage actual transactional data behind the scenes and not just look at offered rents for their comps.” RealPage reminded the Willow Bridge executive that RealPage collected transactional data for
27.
28. In addition to agreeing to share nonpublic, competitively sensitive data with RealPage, each AIRM and YieldStar licensee agrees with RealPage to use the AIRM or YieldStar pricing software as RealPage designed it.
29. While landlords may not accept every price recommendation, they use AIRM or YieldStar as their pricing software, regularly review AIRM or YieldStar floor plan recommendations, use AIRM or YieldStar to set a scheduled floor plan rent, and use AIRM or YieldStar to set unit-level prices.
30. Landlords who use AIRM and YieldStar know that others are using the same software. Some landlords track which revenue management software their competitors use, including by contacting competing properties directly and exchanging nonpublic information. Other landlords, including prospective AIRM and YieldStar users, ask RealPage whether there are existing AIRM and YieldStar users nearby before they themselves license the products.
31. An executive at Willow Bridge, for example, explained to her team how she would learn from RealPage data or from a property's website whether a property used revenue management. This information is important because properties that use revenue management tend to update prices much more frequently, and so a landlord will react differently to those price changes if it knows the competitor is using revenue management.
32. RealPage frequently tells prospective and current clients that a “rising tide raises all ships.” A RealPage revenue management vice president explained that this phrase means that “there is greater good in everybody succeeding versus essentially trying to compete against one another in a way that actually keeps the industry down.” This rising tide lifts all landlords, including but not limited to AIRM and YieldStar users.
33. In using AIRM and YieldStar, landlords expect this pricing alignment and use RealPage software in part for this reason. One landlord echoed the RealPage executive, using the phrase “a rising tide rises [sic] all ships” to explain that AIRM would move prices in a “similar manner” to how the top and bottom of the market move. Elsewhere that same landlord noted that “if everyone in the market is doing well and everyone in the market has [sic] is having the rates go up, so should ours,
34. The data that RealPage uses and supplies is unique relative to public data available to landlords on listing or property websites. As compared to public data, RealPage data is much more granular, covers a broader array of business information, and includes competitively sensitive data across several dimensions. For example:
•
•
•
•
•
•
35. RealPage touts how its data is different. As one RealPage pitch deck put it, “we have [the] most data and the best data.” And the “[q]uality of data is best in class given that it is `lease transaction data'—this provides insight into performance data from actual signed leases, both new and renewal, net effective of concessions.” Another noted that without YieldStar “you'll be pricing your renewals in the dark without insight into actual lease transaction data that YS uses to help you make pricing decisions. This is critical to price renewals right[,] especially in a downturn.”
36. Access to this data proves important in winning over revenue management clients, including skeptical ones. One RealPage senior manager noted that a “highly suspicious CFO” was won over in part by YieldStar's “lease transaction data” that allowed his company to “achieve what his people couldn't achieve on their own.”
37. One landlord explained the benefits of YieldStar to its owner clients by calling the use of competitors' transactional data a “game changer! We have 100% truth on [competitors'] activity powering YieldStar recommendations.”
38. Another landlord's internal training presentation on YieldStar highlighted the importance of having access to competitors' transactional data:
39. AIRM and YieldStar are built upon similar code and leverage competitive data in similar ways. LRO, on the other hand, was originally developed outside of RealPage and takes a different approach.
40. AIRM uses competitors' nonpublic, transactional data in three separate stages of the pricing process: (1) model training, (2) floor plan price recommendations, and (3) unit-level prices. YieldStar uses competitors' nonpublic, transactional data in stages two and three of its process.
41. In the first stage, RealPage trains its AIRM models using nonpublic data from OneSite and other property management software, totaling millions of executed lease transactions, new lead applications, renewal applications, and guest cards filled out by visiting potential tenants. This data is run through a machine learning model to generate learned parameters for supply and demand models that are then used for all AIRM clients across the country. Like the coefficients in a regression model, the learned parameters are applied to the data of a landlord's specific property, and to the data of its competitors, when AIRM makes pricing recommendations. RealPage generally retrains the models three to four times per year using updated nonpublic data.
42. In the second stage AIRM or YieldStar provides a price recommendation for every floor plan of a given property. A floor plan is a grouping of units that share similar characteristics, such as the number of bedrooms and bathrooms and square footage. Landlords define the floor plans in their buildings—for example, a large apartment building might have separate sets of floor plans for studios, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments. As discussed below, AIRM and YieldStar use competitors' nonpublic, transactional data in nearly every step of setting a recommended floor plan price, including identifying peer properties, forecasting occupancy and leasing, increasing rents to match competitors' changes, and determining the magnitude of price changes.
43.
44. AIRM or YieldStar then uses the nonpublic data from competitors' executed leases to generate a market range chart for each floor plan. This chart identifies a “smoothed” market minimum effective rent and market maximum effective rent. The market minimum is a hard floor. AIRM and YieldStar will not recommend a rent below the market minimum. On the other hand, the market maximum is a “soft ceiling,” and the programs will recommend prices above the ceiling.
45. The client has access to the market range chart within the AIRM and YieldStar interfaces. As shown below, for each floor plan the client can see the smoothed market minimum and market maximum and where the client's own floor plan sits within the market range.
46.
47. AIRM or YieldStar then determines whether actual leasing for a floor plan is on track to meet predicted leasing. To do so, it creates a forecast of the number of leases over time, using nonpublic lease and application data from the subject property, and potentially from so-called surrogate properties (similar properties in the surrounding area).
48.
49.
50. RealPage describes elasticity as a pivotal input into balancing supply and demand and, therefore, price.
51. The use of surrogate properties in this pricing process has the potential to push convergence on price even further. As two properties' surrogate sets become closer—and therefore their respective demand curves become more similar—AIRM and YieldStar will generate increasingly similar prices for the two properties. And the use of surrogates is common. One of the largest landlords in the country, for example, uses surrogates at over 80% of its properties.
52. This process repeats for every floor plan in the client's property, every night. A new floor plan price recommendation is generated daily.
53. A property manager at the landlord reviews each floor plan recommendation daily and enters the floor plan price. AIRM and YieldStar then use the floor plan price to generate prices for every unit within the floor plan. The unit price is shown in a pricing matrix, which provides the price for each combination of start date and lease term. To generate the price for an individual unit, the floor plan price is adjusted to account for unit-specific factors such as amenities (
54. First, AIRM and YieldStar use data on competitors' supply of multifamily housing to adjust recommendations to limit “exposure” with a feature called lease expiration management. Exposure refers to the number of units that are available for lease. Managing lease expirations is an important element of revenue management software. If too many leases expire and the corresponding units become available at the same time, supply increases and rents for those units will tend to drop. This process will also tend to repeat itself as the same units will become available at the same time a year later for leases with a standard twelve-month term.
55. The objective of expiration management is to smooth out this exposure so that landlords, as explained by one RealPage employee, “remain in a position of pricing power.” For example, if AIRM or YieldStar sees that a large number of units will likely be available in twelve months, it will increase the price recommendation for a twelve-month lease relative to price recommendations for leases of other terms, such as 11 months or 13 months, in order to nudge potential renters to accept those terms. Expiration management can only raise prices—AIRM does not lower a unit's price if the lease term would fall in an underexposed period.
56. This calculation does not rely
57. The use of competitors' nonpublic data in expiration management to fill out the pricing matrix occurs regardless of whether the landlord accepts the AIRM or YieldStar recommendation. Thus, even if a landlord were to override every price recommendation, its rental prices would still be influenced by nonpublic information about its competitors' supply.
58. Second, AIRM and YieldStar include an amenity optimization feature. By pricing specific amenities within units, landlords can avoid making wholesale pricing changes to a floor plan if a specific unit fails to lease. Within the amenity analysis, AIRM and YieldStar provide market values for specific amenities to landlords, allowing them to compare their perceived value of an amenity with the nonpublic valuation of their competitors. The peer data include the market minimum and maximum value for specific amenities.
59. RealPage's LRO also provides pricing recommendations to users. Each week, LRO users manually input competitor information into the system that they have obtained from public websites or more questionable means, such as communicating directly with their competitors.
60. A small number of LRO users subscribe to a feature called AutoComp. With this feature, RealPage provides
61. AIRM and YieldStar provide daily price recommendations. RealPage has taken multiple steps to increase compliance with AIRM and YieldStar price recommendations. It designed AIRM and YieldStar to make it much easier to accept recommendations than to decline them. It built an auto-accept function and pushes clients to adopt it and increase its role. And its pricing advisors encourage landlords to follow AIRM and YieldStar pricing recommendations. Among their duties, pricing advisors review any request to override a price recommendation.
62. Every morning, the landlord's property manager chooses whether to accept the floor plan price recommendation, keep the previous day's rent, or override the recommendation. These options are the same for new leases and renewal leases. RealPage makes it easier and faster for a client to accept a recommendation than to decline it. When accepting recommendations, the manager can choose to do a bulk acceptance—she can accept all or multiple floor plan recommendations at once. But she cannot do the same when overriding, or rejecting, the recommendation.
63. Instead, for every recommendation that she does not accept—whether overriding or keeping the previous day's rent—the property manager must provide “specific business commentary” for diverging from the recommendation. This justification, RealPage instructs, should not be a mere preference for another price but must be based on a factor that the model cannot account for, such as local construction or renovations occurring in the building. It must be a “strong sound business minded approach.”
64. The property manager knows that these recommendation rejections and accompanying justifications will be sent to a RealPage pricing advisor.
65. As one client who complained to RealPage explained, RealPage's design is “trying to persuade [clients] to take the recommendations (almost like we made it hard to do anything but).”
66. AIRM and YieldStar each include auto-accept functions. This functionality automatically accepts price recommendations falling within certain parameters. By default, AIRM and YieldStar set auto-accept parameters of a 3% daily change and an 8% weekly change. The landlord can change these parameters, disable or enable auto-accept, and even enable partial auto-accept. With partial auto-accept, if the recommendation exceeds the auto-accept parameters, the recommendation is accepted as far as the parameter permits. For example, if the auto-accept daily change limit is 4% and the price recommendation is 5%, using partial auto-accept will result in an increase of 4%. By enabling auto-accept, a landlord functionally delegates pricing authority to RealPage (within the bounds of the daily and weekly limits).
67. As part of the onboarding process, internal RealPage guidance states, “AUTO ACCEPT should be confirmed as `on' with parameters in place.” Internal AIRM training explained that RealPage wanted to “widen auto accept parameters” by introducing the feature and then “creating enough trust so that over time we have client[s] that are willing to let auto accept run with very wide parameters . . . AKA—accept all recommendations.” RealPage trains pricing advisors to have an “accountability conversation” or a “refresher on short term vs long term goals” for clients that show less tolerance for increasing auto-accept parameters.
68. Even if a landlord does not want to use auto-accept, RealPage trains its advisors to convince the landlord to turn it on with 0% limits—a setting whereby auto-accept will never accept price changes. The reason? So that it is no longer a question of whether the client turns on auto-accept, but only a matter of convincing them to widen the parameters and further delegate pricing decisions. RealPage instructs its advisors on best practices: “[I]f a partner is not ready to use auto acceptance, are they ready to use revenue management?”
69. RealPage offers landlords pricing advisory services. Landlords typically have an assigned pricing advisor, unless the client has internal revenue managers that were certified by RealPage. Pricing advisors play an important role in the daily review of pricing recommendations. Landlords' property managers are asked to review recommendations every morning by 9:30 a.m. After their review, a pricing advisor accepts agreed-upon pricing within an hour and escalates any disputes to the landlord's regional manager.
70. If a property manager disagrees with the direction of a recommended price change—
71. Beyond the daily interactions between pricing advisors and their own property managers, clients agree to make meaningful changes when they use RealPage's pricing advisory services. Under the specifications for this service, clients agree to use AIRM or YieldStar exclusively to give quotes to potential renters, further tying landlords' pricing decisions to RealPage's software. Clients also agree to change their commission programs for leasing agents to “ensure these programs motivate sales behavior that is consistent with the objectives of revenue growth.” And clients further agree to revenue growth as the official metric to evaluate AIRM and YieldStar, as opposed to occupancy rates.
72. RealPage imposes additional requirements on landlords who want to use internal or in-house revenue management advisors with YieldStar or AIRM (rather than use RealPage pricing advisors). RealPage requires these
73. RealPage defines an acceptance as where the final floor plan price is within 1% of the recommended floor plan price. According to that definition, the average acceptance rate across all landlords nationally for new leases between January 2017 and June 2023 is between 40-50%. But RealPage itself recognizes that acceptance rates are not necessarily the best measure of its influence; one employee explained that the spread between a floor plan recommendation and the final scheduled floor plan price is more useful for measuring model adoption—and therefore influence—than the binary accept/reject decision that the RealPage-defined acceptance rate reflects. Widening the definition of acceptance even slightly to account for partial acceptances illustrates the influence of recommendations: nearly 60% of final floor plan prices are within 2.5% of RealPage's recommendation, and more than 85% are within 5% of RealPage's recommendation.
74. RealPage's preferred measure of acceptance understates the influence of RealPage's price recommendations and the effect of competitors' data. AIRM and YieldStar use competitors' nonpublic transactional data to adjust unit-level pricing, after a floor plan recommendation has been accepted or rejected. RealPage's metric does not capture the cumulative effect of rate acceptances over time. Nor do they capture when a client is influenced by and partially accepts a recommendation.
75. Several characteristics of apartment-rental markets make it easier for landlords to coordinate with, or accommodate, each other. Rental housing is a necessity for many Americans, meaning that demand is inelastic—that is, changes in rent produce relatively small changes in the number of renters. There is significant concentration among landlords in local markets, and these landlords engage in widespread, regular communications with one another. And RealPage makes rental units more comparable to each other in AIRM and YieldStar, allowing landlords to track one another more easily. These industry characteristics exacerbate the harm to the competitive process—and ultimately to renters—from the exchange of nonpublic, competitively sensitive data through RealPage and the use of the AIRM and YieldStar models.
76. Shelter is a basic, foundational necessity of life. And for tens of millions of Americans, conventional multifamily apartment buildings are the only reasonable option for much of their lives. Many renters cannot afford the significant down payment needed to purchase a single-family home, among other requirements.
77. Demand for apartments is relatively inelastic. Rising rents have disproportionately affected low-income residents: The percentage of income spent on rent for Americans without a college degree increased from 30% in 2000 to 42% in 2017. In 2021, the proportion of severely burdened households—households spending more than half of their income on gross rent—was 25%, or approximately 10.4 million households, an increase in approximately 1 million households since 2019. By 2022, this number increased to 12.1 million households. For college graduates, the percentage of income spent on rent increased from 26% to 34% from 2000 to 2017.
78. Within particular metropolitan areas and neighborhoods, the multifamily property industry is concentrated and replete with competitively sensitive discussions among ostensible competitors. Landlords have agreed with one another to share nonpublic, sensitive information, both indirectly through RealPage software and directly outside of RealPage's software. RealPage facilitates some of these discussions, while others are made directly between competing landlords. These discussions supplement and reinforce the indirect information sharing among landlords that occurs through AIRM and YieldStar. As a result of this coordination, RealPage's pricing algorithms are even more likely to restrain, rather than promote, competition.
79. In 595 zip codes with at least 1,000 total multifamily units across 125 core-based statistical areas, five or fewer landlords manage more than 50% of the multifamily units. Within the submarkets alleged in this complaint, there are at least 214 zip codes, each with at least 1,000 total multifamily units, in which five or fewer landlords manage more than half of those units. Similarly, within the ten core-based statistical areas alleged in the complaint, there are 144 zip codes, each with at least 1,000 total multifamily units, in which five or fewer landlords manage more than half of those units.
80. The same landlord often oversees nearby properties with different owners. In at least 502 zip codes, at least one landlord using AIRM or YieldStar oversees properties with different owners.
81. There is also overlap among RealPage pricing advisor assignments. In at least 683 zip codes, within 96 core-based statistical areas, a RealPage pricing advisor has responsibility for properties managed by different landlords. RealPage takes no steps to avoid assigning the same pricing advisor to properties with different owners, even if those properties compete with each other or are RealPage-mapped competitors.
82. Landlords regularly solicit and obtain nonpublic information about inquiries by prospective renters, occupancy, and rents from their direct competitors. Although this information is not as accurate or thorough as the transactional-level data shared with AIRM and YieldStar, it is nonetheless sensitive competitive information.
83. Landlords collect this information through a variety of means, including weekly phone calls, emails, and in-person visits. Some landlords also share information on their local geographic markets through shared Google Drive documents. One RealPage employee explained to his colleagues, reflecting on his former time working at a landlord, that these weekly inquiries “required cooperation among the comp[etitor]s but wasn't hard to get that.” In June 2023, a senior director at Cushman & Wakefield admitted that
84. Landlords not only knew of these so-called “market surveys,” but expected their property managers to participate. As a manager of Cushman & Wakefield's revenue management department explained, “we have always expected our properties to continue doing a traditional market survey[,]” which “gives us insight into the very specific handful of competitors closest to the subject property.”
85. At a February 2020 industry event, representatives from Cushman & Wakefield and two other landlords shared tips on collecting information on concessions and net effective rents from competitors. The suggestions included bi-weekly and monthly meetings with competitors, sponsored “cocktail hours for regional competitors to share info and build relationships and rapport,” and using Google Drive documents to share information on a weekly basis. Building relationships with competitors to get accurate data was “critical.” The representatives cautioned that the collected data was used to make “major decisions about pricing,” so the landlord employees collecting data should be trained accordingly to ask such questions as “are you seeing a slow down?” and “are you adjusting pricing?”
86. Some landlords engage in even more sensitive communications about price, demand, and market conditions. These communications are not isolated instances at a specific property. Rather, they are conversations at the corporate revenue management level about strategies and approaches to market conditions that apply to the landlords' business across all markets.
87. For example, in January 2018, Willow Bridge's director of revenue management reached out to Greystar's director of revenue management and asked about Greystar's use of auto accept in YieldStar. In response, Greystar's director provided Greystar's standard auto-accept settings, including daily and weekly limits and for which days of the week auto accept was used. The Greystar director, explaining why she provided this information, testified that the Willow Bridge director was a “colleague,” even though Willow Bridge was a competitor to Greystar.
88. In March 2020, Cushman & Wakefield's director of revenue management reached out to Willow Bridge's director of revenue management. The Cushman & Wakefield director wanted to hold a call among revenue management executives at multiple landlords to discuss market conditions, use of YieldStar, and strategy plans. The Willow Bridge director agreed and suggested a small number of landlords to invite to keep the group “tight.” The directors agreed to reach out to Greystar, as well as several other landlords.
89. Also in March 2020, a senior executive at Greystar obtained a copy of Willow Bridge's sensitive strategic plans regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The plans included Willow Bridge's corporate protocols for concessions, rent increases, and lease terms. The plans recommended that property managers work closely with YieldStar and LRO to preserve rent integrity. The Greystar executive forwarded Willow Bridge's plans to executives at Cushman & Wakefield and another landlord. All four landlords compete with one another.
90. In September 2020, Camden's director of revenue management reached out to Greystar's director of its internal revenue management team. Camden asked Greystar—a direct competitor—what increases on renewal pricing Greystar had seen in August and offered what it had seen. Greystar's director replied with information not only on August renewals, but also on how Greystar planned to approach pricing in the upcoming quarter. Greystar's director further disclosed its practices on accepting YieldStar rates and use of concessions. As the conversation continued, the two competitors shared additional highly-sensitive information on occupancy—including in specific markets—demand, and the strategic use of concessions.
91. At the same time, Camden's director emailed a revenue management executive at LivCor and asked how LivCor was faring on raising renewal rates. He explained his request by noting that Performance Analytics provided some good data, but it was “hard to see what our competitors are signing today.” The two executives shared information about their respective renewal increases. After the Camden executive passed this information along internally, he continued his outreach with several other landlords and with the LivCor executive—who in the meantime had reached out to three other landlords about their renewal rates. Camden's internal team decided to raise a renewal cap to get to the same renewal gains as LivCor.
92. Camden's director received competitively sensitive information from at least four competitors. Another senior executive at Camden asked him to compile the information so it could be shared internally. That executive noted the usefulness of the competitors' information and the need to take advantage of the shared information while it was fresh.
93. In June 2021, Willow Bridge's head of revenue management emailed Greystar's revenue management director. She proposed collaborating with Greystar to convince a client to move all of its properties, including those managed by Willow Bridge and those managed by Greystar, to AIRM. But she also noted that, in thinking about “the larger picture as well,” it could be useful to “coordinate with the other companies that we often share business with” to prepare to move their clients to AIRM as well. Greystar responded favorably to transitioning the joint client to AIRM.
94. In November 2021, a revenue management executive at LivCor emailed an executive at Camden to propose a call to discuss Camden's “renewal philosophy,” for the purpose of informing how LivCor calculated renewal increases. The two spoke that day. The following day, another LivCor executive—who was included on the call—thanked the Camden executive for the opportunity to “connect on industry best practices” and asked another “operational question” about implementing “larger renewal increases.” The executives exchanged emails over the next few months, including discussing their respective strategies on maximum increases to lease renewal prices. They shared not only their increase limits in specific markets but also what price increases they were able to achieve. For example, in April 2022, the executive at LivCor reached out to Camden to share that “my current thinking (not sure it's right, just where my mind is at) is . . . prices for almost everything are up 20%. Therefore, unless there is a good reason not to, should we be increasing rates on rentable items by 20%?” The Camden executive responded, “I like your thinking.” He continued, “Typically, we lean into the demand signals to inspire a price increase. . . . I'm divided on whether the default increase should be 20% or closer to the 10%. . . . Curious what your thoughts are!?”
95. In September 2021, a property manager at Cortland explained to a colleague that the manager had called two competitors and received from them pricing information on two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. The property manager asked for the information to decide how to act on YieldStar's price recommendations.
96. Landlords also engage in group discussions with local and national competitors about sensitive topics. For example, for a number of months in
97. In one such call in April 2020 with over 100 attendees, participants discussed a number of topics, including “pricing and renewal strategies.” Several senior landlord executives, including a Greystar senior managing director and a CEO of another landlord, participated and shared their practices on new leases and renewals, use of renter payment plans, and use of YieldStar and other revenue management software. On a similar call in October 2020, participants discussed current and forecast rent prices, renewal strategies, and use of concessions. A Willow Bridge employee forwarded a colleague notes from the call, and he specifically highlighted information about a competitor's use of concessions.
98. These conversations among competing landlords have extended from the national level to local markets across the country. For example, in Minnesota, property managers from Cushman & Wakefield, Greystar, and other landlords regularly discussed competitively sensitive topics, including their future pricing. When a property manager from Greystar remarked that another property manager had declined to fully participate due to “price fixing laws,” the Cushman & Wakefield property manager replied to Greystar, “Hmm . . . Price fixing laws huh? That's a new one! Well, I'm happy to keep sharing so ask away. Hoping we can kick these concessions soon or at least only have you guys be the only ones with big concessions! It's so frustrating to have to offer so much.” The property managers from Greystar and Cushman & Wakefield continued to discuss competitively sensitive topics. For example, in response to Greystar's tipoff that it had reduced concessions and “hop[ed] the Spring/Summer market allow us to pull further back on concessions,” the Cushman & Wakefield property manager replied, “That's great news and I love hearing about the concessions being pulled back. We have done the same and hoping the rest of the market follows suit.” These communications between RealPage users that are ostensibly competitors are examples of the industry-wide coordination that magnifies the anticompetitive effects of RealPage's software.
99. In addition to contacting each other directly, many landlords also exchange information through other intermediaries. One vendor offers a tool for landlords to exchange with one another nonpublic information on concessions, net effective rents, inquiries and visits by prospective renters, and occupancy that is pulled from each landlord's property management software. Over 150 landlords nationally have used this service, including Greystar, LivCor, and some of the other largest landlords across the country. The vendor's CEO described this as a “quid pro quo or give to get” arrangement among landlords where “if you share this data with me, I'll share the same data.” A RealPage employee noted that this vendor makes it “quicker and easier to get your market surveys.”
100. Some landlords use this direct exchange of competitively sensitive information to update competitor rents within LRO—a practice that RealPage is aware of and accepts.
101. Recently, under the scrutiny of antitrust lawsuits, some landlords have adopted internal policies prohibiting “call arounds” and other direct sharing of competitively sensitive information with direct competitors. But even assuming that their property managers fully comply with these legally unenforceable internal policies, these landlords continue to use RealPage's revenue management software.
102. RealPage holds monthly “user group” meetings attended by competing landlords that use RealPage's software. There are separate user group meetings for LRO and for YieldStar and AIRM.
103. Recurring topics at the user group meetings include product enhancements and an “idea exchange” on potential changes to the products. The user group participants often vote on the proposals discussed in the idea exchange. But discussions have covered competitively sensitive topics, including managing lease expirations, pricing amenities, the use of concessions, pricing strategies, and how to manage properties during the COVID-19 pandemic. RealPage encouraged landlords to use the user group meetings to discuss such topics in their industry and set agendas for these meetings to aid them in doing just that, remarking that “[t]he user group is meant to be self-governed to a degree and the clients should be leading it.” These RealPage-fostered discussions among competitors enhance and facilitate the landlords' agreement with RealPage to use AIRM and YieldStar to align pricing.
104. At an April 2020 YieldStar user group meeting, the participants discussed strategies for handling the COVID-19 pandemic. In the presentation, two RealPage employees and a landlord led a group discussion of trends in rent payments and collections and provided five strategic tips. One tip encouraged landlords to “push for occupancy but don't give away the farm (pricing).” Another counseled landlords to “balance internal and external dynamics” and, referring to the nonpublic information used by YieldStar, to “use transactional market data for decision support and to know when you can be more aggressive” in pushing higher rents. Invited attendees included representatives from at least twelve landlords. At this meeting, Greystar and another landlord shared information on their usage of payment plans with tenants.
105. In May 2020, RealPage started a YieldStar user group meeting by surveying them on concessions. RealPage asked landlords how many of their properties offered concessions, whether concessions applied to new leases or renewals, and the types of concessions offered (such as discounts, gift cards, or other benefits). Invited attendees included representatives of thirteen landlords.
106. In March 2021, the user group meeting included a discussion on possible adjustments to how YieldStar calculated lease expiration premiums. A RealPage executive shared that she liked the idea of adding weekend premiums to incentivize prospective renters to move in during the week, and commented that “the rev[enue] potential would then scale up.” The LivCor representative responded in favor of weekend premiums, and another user group member suggested adding the proposal to the user group idea exchange. RealPage agreed to do so.
107. RealPage began its agenda for an April 2021 YieldStar user group meeting with “strategic insights” from a
108. In May 2021, RealPage included a “Back to Basics” discussion in a YieldStar user group meeting. This discussion covered “returning to renewal increases post-COVID” and “declining concessions,” as well as eviction moratoria and areas where acceptance rates were “seeing significant uptick in past 6 months.” The meeting group chat is even more revealing. Over a period of approximately fifteen minutes, representatives from fifteen landlords shared their plans for renewal increases and their use of concessions. The questions were posed, “At what point do we go back to normal? I[f] we go back to normal[,] [i]s it now? Is anyone seeing that the model is raising rent and are you doing it?” In response, these representatives made statements on renewal increases such as “increasing, back to normal,” “major rent growth on the west coast,” “increasing the renewals,” “almost all markets we are raising rents,” “actually raising more than before covid at some,” “raising,” and “we are pushing to get back to normal. Sending increases.” A representative from LivCor stated, “increasing renewals and pushing new lease rents.”
109. The user group members were similarly open about their disinterest in concessions, signaling to each other that they do not intend to offer them or would offer them less frequently. Their pronouncements included “no consessions [sic],” “no concessions,” “considerably less concessions,” “less frequent and less aggressive,” “no concessions except in markets with a lot of lease-ups,” and “almost no concessions currently.” A representative from Willow Bridge noted concessions had “gone away a LOT. People asking for a free month on renewals and being denied, but still signing the renewal.”
110. When the discussion turned to acceptance rates, a RealPage employee stated that rates had “pretty much gone back to pre-COVID. Rate Acceptance has grown 11% over the past 6 months.” A landlord responded that they had “seen our acceptance rate increase tremendously.” Another user group member explained to the group, for “about
111. The LivCor representative who attended this May 2021 meeting testified that similar discussions happened numerous times during the COVID-19 pandemic—specifically, the beginning of 2020 through the middle of 2022. In these meetings, user group members discussed new and renewal rent increases, concessions, and renewal strategies, as well as other sensitive topics.
112. RealPage claims that this and other user group meetings were not recorded.
113. The July 2021 YieldStar user group meeting, held at RealWorld (a RealPage-hosted industry event), included a roundtable discussion among competitors. One of the discussion topics? “What is the one thing you consistently consider outside of the model when accepting or changing price and why?”
114. At the October 2021 YieldStar user group meeting, a RealPage economist gave a presentation regarding the 2022 market outlook. RealPage presented analyses on current occupancy and pricing, and on expected occupancy and rent growth in 2022 by geographic regions.
115. At the July 2022 RealWorld YieldStar user group meeting, RealPage hosted a “roundtable discussion” on market volatility and its impact on how to use revenue management, unit amenities and their impact on tenant rents, and best practices for conducting lease ups.
116. RealPage recognized the sensitive nature of the information shared at these meetings. Beginning in late 2022, after public reporting about AIRM and YieldStar, RealPage added an antitrust compliance statement in the user group presentations. Among other directions, the statement instructed participants not to discuss “confidential or competitively sensitive information,” and then noted that this included “you or your competitors' prices or anything that may affect prices, such as current or future pricing strategies, costs, discounts, concessions or profit margins.” But these were the very topics of previous user group meetings, as described above, that RealPage encouraged its users to discuss. And these are the very types of nonpublic information that AIRM and YieldStar use to recommend and determine prices.
117. Landlords frequently take advantage of RealPage user group meeting invites to email each other directly. In August 2020, for example, an employee of Cortland emailed a user group invitee list and asked them to support a change to how YieldStar calculated the number of leases needed. In response, an employee of a different landlord agreed, adding that “I also rely on comparing available units to adj[usted] leases needed, to forecast leases, to gut check the pricing recs. These data points are always a factor in my pricing decisions.”
118. Renters typically search for a rental unit using certain key criteria, including the number of bedrooms and the location. Recognizing this market reality, RealPage enables landlords to more easily compare unit prices. When picking a property's “peer set,” RealPage matches floorplans with the same number of bedrooms that are geographically proximate. This makes it easier for landlords, through AIRM and YieldStar, to track and respond to competitors' movements at the floor plan level.
119. To account for amenities, RealPage instructs landlords to identify amenities using standardized naming conventions so that RealPage can use machine learning to group amenities together. RealPage then provides the market value for specific amenities, allowing landlords to more accurately identify and track how their competitors value these amenities and adjust their own pricing accordingly. The peer data include the market minimum and maximum value, as well as market quartile values, for specific amenities.
120. AIRM's and YieldStar's use of nonpublic, competitively sensitive data is likely to harm, and has harmed, the competitive process and renters. AIRM and YieldStar distort the competitive process by using nonpublic data to maximize pricing increases and minimize pricing decreases. AIRM and YieldStar incorporate special rules, called “guardrails,” that override the
121. As RealPage frequently trumpets to landlords, “a rising tide raises all ships.” AIRM and YieldStar ensure that the `tide' flows primarily one way—higher rental prices. In a hot market, AIRM and YieldStar will recommend price increases to test what the market will bear, while in a down market AIRM and YieldStar will, to the extent possible, still increase or hold prices and minimize price decreases to reach the target occupancy rate.
122. AIRM and YieldStar are designed to help landlords press pricing beyond what they could otherwise achieve while reducing the risk that other landlords would undercut them. A revenue manager at Willow Bridge explained it succinctly: YieldStar is “designed to always test the top of the market whenever it feels it's safe to.” By using competitors' sensitive nonpublic data to generate elasticity estimates, among other things, AIRM and YieldStar can recommend higher price increases to extract more money from renters without losing an additional lease. As RealPage explained to a YieldStar client in training, this pricing elasticity measurement informs “how far do we stretch and pull pricing within the market.” That, in turn, means that “we may have a $50 increase instead of a $10 increase for that day.”
123. That insight, gleaned from competitors sharing sensitive, transactional data with RealPage, which is in turn shared with landlords through pricing recommendations, removes uncertainty and competitive pressure that benefits renters. As one landlord put it, these products “eliminate the guessing game” on rent.
124. As RealPage explains to its clients, AIRM and YieldStar reveal “hidden yield.” This extra yield or revenue is hidden in a competitive market—a market in which competitors do not share sensitive information with each other—because landlords “can't see the opportunity” and “fail to capture [the] full opportunity.”
125. AIRM and YieldStar disrupt the normal competitive bargaining process between landlords and renters. They place landlords in a better negotiating position vis-à-vis renters. Landlords using AIRM and YieldStar know that these models recommend floor plan prices and price units incorporating nonpublic data of their competitors, including effective rents and occupancy rates, all of which allow landlords to raise price with more certainty.
126. As landlords appreciate, AIRM and YieldStar use competitors' nonpublic data to predict with more certainty the highest price that the market will bear for a particular unit. A landlord is therefore less likely to negotiate on price. Any potential negotiation instead turns on lease term and move-in date, which AIRM and YieldStar adjust the pricing for to avoid overexposure for the landlord in the future.
127. AIRM and YieldStar also encourage landlords to follow each other in raising rents. When transactional data reveal that peers are raising effective rents—particularly the highest and lowest competitors for a given floor plan—AIRM and YieldStar follow with recommendations to increase rental prices. This movement with the market is ingrained in the AIRM and YieldStar models; AIRM and YieldStar will not recommend a floor plan price that falls below the market minimum.
128. Accordingly, as adoption of AIRM and YieldStar increases among peer competitors, the use of AIRM and YieldStar can push prices up through a feedback effect. As peers move up, other AIRM or YieldStar users may move up accordingly. This phenomenon, where participating landlords “likely move in unison versus against each other,” a RealPage executive testified, explains “the rising tide.” The same executive saw evidence of this “rising tide” in 2020: When looking at multiple peer sites using YieldStar, “we started to see the trajectory of performance and trends be eerily similar when comparing subject sites and comp sets, thus showing that we are in fact `r[a]ising the entire tide.' ” He acknowledged that YieldStar contributed to market prices rising as a tide.
129. Landlords rely on competitors' data within AIRM and YieldStar to determine their prices and how hard they need to try to be competitive. A revenue management director at Greystar noted in an internal AIRM deck that competitors' data is “like the boundaries of the street you are driving on.” The director elaborated that “the competitive market range are [sic] the edges of the road, staying in those boundaries are [sic] necessary to get you to the destination.”
130. Another landlord that used YieldStar told RealPage that within a week of adopting YieldStar they started increasing their rents, and within eleven months had raised rents more than 25% and eliminated concessions. The landlord added that they were now pricing at the top of their peers and, importantly, had “brought the rest of the Comps rents up with us.” A RealPage executive responded internally that this was a “great case study that highlights performance before, during, and a result of YS [YieldStar].”
131. A landlord explained in an internal presentation that because YieldStar recommends floor plan pricing that moves with the market—a market position—YieldStar would use competitors' data to inform “how competitive we need to be [e]ach [d]ay.”
132. AIRM uses machine learning to train models on competing landlords' sensitive data. The parameters learned in this training are then applied to each AIRM client.
133. This aligns and stabilizes prices in at least two ways. First, it reduces volatility in
134. RealPage has even manipulated competitor mappings to increase the likelihood that AIRM or YieldStar would recommend price increases. For example, a prominent client asked why a subject property had mapped peers located more than 100 miles away, in a different metropolitan area, when there were satisfactory mapped competitors within five miles. RealPage's response was that if these distant properties were not mapped, the client's property would be at the top of the market and it would be more difficult for AIRM to recommend price increases. RealPage had originally mapped these distant properties to give the model more room to recommend price increases for the client's property.
135. This dynamic exists not only in markets with growing demand, but also so-called “down markets,” where demand is decreasing. In a competitive market with a fixed supply (at least in the short run) of housing units, a demand decrease would result in prices falling. But AIRM and YieldStar resist price decreases in down markets as much as possible while achieving targeted occupancy rates. RealPage told one prospective AIRM client that the combination of “AI and the robust data in the RealPage ecosystem” would allow the landlord to “avoid the race to the bottom in down markets.”
136. Using competitors' transactional data to calibrate and set the bounds of its model enables YieldStar and AIRM to decrease prices as little as possible in a down market. As one example, in 2023 a landlord reached out to RealPage with concerns about price recommendations at a property. Despite the property having too many vacancies and peer properties decreasing in price, AIRM was recommending price increases, frustrating the property owner. A senior RealPage executive responded that the model was not lowering prices because “there isn't much elasticity between the recommended position and the current one” and “the model would recommend the highest possible position [
137. RealPage succinctly summarized for landlords the effect of using AIRM and YieldStar in down markets: it “curbs [clients'] instincts to respond to down-market conditions by either dramatically lowering price or by holding price when they are losing velocity and/or occupancy.” These tools instill pricing discipline in landlords, curbing normal fully independent competitive reactions by substituting them with interdependent decision-making (
138. When one client wanted to cancel YieldStar, a RealPage executive noted to colleagues that with cancelation the client would lose “our helping them mitigate damage during rent control and covid.” In particular, the client would lose “us helping them rise with the tide given their strategy.”
139. Landlords understand the sensitivity of the information being shared and the likely anticompetitive effects. One potential client put it succinctly to RealPage: “I always liked this product [AIRM] because your algorithm uses proprietary data from other subscribers to suggest rents and term. That's classic price fixing. . . .”
140. Cushman & Wakefield recognized the anticompetitive potential of sharing this level of detailed competitor data. When a property owner asked for information on specific competitors, Cushman & Wakefield's director of revenue management replied that the requested tool, RealPage's Performance Analytics with Benchmarking, did not provide information on specific competitors. The reason? Performance Analytics with Benchmarking “tracks transactional information therefore due [to] the potential pricing collusion, it's anonymize[d] by RealPage.” Performance Analytics with Benchmarking draws from the same transactional database as AIRM and YieldStar. And while AIRM and YieldStar do not display the granular transactional data to the user, AIRM and YieldStar see and use that data. The price recommendations are based upon the very data that this client recognized could lead to collusion.
141. Even RealPage employees selling LRO recognized the anticompetitive harm from using competitors' transactional data to recommend prices. In a 2018 training deck provided to clients, RealPage explained, “we often times get the question about if comps are on LRO, can we just update the rents for you? Unfortunately, no, we can't. That could be considered price collusion, and it's illegal☐.” But this is precisely what AIRM and YieldStar do.
142. Unsatisfied with relying merely on competitively sensitive data to advantage landlords, RealPage created “guardrails” within AIRM and YieldStar to force adjustments to the price recommendation. But these guardrails serve as one-way ratchets that help landlords, not renters, by increasing price recommendations or limiting a recommended decrease. And each of these guardrails makes use of competitively sensitive data that landlords agree to share with RealPage. These guardrails have even spurred multiple landlords to tell RealPage that AIRM and YieldStar are not dropping recommended rents as much as their individual conditions, or even market conditions, would warrant.
143.
144.
145. RealPage acknowledges that revenue protection “may seem counterintuitive to leasing needs.” In June 2023, a landlord complained to RealPage that “something in your model is broken” because “the pricing model is not lowering rents dramatically” despite the client's high exposure during a busy summer leasing season. RealPage explained that, with revenue protection, “the model still sees the way to make more revenue is to lease fewer units at higher prices.” In other words, the model seeks to “raise rates to get the highest dollar value possible for the leases we can statistically achieve” and ignore those leases that the client wants but the model predicts, using competitors' data, the client will not get.
146. The model's hard price floor can trigger revenue protection mode. In May 2022, for example, a landlord complained that AIRM was recommending price increases despite a projected shortfall in leases. Because revenue protection mode cannot be turned off, the RealPage pricing advisor recommended that the client reduce sustainable capacity. Sustainable capacity is a client-set parameter that imposes an inventory constraint and determines the number of leases AIRM and YieldStar will try to achieve. This is, of course, what revenue protection mode functionally does on its own: increase inventory constraints to reduce output.
147. This phenomenon, a RealPage employee explained internally, was “true revenue protection mode.” The client's floor plan was priced toward the bottom of its competitors. AIRM did not see any price decrease that would achieve the original target number of leases without dropping below the market floor (determined using competitors' data). Because AIRM never recommends prices below the market floor, AIRM instead reduced the number of leases and optimized against that new, lower occupancy rate.
148. Revenue protection mode interrupts AIRM's and YieldStar's normal revenue maximization process. As a RealPage data scientist explained, “the model really wants to reduce rent but is prevented from doing so by the revenue protection restriction.” Revenue protection leads to higher prices and lower occupancy.
149.
150. RealPage intentionally designed sold-out mode to use competitively sensitive data to lift rents. In an earlier version of the software, sold-out mode pushed rents to 95% of that floor plan's highest recently achieved rent. But RealPage modified the algorithm in 2022 to go “straight to 100% of comps,” deliberately aligning rents with competitors' highest rents, rather than the property's own historical performance.
151.
152. The effect of these guardrails is intentionally asymmetric. AIRM and YieldStar recommend price increases generated by the model. But the guardrails reduce or eliminate certain proposed price decreases even though the model has determined such deviations may contravene the landlord's individual economic interest.
153. RealPage discourages landlords using AIRM and YieldStar from discounting rents. In the multifamily property industry, discounts typically consist of “concessions,” which are financial allowances (such as a free month's rent or waived fees) offered to incentivize renters. Concessions may be offered generally or negotiated individually with a potential tenant.
154. In a competitive marketplace, each landlord may independently decide to offer concessions so that it can better compete in enticing lessors. But, again, RealPage seeks to replace fully independent, competitive decision-making with collective action by ending concessions. AIRM and YieldStar do not work as well when landlords use one-off or lumpy concessions. In its “best practices” for revenue management to landlords, RealPage's guidance is simple: “Eliminate concessions.” Detailed “best practices” documents for both YieldStar and AIRM users explain that “concessions will no longer be used in conjunction with” YieldStar and AIRM.
155. When onboarding a new property, RealPage emphasizes the importance of accepting price recommendations without offering discounts, including “no concessions.” Concessions cause landlords to deviate from what RealPage determines is the maximum revenue-generating price.
156. Landlords have worked to implement RealPage's requests. In one YieldStar training, Greystar explained that “Concessions are gone!” In a client-facing FAQ document about its revenue management products, RealPage explained that “the vast majority of our clients have discontinued the use of concessions.” A 2023 RealPage client presentation showed that the number of units offering concessions generally trended downward from approximately 30% of units in 2013 to under 15% in 2023. A client's refusal to offer concessions is bolstered by its awareness of competing landlords receiving the same advice from RealPage. In addition to discouraging discounts, RealPage discourages negotiating prices with renters. RealPage trains landlords that “YieldStar [or AIRM] is managing your Price,” so the landlord's staff can focus on other things. The YieldStar or AIRM rent matrix is to be the source of prices that are given to a prospective renter. RealPage instructs leasing staff to provide prospective renters the specific price from the matrix that corresponds to the prospect's desired move-in date, unit, and lease term. RealPage cautions landlords not to show renters the matrix itself.
157. Supply is a basic component of pricing. For this reason, information on a company's supply is highly sensitive, and its disclosure to competitors is particularly concerning. Yet AIRM and YieldStar use competitors' supply data precisely for the purpose of adjusting unit-level pricing, regardless of whether the landlord accepts the floor plan price recommendation. The goal of this “lease expiration management” is clear: As a RealPage senior manager explained for a client, using this data means that the client's property “will remain in a position of pricing power.”
158. The purpose of lease expiration management is to avoid too many units becoming available in the market at the same time. Expiration management only increases unit-level prices. It never reduces the price.
159. Every landlord can choose to use “market seasonality” to inform its lease expiration management. As the name suggests, market seasonality adjusts the landlord's prices based on how many of its competitors' units will be vacant—that is,
160. When activated, the market seasonality function changes unit-level prices across the different possible lease terms
161. RealPage determines for landlords an important input into lease expiration management: the expirations threshold. This threshold influences the point at which expiration premiums are added. The threshold calculation relies on nonpublic lease transaction data for the property's submarket and pulls from numerous RealPage products, including YieldStar, AIRM, OneSite, Business Intelligence, and Performance Analytics with Benchmarking. Landlords cannot adjust the expirations threshold.
162. Fueled by competitor data, expiration management results in “increased stability” and “pricing power.” Using competitors' data reduces the risk of overexposure that “could erode rent roll growth.” By adjusting price recommendations based on how much total supply is forecast in the market for a given time period, AIRM empowers landlords to charge higher prices than they could without access to competitors' nonpublic data.
163. AIRM and YieldStar do not benefit the competitive process or renters. Any legitimate benefits of revenue management software can be achieved through less anticompetitive means, and any theoretical additional benefits of AIRM and YieldStar are not cognizable and outweighed by harm to the competitive process and to renters.
164. Landlords are not the only ones that benefit from RealPage's rental pricing practices. RealPage benefits too through maintaining its monopoly over commercial revenue management software for conventional multifamily housing rentals. In that market, RealPage's internal documents reflect that it commands an 80% share.
165. RealPage's core value proposition creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop of data and scale advantages. The sharing of competitively sensitive information among rivals attracts more landlords that seek to maximize revenues and extract more money from renters. As a result of its exclusionary conduct, RealPage has been able to
166. Over time, RealPage has become more entrenched and has stymied alternatives unless they too enter into similar unlawful agreements with landlords to obtain and use nonpublic transactional data to price units. Even then, RealPage's unparalleled troves of competitively sensitive data provide an ill-gotten advantage.
167. Landlords prize RealPage's accumulation of nonpublic transactional data from competing landlords. For example, Greystar noted that “RealPage supplies the best set of transactional data available via their millions of units of data—this becomes a valuable source of truth to our competitive landscape.” In a training document for its employees, the same landlord explained that “better data = better outcomes” and that AIRM has “over 15 million units of data available.” From the perspective of Greystar, “pricing decisions start with data” and that precision in pricing “comes from data driven decisions.” Importantly, the landlord believed that AIRM's ability to “examine data quality . . . each night” via its property management software integrations, including guest card entry, “plays an important role” in pricing.
168. As another example, Cushman & Wakefield identified this data as especially helpful in a dense market because of insights into competitors' actions in the market. The same landlord also concluded that the more data points, the better confidence a landlord has in RealPage's rental recommendations. According to Cushman & Wakefield, more data—especially data about concessions—enabled the landlord to make better decisions because it showed the landlord where the market stood. Cushman & Wakefield's director of revenue management explained to a colleague that YieldStar “collects about 14 MILLION transactional lease data across the US and has over 20 years of historical records.” The director acknowledged that “[t]his is huge! Essentially, this is a window into the market and the shifts we are going to experience . . . Having insight into this data, allows [landlords] to make changes with the dynamic changes in the market.”
169. Willow Bridge, who compared AIRM to another commercial revenue management software product, noted that the competing product “is about half of the cost and does a good job in reviewing rents and making recommendations but does it without the additional reporting capabilities and market data that AIRM uses.” Ultimately, this landlord decided to push their owner clients towards AIRM. The landlord's decision to use AIRM was in part based on receiving “more accurate and time sensitive data” and noted that, although revenue management is not changing, “the amount of data and how that information is used to grow revenue is bigger and better than ever” with AIRM.
170. Landlords want access to RealPage's transactional data because RealPage advertises, and landlords believe, that the use of this data will increase a landlord's revenue. “Due to the amount of data RealPage possesses,” Greystar explained, RealPage developed AIRM “to leverage machine learning to improve both the supply and demand modeling and provide a tool to further customize to each asset's needs.” The materials sent to the landlord's clients also included a flyer explaining that AIRM will “outperform the market 2-7% year over year” and that it provides “[a]ctionable intelligence derived from the industry's largest lease transaction database of 13M+ units.”
171. Landlords view the lack of access to transactional data as a significant shortcoming in other commercial revenue management software. One landlord received a request from a property owner client for information on YieldStar and how it compared to another commercial revenue management product. A landlord executive explained that YieldStar was backed by robust data and “millions of units of transactional data to support not only their demand and forecast modeling but also their market/competitive set information.” She concluded that the other revenue management software was “in a completely different class” than YieldStar. More than two years later, the same executive again concluded that this company's new revenue management product was inferior to AIRM because AIRM had far more transactional data, supported by RealPage's Market Analytics survey data. In another example, a different landlord compared multiple commercial revenue management products to RealPage's YieldStar. He concluded that a major weakness of these alternatives was that they lacked access to transactional data on competitors' rents.
172. RealPage recognizes the barriers to competition on the merits that its data, scale, and business model provide. RealPage understands that “pricing decisions start with data.” RealPage explains to its clients that “[t]he data entered into your [property management software] and collected each night, along with current market data (and lead data if OneSite) provides insight into advantageous demand drivers, identifies revenue risk and opportunity, and captures this competitive landscape for informed pricing.”
173. This data and scale advantage is significant and creates a feedback loop that further increases barriers to competition for commercial revenue management software. RealPage touts its access to an “unmatched database.” In one case from 2023, a RealPage sales representative noted that RealPage's “revenue management is the most widely adopted solution in the industry” and RealPage had “approximately 4.8M units on revenue management.” In a 2023 presentation for AIRM, RealPage advertised that the “[a]mount of data we have (~17mm units) is unique to RealPage” and that the “[q]uality of data is best in class given that it is `Lease Transaction Data.' ” RealPage claimed this “supports that fact that the industry views RealPage as the source of truth for performance data.”
174. RealPage has used this competitively sensitive data to develop an AI-driven revenue management solution that leverages the scale and scope of its data. RealPage's plan to use this database as fuel for its AI pricing model is spelled out in a Go-To-Market summary from 2019. In that document, RealPage describes that:
RealPage can achieve $10 Million in organic ACV growth through delivery of the next generation of revenue management. Failure to do so reduces the opportunity to harvest gains from our $300M investment in LRO and places a portion of current $100M revenue management revenue at risk to emerging competitors, including Yardi and low-cost alternatives that say `all revenue management is the same.' Over time we can sunset YieldStar and LRO reducing expense, and leverage LRO capabilities as a revenue management lite offering.
175. This plan came to fruition with the introduction of AIRM. In a RealPage training presentation from February 2020—right before the launch of AIRM—RealPage discusses a new optimization solution that is built on the “RealPage Foundation” which is
176. RealPage knows that its rivals do not have access to similar data sets. In one presentation from 2022, RealPage discussed competing revenue management products from Yardi and Entrata. Yardi and Entrata have fewer than 250,000 units, RealPage concluded, while RealPage had at least 4 million. Unlike RealPage, Yardi had a limited data set that used data only from Yardi's property management software. RealPage likewise explained that Entrata lacked much data outside of student housing and Entrata's revenue management software worked only with its own property management software, meaning Entrata could not pull data from RealPage's OneSite or other property management software products. RealPage further criticized manual in-house pricing options for having biased data, introducing errors through manual pricing, and being inefficient.
177. RealPage pitches prospective clients on its unique access to and use of nonpublic transactional data that is competitively sensitive. In 2021, RealPage discussed internally how to pitch AIRM to a prospective client who was considering an alternative revenue management solution. A RealPage employee pointed to the competitor's lack of “AI driven competitor information derived from lease transaction data.” Another employee added that the salesperson should amplify the prospective client's concerns about the competitor's lack of nonpublic transactional data, comparing it to buying a “Ferrari without an engine.” RealPage's chief economist concurred.
178. RealPage's use of competitors' nonpublic transactional data provides it an important advantage on pricing renewals. Information on renewals is not available publicly. Competing revenue management vendors who do not use nonpublic, competitively sensitive data are left partially blind to this important part of the rental market. In 2022, a RealPage salesperson stressed this advantage to a prospective client who was also considering a competing commercial revenue management solution. The salesperson noted the lease transaction data RealPage collected on a nightly basis and declared that RealPage had an “unequaled ability to stress test renewals
179. RealPage recognizes that its use of competitively sensitive data minimizes any competitive pressure it faces. A RealPage senior vice president explained in a strategy document that RealPage's unique nonpublic data on leasing decisions was a “data moat,” protecting RealPage from competitors. In 2020 RealPage's chief economist noted that RealPage's access to this data was a “major competitive advantage” and a “major reason we can do what we do.” In 2021 a prospective client asked RealPage why AIRM cost three times the amount of a competing revenue management product. Internally, a RealPage employee pointed to AIRM leveraging daily transactional data of over 13 million units to collect competitors' rents and forecast demand. He noted that multiple large landlords had refused to adopt the competing revenue management product rather than AIRM even when the competitor offered it for free. The same RealPage employee explained to another client that RealPage's leveraging of lease transaction data—with access to confidential data for over 14 million units—was a key advantage over a competing commercial revenue management provider.
180. In June 2023 a landlord emailed RealPage and asked, “who are your competitors?” A RealPage sales executive responded, “Our revenue management solution does not have any true competitors, mainly because our data is based on real lease transaction data from all kinds of third-party property management systems. . . .”
181. In addition, when discussing a potential entrant, a RealPage executive noted that the entrant needed “to get the data to enable [revenue management].” He further noted that [g]etting the data (and more modern methods) . . . will be hurdles for [the entrant].” Another RealPage senior executive explained that shifting clients from LRO, which is less reliant on competitively sensitive information of rivals, to AIRM, which is very reliant on such information, reduced the threat from new entry when she noted that migrating LRO clients to AIRM was “critical to reducing the risk that may come from this new [entrant's] offering.”
182. RealPage's power and conduct in connection with commercial revenue management software serves to exclude rivals and maintain its monopoly power. RealPage has ensured rivals cannot compete on the merits unless they enter into similar agreements with landlords, offer to share competitively sensitive information among rival landlords, and engage in actions to increase compliance. As a result of its exclusionary conduct, RealPage has been able to obstruct rival software providers from competing via revenue management products that do not harm the competitive process in addition to cementing its massive data and scale advantage that keeps increasing due to feedback effects.
183. Conventional multifamily rental housing is a relevant product market. Conventional multifamily rental housing includes apartments available to the general public in properties that have five or more living units. Conventional rental housing does not include student housing, affordable housing, age-restricted or senior housing, or military housing. This product market reflects consumer preferences, industry practice, and governmental policy.
184. In 2023, RealPage estimated the conventional multifamily rental market to cover approximately 14 million units. The 2021 American Housing Survey estimated a total of 21.1 million multifamily apartments—not limited to conventional—in the United States.
185. Other types of multifamily apartment buildings are not good substitutes for conventional multifamily rentals. Some kinds of multifamily buildings are restricted to specific types of renters, such as student housing units, affordable housing units (
186. Non-conventional units are not widely available to all renters and can exhibit different buying patterns. For example, student housing serves individuals enrolled in higher education and is typically located on or near universities. Student housing is typically leased by the bed instead of by unit, and faces a significantly different leasing cycle and different patterns in
187. Affordable housing units are available only to individuals or households whose income falls below certain thresholds. Multiple federal affordable housing regulations, for example, require participants in affordable housing programs to have incomes lower than a set percentage, such as 30%, of the median family income in the local area. Affordable housing units are also relatively scarce, with families seeking such housing often waiting years on a waitlist. These legal and practical restrictions prevent affordable housing from being a reasonable substitute to conventional multifamily housing for the typical renter.
188. Senior housing is typically restricted to individuals aged 55 and older. RealPage separates senior housing into four categories: independent living, assisted living, memory care, and nursing care. Independent living offers senior-focused amenities—such as transportation, meals, and social gatherings among community members—that materially increase housing costs and are less desirable to younger households. The other three categories of senior housing provide professional or special care to assist renters with basic tasks like eating, bathing, and dressing, and they are not reasonable substitutes for conventional multifamily rentals.
189. Military housing is also not a reasonable substitute to conventional multifamily rentals. It is typically geographically proximate to military installations, with roughly 95% of military housing found on-base. Although civilians may in some cases be able to live in military housing properties experiencing low occupancy rates, military regulations place them below five higher-priority categories of potential renters, including active and retired military personnel.
190. The multifamily industry, government regulators, and policy documents distinguish between properties with at least five units, which are classified as “multifamily housing” and those with fewer units, which are classified as “single-family rentals.”
191. The purchase of single-family or other types of homes is not a reasonable substitute for conventional multifamily housing rentals. A former RealPage economist explained that “the choice between renting and owning is first and foremost a life stage and lifestyle choice over a financial one.” Single-family homes also generally require a substantial down payment. In March 2023, a RealPage economist estimated an “entry premium” of $800 per month to home ownership over rentals. According to a 2021 RealPage strategic planning guide, the “myth” that people were abandoning multifamily properties for single-family homes is false, stating that “rising home sales do not hurt apartment demand.” Single-family home sales are not reasonable substitutes for conventional multifamily housing.
192. More broadly, renters living in conventional multifamily apartments will not switch to single-family homes—purchases or rentals—because of a small increase in rent. The decision to move from an apartment building to a single-family home is primarily a life-stage and lifestyle choice. For example, the decision by a household to have children may spur a move to a single-family home. In many areas, relatively few children live in conventional multifamily apartments. Multifamily apartments typically offer community amenities and a different lifestyle, such as high walkability in an urban area, whereas single-family homes generally do not offer the same amenities and offer instead increased privacy, including private yards. A RealPage analyst explained in 2022 that because a move to a single-family home is a “lifestyle choice,” single-family home rentals were not direct competitors to multifamily rental housing. A 2022 RealPage deck, shared with a landlord, stated that multifamily rentals and single-family rentals were “complementary, not competitive,” and targeted different renters, with different floor plans, in different locations. Another RealPage analyst explained to a multifamily property owner that single-family rentals offer a different renter profile than multifamily rentals.
193. Industry participants agree that single-family rentals attract a different pool of renters from multifamily rentals. A managing director of a single-family rental property management company explained in 2021 that a renter's journey from multifamily apartment living to single-family rentals came as life stages evolved. The CEO of a single-family rental developer similarly explained that these single-family rental homes are for renters who age out of multifamily apartments.
194. Single-family rentals are also typically priced higher than multifamily apartments, further reducing potential substitution between them. The chairman of one institutional multifamily property owner explained in a 2022 earnings call that multifamily housing was relatively affordable compared to single-family rentals. An industry price index showed that, in March 2024, single-family rent was approximately 18% higher than multifamily rent.
195. Different bedroom floor plans also constitute relevant product markets. A key criterion by which a current or prospective renter searches for a rental unit is the number of bedrooms. One-bedroom units are substitutes for other one-bedroom units, two-bedroom units are substitutes for other two-bedroom units, and so forth. Individual renters may change their desired numbers of bedrooms, but this is typically tied to changes in circumstance independent from price. For example, the birth of a new child may require a family to shift from a one-bedroom unit to a two-bedroom unit.
196. RealPage adopts this practical reality in the ordinary course of business. For every property using AIRM or YieldStar, RealPage maps peer floor plans. These mapped floor plans capture reasonable substitutes for the subject property floor plan and reflect the perceived market by a prospective renter.
197. To be selected as a peer, a floor plan must have the same number of bedrooms. A RealPage employee explained the mapping process to a client: “we are looking specifically at the bedroom level. The tool will only map 2b[edroom] with 2b[edroom] or 1b[edroom] with 1b[edroom].” The object of mapping peers is to mirror the prospect buying experience by identifying properties that a potential tenant will see in online searches when searching for a particular floor plan and price range.
198. AIRM and YieldStar price the different floor plans, which consist of different numbers of bedrooms, independently. RealPage testified that the model considers no cross-price elasticity between different floor plans: “when you set up the different floor plans, a one bedroom, a two bedroom, or three bedroom, those are completely independent . . . . [T]here's no influence in what the pricing is for the two bedrooms, for example . . . has no influence on what the pricing is for the one bedrooms.” Landlords also take steps to maintain a pricing spread between one- and two-bedroom units and avoid pricing one-bedrooms at a higher rate than two-bedroom units.
199. Landlords recognize that units with different bedroom counts face different demand from renters. For example, Greystar explained internally in 2022 that demand for studio apartments differs from demand for three-bedroom units. A separate 2023 training by Greystar reiterated that demand trends, and therefore pricing trends, differ by bedroom counts and that staff should not react to a downward trend in one category, such as two bedrooms, with discounts in one- or three-bedroom units. At another time, Greystar emphasized the benefit of RealPage's lease expiration management feature because it is managed at the bedroom level—not at the property level—so it could match seasonal demand for units with that specific number of bedrooms. A revenue manager at Willow Bridge similarly explained to colleagues that one-bedroom units have drastically different demand patterns from two-bedroom units and from three-bedroom units.
200. Defining relevant geographic markets help courts assess the potential anticompetitive impact of the agreements challenged. Here, the relevant geographic markets for the purposes of analyzing the anticompetitive effects of RealPage's agreements with landlords are the areas in which the sellers (the landlords) sell and in which the purchasers (potential renters) can practicably turn for alternatives. RealPage's agreements are alleged to have suppressed price competition in the markets for conventional multifamily housing. The relevant geographic markets to assess those agreements are those property locations close enough for their apartments to be considered reasonable substitutes. In delineating a geographic market for conventional multifamily housing, the focus is inherently local. Renters are typically tied to a particular location for work, family, or other needs.
201. RealPage recognizes the local nature of geographic markets. One RealPage former employee explained that under “Real Estate 101 rules, real estate is local, local, local.” Another RealPage former chief economist noted that an effective evaluation of a property's performance must be done in comparison to similar properties in the property's neighborhood because competitive conditions in the neighborhood could differ widely from the city at large. When training landlords on lease expiration management, two RealPage executives explained that market seasonality was based on the most accurate geographic level, such as zip code, neighborhood, or submarket. They further explained that renters typically move locally. Similarly, a former property manager explained that potential tenants will look at a small number of properties in the same neighborhood, and it is on that neighborhood level where competition occurs among multifamily properties. This individual testified, “location really does matter in real estate.”
202. RealPage has created a tool called True Comps. Used in performance benchmarking products that provide decisional support to AIRM and YieldStar, True Comps provides a more accurate mapping of competitor properties. It uses an algorithm to find the properties most comparable to the subject property, as measured by characteristics including distance, effective rent, age, property height, and unit count and mix. By default, True Comps picks competitors within a 15-mile radius. In scoring distance, True Comps applies a “highly-punitive model”—the distance score drops from 99% for a distance of 0.05 miles, to 56% for a distance of 2 miles, and to 10% for a distance of 8 miles. Thus, RealPage acknowledges and incorporates small geographic areas as the appropriate
203. During a property's implementation process, AIRM and YieldStar require the mapping of peer properties, including competitors. RealPage starts by looking for competitors within a half-mile radius from the subject property and then expands as necessary. Geographic proximity is in fact so important that YieldStar has a default radius that limits its search for competing properties to no more than 5 miles in urban settings, and to no more than 10 miles in suburban settings. RealPage has an internal process for escalating any proposed peer property that is more than 15 miles away.
204. RealPage defines geographic submarkets in the ordinary course of business. Each submarket reflects the geographic area, defined by a set of zip codes, that features similar properties that compete for the same pool of potential renters. In constructing submarkets, which are generally larger than its neighborhoods, RealPage considers major roads, city and county boundaries, and school districts. RealPage also considers socioeconomic factors and apartment market characteristics, such as the age of properties and rental rates.
205. Even within a city, apartment demand varies significantly based on factors such as employment. Supply may also vary widely as existing properties and new construction may be located in different parts of a city. A former RealPage chief economist explained that because “real estate is very local . . . you typically want to take a . . . more narrow view if you can on what's going on in any given submarket.”
206. The multifamily industry recognizes submarkets as an important geographic area for analyzing competition and pools of renters. Multiple industry analysts offer data by submarkets. A revenue management director at Greystar testified about a submarket that “everybody in our industry uses this term.” She further stated that submarkets are a standard categorization system, used by RealPage and others, including to benchmark a subject property's performance with comparable properties. A revenue manager at Cushman & Wakefield circulated a scorecard comparing performance to the submarket, and exclaimed that “we're perfectly aligned with the submarket” on rent roll.
207. A revenue management executive at Willow Bridge testified that submarkets identify specific, smaller areas of a city where renters look to live to be close to schools or work. This executive testified that submarkets typically identify the area within which a renter is comparing apartment options. This landlord tracks other properties' rents in a subject property's submarket to make sure the subject property remains competitive, and if rents in a submarket increased, then the landlord expected that its property in that submarket would also raise its rents.
208. Appendix A lists RealPage-defined submarkets that identify relevant local markets in which the agreements among RealPage and landlords to share nonpublic, competitively sensitive information for use in pricing conventional multifamily rentals have harmed, or are likely to harm, competition and thus renters.
209. The RealPage-defined submarkets identified in Appendix A are relevant markets in which the agreements between RealPage and AIRM and YieldStar users to align pricing has harmed, or is likely to harm, competition and thus renters. In each of these markets, the penetration rate for AIRM and YieldStar ranges from at least around 26% to 69%, and for AIRM, YieldStar, and OneSite ranges from at least around 30% to 78%.
210. Appendix B identifies submarkets by bedroom count that are relevant markets in which the agreements between RealPage and landlords, and agreements among landlords, to share nonpublic, competitively sensitive information for use in pricing conventional multifamily rentals have harmed, or are likely to harm, competition and thus renters.
211. The markets identified in Appendix B are relevant markets in which the agreements between RealPage and AIRM and YieldStar users to align pricing collectively have harmed, or are likely to harm, competition and thus renters. In each of these markets, the penetration rate for AIRM and YieldStar ranges from at least around 26% to 79%, and for AIRM, YieldStar, and OneSite ranges from at least around 30% to over 80%. In each of these markets, the landlords using AIRM or YieldStar and/or sharing competitively sensitive information collectively have market power.
212. A core-based statistical area (CBSA) is also a relevant geographic market. A CBSA is a geographic area based on a county or group of counties. A CBSA has at least one core of at least 10,000 individuals. A CBSA includes adjacent counties that have a high degree of social and economic integration with the core, as measured by commuting ties. A CBSA includes both metropolitan statistical areas and micropolitan statistical areas. A CBSA includes the set of reasonable conventional multifamily rental alternatives to which a renter would turn in response to a small but significant, nontransitory price increase.
213. RealPage itself tracks CBSAs in the ordinary course of business and refers to them as “markets.”
214. Table 1 identifies relevant markets in which the agreements between RealPage and landlords, and agreements among landlords, to share nonpublic, competitively sensitive information for use in pricing conventional multifamily rentals collectively have harmed, or are likely to harm, competition and/or consumers. In each of these markets, the penetration rate for AIRM and YieldStar ranges from at least around 26% to 37%, and for AIRM, YieldStar, and OneSite ranges from at least around 35% to 45%. Three of these markets are located in North Carolina.
215. The markets identified in Table 1 are relevant markets in which the agreements between RealPage and AIRM and YieldStar users to align pricing collectively have harmed, or are likely to harm, competition and thus renters.
216. Table 2 identifies relevant CBSAs by bedroom counts that are relevant markets in which the agreements between RealPage and landlords, and agreements among landlords, to share nonpublic, competitively sensitive information for use in pricing conventional multifamily rentals collectively have harmed, or are likely to harm, competition and/or consumers. In each of these markets, the penetration rate for AIRM and YieldStar ranges from at least around 27% to 42%, and for AIRM, YieldStar, and OneSite ranges from at least around 33% to 45%.
217. The markets identified in Table 2 are relevant markets in which the agreements between RealPage and AIRM and YieldStar users to align pricing collectively have harmed, or are likely to harm, competition and thus renters.
218. Even assuming available land and no regulatory constrictions, local markets for conventional multifamily rental housing feature substantial barriers to entry. Landlords seeking to respond to rising rental prices by expanding supply, rather than simply acquiring an existing property, typically face substantial lead times to construct a new multifamily property. Additionally, there are significant upfront capital costs, including to fund expenditures on building material and labor, that are recuperated over time, which may require landlords to secure financing.
219. RealPage has monopoly power in the market for commercial revenue management software for conventional multifamily housing rentals in the United States, with a durable market share over 80%, according to internal documents and other information.
220. Commercial revenue management software for conventional multifamily housing rentals is a relevant antitrust product market.
221. Other methods for pricing conventional multifamily housing units are not reasonable substitutes for commercial revenue management software. RealPage and others in the industry recognize that revenue management software companies for multifamily housing units compete primarily against each other and not manual or do-it-yourself pricing methods.
222. Internal documents from RealPage refer specifically to commercial revenue management for multifamily housing and recognize RealPage's substantial market share. For example, a 2021 strategy presentation described RealPage as “the market leader in commercial revenue
223. A presentation to RealPage's board in 2022 noted that “[RealPage] has gained [the] pole position in Revenue Management largely through the success of AI Revenue Management, which has become RealPage's leading differentiating product.” Additionally, the presentation described how “Revenue Management is experiencing strong growth driven by AIRM” due to its “PMS agnostic approach” which gives RealPage the ability to aggregate data from its clients resulting in “revenue management [that] has achieved a market share of 95% of the top 50 owners and operators.”
224. RealPage acknowledges its market power and durable market position. A 2023 RealPage presentation reviewing the use of artificial intelligence in property technology noted that “RealPage is already the de facto market leader in certain key areas at leveraging AI for multifamily proptech” and shows “revenue management” as the area where it is the furthest ahead.” Later, the same presentation noted that RealPage's current offer for revenue management is “best-in-class” and that “[n]o other company is cross-pollinating their pricing tools with data in a way similar to [RealPage].” As early as 2019, a RealPage presentation for clients stated that RealPage “has around 80% of the Revenue Management market share.” That share has proved durable over time. In 2023, during a sales pitch to a property owner, a RealPage representative noted that “[RealPage] has 80% to 85% of the market share with the closest competitor around 12% (<750K units).”
225. In late 2021, a RealPage employee preparing competitor intelligence explained to RealPage's chief economist that RealPage “dominate[d]” revenue management. He added that RealPage “dominate[d]” Yardi and Entrata, which are the next two largest commercial revenue management competitors.
226. RealPage's monopoly power is protected by barriers to entry, including the unlawful collection and use of competitors' nonpublic transactional data on millions of multifamily units.
227. Landlords also recognize RealPage's substantial market share and market power over commercial revenue management software. In 2024, a landlord revenue management executive testified that manual pricing does not compete with AIRM. The same landlord pitched YieldStar to its owner clients by explaining that “it's evident manual pricing cannot solve at the level a revenue management tool can.”
228. In a 2023 pricing dispute with a large landlord, RealPage refused to lower the price for its AIRM software. In response, an employee employed by the landlord noted that it was no surprise they would not decrease their price, remarking that “[h]ere is the joy of a monopoly on a product category.” In 2021, a different landlord commented that “the entire industry is feeling the monopolizing effects of RealPage right now and everyone is hungry for a new product.” A third landlord noted during AIRM renewal negotiations in 2022 that it had no options besides RealPage, with a senior executive stating about RealPage, “too bad they have a monopoly going here!” Also in 2022, a fourth landlord, in the face of RealPage pushing a 400% increase in annual revenue management costs over a five-year period, bemoaned the “limited competition in the market around revenue management tools” and how “the industry desperately needs a solid competitor,” and then discussed a plan to “incubate a viable alternative to AIRM in the future.” In 2024, that alternative had less than one half of one percent market share.
229. The United States is a relevant geographic market for commercial revenue management software. RealPage sells its commercial revenue management software in the United States and tracks its business in the United States in the ordinary course of business. RealPage sets its subscription prices on a nationwide basis. Further, RealPage can deploy its commercial revenue management software, which may use inputs from properties located throughout the country, in any U.S. state. Landlords in the United States purchase commercial revenue management software from RealPage to set rental prices for renters in the United States. Many landlords have centralized revenue management teams that set nationwide revenue management policies and conduct revenue management trainings for their employees across the United States.
230. The United States brings this action pursuant to Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, to prevent and restrain RealPage's violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2.
231. The Attorneys General assert these claims based on their independent authority to bring this action pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, and common law, to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief based on RealPage's anticompetitive practices in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2.
232. The Attorneys General are the chief legal officers of their respective States. They have authority to bring actions to protect the economic well-being of their States and their residents, and to seek injunctive relief to remedy and protect against harm resulting from violations of the antitrust laws.
233. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.
234. The Court has personal jurisdiction over RealPage, Inc. (“RealPage”); venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because RealPage transacts business and resides within this District.
235. RealPage is a privately-owned company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered in Richardson, Texas. It is registered to do business in the State of North Carolina as a foreign corporation offering software solutions for the multifamily housing industry and software as a service.
236. RealPage engages in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate trade and commerce. RealPage provides a range of products and services that are marketed, distributed, and offered to consumers throughout the United States and across state lines.
237. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Camden Property Trust (“Camden”); venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15. U.S.C. 22, and under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Camden transacts business and resides within this District.
238. Camden is a publicly-traded multifamily company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. Camden is registered to do business in the State of North Carolina. Camden owns or manages at least one multifamily rental property using AIRM within this District.
239. Camden engages in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate trade and commerce. Camden owns or manages multifamily rental units across the United States, including within this District. Camden's rental properties are marketed and offered to consumers throughout the United States and across state lines.
240. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Cortland Management, LLC (“Cortland”); venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15. U.S.C. 22, and under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Cortland transacts business and resides within this District.
241. Cortland is a privately-owned company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Cortland is responsible for the management of multifamily rental housing properties, either directly owned by an affiliated entity or other third-party owners of multifamily housing properties. Cortland is registered to do business in the State of North Carolina. Cortland owns or manages multiple multifamily rental properties within this District, which use (or recently used) AIRM. Cortland has a registered agent for service of process in this District.
242. Cortland engages in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate trade and commerce. Cortland owns or manages multifamily rental units across the United States, including within this District. Cortland's rental properties are marketed and offered to consumers throughout the United States and across state lines.
243. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (“Cushman & Wakefield”) and Pinnacle Property Management Services, LLC (“Pinnacle”); venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Cushman & Wakefield, including its subsidiary Pinnacle, transacts business and resides within this District.
244. Cushman & Wakefield is organized under the laws of the State of New York and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Cushman & Wakefield's multifamily rental property business is operated through its subsidiary Pinnacle, and also under the Cushman & Wakefield name since acquiring Pinnacle in March 2020. Pinnacle is organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered in Frisco, Texas. Pinnacle is registered to do business in the State of North Carolina. Cushman & Wakefield U.S., Inc. is also registered to do business in the State of North Carolina. Pinnacle owns or manages multiple multifamily rental properties using YieldStar within this District.
245. Cushman & Wakefield engages in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate trade and commerce. Through Pinnacle, Cushman & Wakefield owns or manages multifamily rental units across the United States, including within this District. Cushman & Wakefield provides a range of multifamily property and revenue management services that are marketed and offered to consumers throughout the United States and across state lines.
246. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC (“Greystar”); venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Greystar transacts business and resides within the District.
247. Greystar is a privately-owned company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered in Charleston, South Carolina. A Greystar management services entity is registered to do business in the State of North Carolina. Greystar owns or manages multiple multifamily rental properties using AIRM within this District.
248. Greystar engages in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate trade and commerce. Through its subsidiaries, including Greystar Management Services, LLC, Greystar North America Holdings, LLC, and GREP Washington, LLC, Greystar owns or manages multifamily rental units across the United States, including within this District. Greystar provides a range of products and services that are marketed and offered to consumers throughout the United States and across state lines.
249. The Court has personal jurisdiction over LivCor, LLC (“LivCor”); venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because LivCor transacts business and resides within this District.
250. LivCor is a privately-owned company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is registered to do business in the State of North Carolina as a foreign corporation engaging in ownership and investment in real property and related services. LivCor owns or provides asset management services at least one multifamily rental property using AIRM within this District.
251. LivCor engages in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate trade and commerce. LivCor owns or provides asset management services for multifamily rental units across the United States, including within this District. LivCor provides multifamily asset management services that are marketed and offered to consumers throughout the United States and across state lines.
252. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Willow Bridge Property Company LLC (“Willow Bridge”); venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22 because Willow Bridge transacts business and resides within this District.
253. Willow Bridge is a privately-owned company organized under the laws of the State of Texas and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Willow Bridge is registered to do business in the State of North Carolina as a foreign corporation offering services for the multifamily real estate industry. Willow Bridge owns or manages multiple multifamily rental properties using AIRM within this District.
254. Willow Bridge engages in, and its activities substantially affect, interstate trade and commerce. Willow Bridge owns or manages multifamily rental units across the United States, including within this District. Willow Bridge's rental properties are marketed and offered to consumers throughout the United States and across state lines.
255. The Durham-Chapel Hill CBSA is partially or entirely within the Middle District of North Carolina.
256. RealPage tracks the number of rental housing units that use its commercial revenue management software products, including AIRM and YieldStar, by market (
257. Defendant Landlords each own or manage one or more properties in one or more relevant markets within the Middle District of North Carolina for which they, along with other landlords and RealPage, currently agree (or have in the past agreed) to share information and align pricing by using AIRM or YieldStar to generate rental pricing using pooled, competitively sensitive information.
258. A substantial part of the activities and conduct giving rise to the claims asserted in this Complaint occurred within this District. As alleged in paragraphs 208-211 above and Appendices A and B below, relevant local geographic markets in which competition and renters have been harmed by RealPage's anticompetitive
259. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 258 above.
260. Each landlord using AIRM and YieldStar, including each Defendant Landlord, has agreed with RealPage to provide RealPage daily nonpublic, competitively sensitive data. RealPage invites each landlord to share this information so that it can be pooled to generate pricing recommendations for the landlord and its competitors. Each of these landlords, including Defendant Landlords, uses (or has used) RealPage software, knowing or learning that RealPage will use this data to train its models and provide floor plan price recommendations and unit-level pricing not only for the landlord, but for the landlord's competitors (and vice versa). Landlords are therefore joining together in a way that deprives the market of fully independent centers of decision-making on pricing.
261. Each landlord using OneSite, Business Intelligence, or Performance Analytics with Benchmarking has agreed with RealPage to provide RealPage daily nonpublic, competitively sensitive data. RealPage invites each landlord to share this information, and each of these landlords understands that RealPage will use this data in RealPage's other products, including revenue management products that provide pricing recommendations and prices to competing landlords.
262. The transactional data these landlords agree to provide to RealPage, and indirectly to each other, includes current, forward-looking, granular, and highly competitively sensitive information. It includes information on effective rents, rent discounts, occupancy rates, availability, lease dates, lease terms, unit amenities, and unit layouts. Landlords also shared information on guest cards and lease applications.
263. Landlords, including Defendant Landlords and other landlords that compete with each other in the relevant markets alleged, have agreed with one another, through RealPage and directly, to exchange nonpublic, competitively sensitive data, both through RealPage's revenue management software and by other means. The other means include RealPage user groups, direct communications, market surveys, and other intermediaries. The information exchanged includes future pricing plans, current pricing and occupancy rates, pricing discounts, and guest traffic.
264. RealPage uses this nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to train its AIRM models and provide floor plan price recommendations and unit-level pricing to AIRM- and YieldStar-using landlords. AIRM and YieldStar are designed to increase prices as much as possible and minimize price decreases.
265. RealPage engages in a variety of conduct to increase compliance with the output of its products and the objectives it touts.
266. The sharing of nonpublic, competitively sensitive data with RealPage, and its use in AIRM and YieldStar, is anticompetitive. It harms or is likely to harm the competitive process and results, or is likely to result, in harm to renters and prospective renters in at least the relevant antitrust markets identified in this complaint.
267. In each relevant market, RealPage and participating landlords collectively have sufficient market power, including market and data penetration, to harm the competitive process and renters.
268. AIRM and YieldStar do not benefit the competitive process or renters. Any theoretical benefits are outweighed by harm to the competitive process and to renters.
269. Less restrictive alternatives are available to RealPage and the market. RealPage has recently altered AIRM or YieldStar for some clients to remove those clients' access to competitors' nonpublic data in at least certain portions of the software. RealPage has the ability to make changes to remove broader access to competitors' nonpublic data in AIRM and YieldStar. RealPage has the capability to modify its software products to eliminate competitive defects. LRO does not require the same type and quantity of nonpublic, transactional data pulled from competitors' property management software.
270. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 268 above.
271. Each landlord, including Defendant Landlords, that licenses AIRM or YieldStar has agreed with RealPage to use the software as it has been designed. This includes providing nonpublic, competitively sensitive transactional data to RealPage, but more broadly is an agreement to use AIRM or YieldStar as the means to price the landlord's rental units. The landlord agrees to review AIRM or YieldStar floor plan price recommendations, use AIRM or YieldStar to set a scheduled floor plan rent, and use the AIRM or YieldStar pricing matrix to price units to renters.
272. AIRM and YieldStar are designed to “raise the tide” for all landlords, including AIRM- and YieldStar-using landlords. AIRM and YieldStar have the likely effect of aligning users' pricing processes, strategies, and pricing responses.
273. These landlords understand this effect, and it is a reason why they sign up for and use AIRM or YieldStar and discuss their usage with one another in user group meetings and other settings.
274. RealPage engages in a variety of conduct to increase compliance with the output of its products and the objectives it touts.
275. RealPage's user group meetings and its revenue management certification program facilitate landlords' agreements with RealPage to align pricing.
276. Taken together, the agreements between each AIRM or YieldStar landlord and RealPage to use AIRM or YieldStar, respectively, harm or are likely to harm the competitive process and renters.
277. The agreement by a landlord to use AIRM or YieldStar is an agreement to align users' pricing processes, strategies, and pricing responses.
278. In each relevant submarket and CBSA, RealPage and participating AIRM or YieldStar landlords collectively have sufficient market power, including market and data penetration, to harm the competitive process and renters.
279. AIRM and YieldStar do not benefit the competitive process or renters. Any theoretical benefits are outweighed by harm to the competitive process and to renters, and less restrictive alternatives are available to RealPage and these landlords.
280. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 279 above.
281. Commercial revenue management software for conventional multifamily housing rentals in the United States is a relevant antitrust market, and RealPage has monopoly power in that market.
282. RealPage has unlawfully monopolized the commercial revenue management market through unlawful exclusionary conduct. RealPage has amassed a massive reservoir of competitively sensitive data from competing landlords and used that data to sell AIRM and YieldStar. RealPage has ensured that rivals cannot compete on the merits unless they enter into similar agreements with landlords, offer to share competitively sensitive information among rival landlords, and engage in actions to increase compliance. As a result of its exclusionary conduct, RealPage has been able to obstruct rival software providers from competing via revenue management products that do not harm the competitive process in addition to cementing its massive data and scale advantage that keeps increasing due to self-reinforcing feedback effects.
283. RealPage's anticompetitive acts have harmed the competitive process and reduced feasible and less restrictive alternatives for landlords, which alternatives thereby pose less risk of competitive harm to renters.
284. RealPage's exclusionary conduct lacks a procompetitive justification that offsets the harm caused by RealPage's anticompetitive and unlawful conduct.
285. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 284 above.
286. Commercial revenue management software for conventional multifamily housing rentals in the United States is a relevant antitrust market.
287. RealPage has attempted to monopolize that market through unlawful exclusionary conduct enhanced by its self-reinforcing data and scale advantages. By amassing its massive reservoir of competitively sensitive data from competing landlords and the follow-on benefits that scale and its feedback effects provide in terms of blunting competition among landlords, RealPage's conduct excludes commercial revenue management rivals from competing on the merits in a lawful manner. As such, it has increased, maintained, or protected RealPage's power.
288. RealPage's anticompetitive acts have harmed the competitive process and reduced feasible and less restrictive alternatives for landlords, which alternatives thereby pose less risk of competitive harm to renters.
289. As inferred from the anticompetitive conduct described in Sections IV and V,
290. Plaintiff State of North Carolina incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 289 above.
291. Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged above while operating their businesses in North Carolina markets, including, but not limited to, the markets alleged in paragraphs 214, 216, 256, and Appendices A and B. Defendants' anticompetitive conduct has affected commerce in North Carolina to a substantial degree by harming the competitive process and renters across the State including, but not limited to, in the North Carolina markets identified in paragraphs 214, 216, 256, and Appendices A and B.
292. Defendants' acts as alleged in the First and Second claims for reliefs stated in paragraphs 259-279 above, violate the North Carolina Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Act in that they constitute contracts in restraint of trade or commerce in North Carolina, and/or acts and contracts in restraint of trade or commerce which violate the principles of the common law. N.C.G.S. §§ 75-1, 75-2.
293. Defendant Real Page's acts as alleged in the Third and Fourth claims for relief stated in paragraphs 280-289, above, violate the North Carolina Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.G.S. § 75-1
a. Injunctive and other equitable relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, N.C.G.S. § 75-14, and the common law of North Carolina;
b. Civil penalties pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 75-15.2, which provides a penalty of up to $5,000 per violation;
c. Costs of suit, including expert witness fees, costs of investigation, and attorney's fees pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26 and N.C.G.S. § 75-16.1; and
d. Other remedies as the court may deem appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case.
295. The State of California incorporates the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 289 above.
296. Defendants' practices, as alleged above, violate the Sherman Act sections 1 and 2 and therefore constitute unlawful business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200,
297. Plaintiff State of California seeks the following:
a. injunctive relief and penalties pursuant to sections 17203 and 17206 of the UCL,
b. costs of suit, including expert witness fees, costs of investigation, and attorney's fees pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, and
c. other remedies as the court may deem appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case.
298. Plaintiff State of Colorado repeats and re-alleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 289 in this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
299. The acts alleged in the Complaint violate the Colorado Antitrust Act, § 6-4-101 et. seq., including C.R.S. § 6-4-104 and C.R.S. § 6-4-105. These violations substantially affect the people of Colorado and have impacts within the State of Colorado.
300. Each of the unlawful agreements, arrangements, or acts alleged herein constitute at least one distinct violation of the Colorado Antitrust Act within the meaning of C.R.S. § 6-4-113.
301. Defendants' acts alleged herein constitute a continuous pattern and practice of behavior within the meaning of C.R.S. § 6-4-113(2)(c).
302. Defendants' acts alleged herein were willful within the meaning of C.R.S. § 6-4-113(2)(d).
303. The State of Colorado seeks the following remedies under federal law and the Colorado Antitrust Act, including, without limitation:
a. Injunctive and other equitable relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26 and C.R.S. § 6-4-112;
b. Civil penalties pursuant to C.R.S. § 6-4-113 for each violation of the Colorado Antitrust Act;
c. Costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, and C.R.S. § 6-4-112(5); and
d. Other remedies as the Court may deem appropriate based on the facts properly alleged and proven.
304. Plaintiff State of Connecticut, acting by and through its Attorney General pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-44a, incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 289 above. The State of Connecticut brings its state and federal law claims for relief against all Defendants except Cortland.
305. The acts alleged in the Complaint also constitute violations of the Connecticut Antitrust Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-24
306. Plaintiff State of Connecticut seeks all remedies available under federal law and the Connecticut Antitrust Act, including, without limitation, the following:
a. Civil penalties pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 35-38, which provides that in any action instituted by the Attorney General, any person who has been held to have violated any of the provisions of the Connecticut Antitrust Act shall forfeit and pay to the state a civil penalty of not more than one million dollars for each violation;
b. Injunctive and other equitable relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-34, 35-44a;
c. Costs and fees including, without limitation, costs of investigation, litigation, expert witness fees, and attorney's fees pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-34, 35-44a; and
d. Other remedies as the Court may deem appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case.
307. Plaintiff State of Illinois, acting by and through its Attorney General, incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 289 above. The State of Illinois brings its state and federal law claims for relief against all Defendants except Cortland.
308. The acts alleged in the Complaint violate the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 ILCS 10/1 et seq, including 740 ILCS 10/3(1), 740 ILCS 10/3(2), and 740 ILCS 10/3(3). These violations substantially affect the people of Illinois and have impacts within the State of Illinois.
309. The State of Illinois seeks all available remedies under federal law and the Illinois Antitrust Act, including, without limitation:
a. Injunctive and other equitable relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26; and 740 ILCS 10/7;
b. Civil penalties pursuant to 740 ILCS 10/7(4) for each violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act;
c. Disgorgement, damages, and/or other equitable or monetary relief pursuant to federal law including Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, Section 4c of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15c and state law including 740 ILCS 10/7, and treble damages for injuries sustained, directly or indirectly, by individuals residing in Illinois to their property, pursuant to the State of Illinois' parens patriae authority under 740 ILCS 10/7(2);
d. Costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Section 4c of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15c, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, 740 ILCS 10/7(2); and
e. Other remedies as the Court may deem appropriate on the basis of the facts properly alleged and proven.
310. Plaintiff Commonwealth of Massachusetts repeats, realleges, and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 289 above as if fully set forth herein. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts brings its state and federal law claims for relief against all Defendants except Cortland.
311. The acts alleged in the aforementioned paragraphs of this Complaint, including but not limited to unlawful agreements in restraint of trade and unlawful monopolization, constitute unfair methods of competition and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices in trade or commerce in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L c. 93A § 2
312. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L c. 93A § 2
313. Plaintiff Commonwealth of Massachusetts is entitled to and seeks the following relief under M.G.L. c. 93A § 4:
a. Injunctive and other equitable relief pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A § 4;
b. Civil penalties of up to $5,000 per each violation committed by the Defendants pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A § 4;
c. Costs and fees including, without limitation, costs of investigation, litigation, and attorneys' fees pursuant to M.G.L. c. 93A § 4; and
d. Other remedies as the court may deem appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case.
314. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts notified the Defendants of this intended action at least five days prior to the commencement of this action and gave the Defendants an opportunity to confer in accordance with M.G. L. c. 93A § 4.
315. Plaintiff State of Oregon, acting by and through its Attorney General, incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 289 above. The State of Oregon brings its state and federal law claims for relief against all Defendants except Cortland.
316. The acts alleged in the Complaint also constitute violations of the Oregon Antitrust Law, Oregon Revised Statutes (“ORS”) 646.705 to ORS 646.836. These violations had impacts within the State of Oregon and substantially affected the people of Oregon.
317. The State of Oregon appears in its sovereign or quasi-sovereign
a. Disgorgement and/or other equitable relief pursuant to federal law including Section 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, and state law pursuant to ORS 646.770, and ORS 646.775;
b. Injunctive and other equitable relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, ORS 646.760, ORS 646.770, and ORS 646.775;
c. Civil penalties pursuant to ORS 646.760(1) which provides that a court may assess for the benefit of the state a civil penalty of not more than $1,000,000 for each violation of the Oregon Antitrust Law,
d. Costs of suit, including expert witness fees, costs of investigation, and attorney's fees pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, ORS 646.760, ORS 646.770, ORS 646.775; and
e. Other remedies as the court may deem appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case.
318. Plaintiff State of Tennessee incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 289 above. The State of Tennessee brings its state and federal law claims for relief against all Defendants except Cortland.
319. Defendants engaged in the conduct described above, individually and collectively, to thwart competition for multifamily housing in Tennessee. This anticompetitive conduct in Tennessee harmed thousands of multifamily renters across the state.
320. Defendants' business practices have caused a reduction in competition in relevant Tennessee markets, including, but not limited to, in the markets identified in paragraphs 214 and 216 and Appendices A and B, and, as a result, Tennesseans have suffered anticompetitive harms.
321. Accordingly, Defendants' actions violate the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-101, as amended.
322. Defendant RealPage engaged in the conduct described above to maintain its monopoly and exclude competing commercial revenue management software competitors.
323. Accordingly, Defendant RealPage's actions violate the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-102, as amended.
324. This conduct has affected Tennessee trade and commerce to a substantial degree.
325. To remedy this anticompetitive conduct, the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter seeks all remedies available to which it is entitled under federal law and claims under Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-25-101, 102, and 106, as amended, including, without limitation, the following:
a. injunctive or other equitable relief; reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses, pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-106(b), and the common law of Tennessee;
b. civil penalties pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-106(g);
c. costs of suit, including expert witness fees, costs of investigation, and attorney's fees pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-106(b); and
d. other legal and equitable remedies as the court may deem appropriate and the interest of justice may require under the facts and circumstances of the case.
326. The State of Washington incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 289, except for the portions of paragraphs 95, 96, 97, 117, 131, 171, and 228 that Washington was unable to review due to confidentiality redactions. Washington reserves the right to adopt the portions of those paragraphs which are later disclosed.
327. Washington brings its federal and state law claims for relief against Defendants RealPage, Cushman & Wakefield, Pinnacle, Greystar, and LivCor (“Washington Defendants”).
328. Washington Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged above while operating their businesses in Washington. This anticompetitive conduct in Washington harmed the competitive process and renters across the State including in, but not limited to, the markets identified in Appendices A and B.
329. The acts alleged in the paragraphs incorporated by the State of Washington also constitute antitrust violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.030, which declares unlawful every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.
330. The acts alleged in the paragraphs incorporated by the State of Washington also constitute antitrust violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.040, which declares monopolization or attempts to monopolize unlawful.
331. Washington seeks the following remedies available under the Washington Consumer Protection Act and federal law including, without limitation, the following:
a. That the Court adjudge and decree that conduct alleged in the complaint to be unlawful and in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.030 and § 19.86.040;
b. Injunctive and other equitable relief pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080;
c. Damages including treble damages; disgorgement; and/or restitution and any appropriate interest pursuant to federal law including Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 4, 15c and pursuant to state law including Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080;
d. Civil penalties pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.140;
e. Costs and attorney's fees and any appropriate interest on those fees and costs pursuant to Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 15c and/or pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.080; and
f. Other remedies, including pre-judgement interest, as the court may deem appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case.
332. To remedy these illegal acts, Plaintiffs request that the Court:
a. Adjudge and decree that Defendants have acted unlawfully to restrain trade in conventional multifamily rental housing markets across the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1;
b. Adjust and decree that RealPage has acted unlawfully to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, the commercial revenue management software market in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2;
c. Enjoin Defendants from continuing to engage in the anticompetitive practices described herein and from engaging in any other practices with the same purpose and effect as the challenged practices;
d. Enter any other preliminary or permanent relief necessary and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by Defendants' unlawful conduct;
e. Enter any additional relief the Court finds just and proper; and
f. Award Plaintiffs an amount equal to their costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in bringing this action.
333. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all issues properly triable to a jury in this case.
The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted against Defendant under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1, 2).
As used in this Final Judgment:
A. “RealPage” or “Defendant” means Defendant RealPage, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Richardson, Texas, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.
B. “Active Lease(s)” means the lease agreement that is in effect for a unit on any given date. Whether a lease agreement is an Active Lease is based on its end date as entered by a Property Manager or Property Owner, provided, however, that leases reflected in a snapshot or backup of a database that has been aged at least 16 months prior to the date of implementation of a model will not be deemed Active Leases as defined here.
C. “AIRM” means AI Revenue Management, a RealPage Revenue Management Product.
D. “AI Demand Model” means the model used in AIRM to predict the likelihood that a prospective tenant will apply for a unit at a Subject Property.
E. “AI Supply I Model” means the model used in AIRM to predict the likelihood that an expiring lease at the Subject Property will be renewed, rather than terminated, before a renewal rent offer has been approved by the Property Manager or Property Owner.
F. “AI Supply II Model” means the model used in AIRM to predict the likelihood that an expiring lease at the Subject Property will be renewed, rather than terminated, after a renewal rent offer has been approved by the Property Manager or Property Owner.
G. “Auto Accept” means a feature or mechanism of a Revenue Management Product that, when enabled by a user or licensee of a Revenue Management Product, automatically accepts or implements the Revenue Management Product's recommended price if it satisfies a set of pricing parameters (including as to maximum increase or decrease in rent) for a Floor Plan.
H. “Competitively Sensitive Information” means property-specific data or information (whether past, present, or prospective) that: (i) individually or when aggregated with such data or information from other properties, could be reasonably used to determine current or future rental supply, demand, or pricing for a property or a property's units, including executed rents, rental price concessions or discounts, guest traffic, guest applications, occupancy or vacancy, lease terms or lease expirations; (ii) relates to a Property Owner's or Property Manager's use of settings or user-specified parameters within Revenue Management Products with respect to the Property Owner's or Property Manager's property or properties; or (iii) relates to a Property Owner's or Property Manager's rental pricing amount, formula, or strategy, including rental price concessions or discounts with respect to the Property Owner's or Property Manager's property or properties.
I. “Cooperation Subject Matter” means the claims alleged in
J. “Core-Based Statistical Area” or “CBSA” means a geographic area, as defined by the federal Office of Management and Budget, consisting of the counties or equivalent entities associated with at least one urban center (core) of at least 10,000 individuals, plus adjacent counties having a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured through commuting ties.
K. “Floor Plan” means a grouping of units for a Subject Property that share similar characteristics, such as square footage and the number of bedrooms and bathrooms.
L. “Governor Guardrail” means a feature or mechanism in the Runtime Operation of RealPage's Revenue Management Product that limits the RealPage Revenue Management Product's increase or decrease of the previous day's Floor Plan price recommendation by a certain percentage.
M. “Including” means including, but not limited to.
N. “Market Range Chart” means a chart or other visual representation that identifies, for a Subject Property's Floor Plan, a market minimum rent and a market maximum rent based on other properties' Floor Plan pricing.
O. “Market Rank” means a Subject Property variable that reflects that property's average rent level compared to distribution of rents in a market.
P. “Market Rent” means any variable that includes rent from Unaffiliated Properties.
Q. “Market Response Curve” means a curve that represents the price elasticity model for a Floor Plan.
R. “Market Surveys” means collections of Nonpublic Data compiled by RealPage including through call arounds, emails, texts, surveys, or similar communicative means from Property Managers or Property Owners.
S. “Model Training” means any process of analyzing data, including by machine learning or regression analysis,
T. “Nonpublic Data” means any Competitively Sensitive Information that is not Public Data.
U. “Owner Inputted Data” means any data about an Unaffiliated Property that a licensee or user inputs into a RealPage Revenue Management Product.
V. “Person” means any natural person, corporate entity, partnership, association, joint venture, or trust.
W. “Pricing Advisor” means a RealPage employee, contractor, or agent who supports or otherwise works with licensees or users of Revenue Management Product(s) and who participates in any way, including by providing advice or guidance, in (i) a Property Manager or Property Owner's determination of price or desired occupancy for a Floor Plan or unit, (ii) review of or recommendations about the price for a Floor Plan or unit, or (iii) software settings or parameters of Revenue Management Product(s).
X. “Pricing Ceiling” means, for a Floor Plan, the top of the pricing range as shown on the Market Range Chart or the Market Response Curve.
Y. “Pricing Floor” means, for a Floor Plan, the bottom of the pricing range as shown in the Market Range Chart or the Market Response Curve.
Z. “Property Manager(s)” means any Person, or a Person's agent, who manages (but does not own) a multifamily rental property.
AA. “Property Owner(s)” means any Person, or a Person's agent (not including Property Managers), that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls a multifamily rental property regardless of whether they also manage that rental property; multifamily rental properties have the same Property Owner if they are (directly or indirectly) owned or controlled by the same Person.
BB. “Pseudocode” means any plain or natural language description of the steps taken by an algorithm or other software program.
CC. “Public Data” means information (including information on a rental unit's asking price, publicly offered concessions, amenities, and availability) that is readily accessible to the general public, such as on the property's website, at a physical building, in brochures, or on an internet listing service. Public Data includes information on a rental unit's asking price, concessions, amenities, and availability provided by a Property Manager or a Property Owner to any natural person who reasonably presents himself as a prospective renter. Public Data does not include any Competitively Sensitive Information obtained through any communication between RealPage and one or more Property Managers or Property Owners or from any other Person, unless such information is also readily accessible to the general public.
DD. “RealPage RMS Meeting(s)” means RealPage steering committees, subcommittees, user groups, or Idea Exchange relating to Revenue Management Products, or variations of or communications related to such meetings, attended by more than one Property Owner or Property Manager that licenses or uses a RealPage Revenue Management Product. For avoidance of doubt, a RealPage RMS Meeting does not include any individualized communications between RealPage and a Property Manager or Property Owner to which RealPage provides products or services.
EE. “Revenue Management Product(s)” means any software or service, including software as a service, that generates rental prices or rental pricing recommendations for multifamily rental properties.
FF. “Runtime Operation” means any action taken by a Revenue Management Product while it runs, including generating rental prices or rental pricing recommendations for any unit or set of units at a Subject Property. Runtime Operation does not include Model Training.
GG. “Settled Antitrust Claims” means any civil federal antitrust claim brought by the United States and arising from Defendant's conduct that occurred before the filing of the Complaint in this action and that relates to Revenue Management Products, including RealPage Revenue Management Products that use Competitively Sensitive Information.
HH. “Sold-out Guardrail” means the operation of RealPage's Revenue Management Product that increases the recommended rental price for a Floor Plan when the Floor Plan reaches its target occupancy.
II. “States” means the states, commonwealths, and territories of the United States of America, as well as the District of Columbia.
JJ. “Subject Property” means a property for which a Revenue Management Product provides price recommendations or prices.
KK. “Surrogate Data” means data from a property other than the Subject Property that is used by the Revenue Management Product to supplement the Transactional Data for a Floor Plan.
LL. “Synthetic Curve” means a demand or supply curve created by Defendant or Defendant's agents without the use of Transactional Data or Nonpublic Data of any kind.
MM. “Third Party” means any Person other than RealPage.
NN. “Transactional Data” means a Subject Property's current and historical data, including lease data (including lease term, final transacted lease price, and discounts) and tenant demand (including inquiries and applications by potential future tenants).
OO. “Unaffiliated Property” or “Unaffiliated Properties” means a property or multiple properties whose Property Owner(s) are different than the Property Owner of a Subject Property.
PP. “Unaffiliated Property Data” means Nonpublic Data (other than Owner Inputted Data) belonging to individual Property Owners of multiple Subject Properties that together constitute Unaffiliated Properties.
This Final Judgment applies to Defendant, as defined above, Defendant's officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with Defendant who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment.
A. Within 180 days after entry of the Stipulation and Order, Defendant must:
1. cease using current or historical Unaffiliated Property Data in the Runtime Operation of any Revenue Management Product, except as provided in Paragraph IV.C and E;
2. notify all Property Managers and Property Owners that license or use Defendant's Revenue Management Product(s) that Defendant may not seek Unaffiliated Property Data for use in Runtime Operation;
3. not use current, forward-looking, or historical Unaffiliated Property Data or Owner Inputted Data in Model Training for Revenue Management Products;
4. limit any use in Revenue Management Products of Unaffiliated Property Data related to rental prices, subject to Paragraph IV.A.3 and except
5. cease using any models in Revenue Management Products trained on Unaffiliated Property Data that restrict or filter Nonpublic Data by geography or that can identify geographic effects at a granularity more specific than nationwide;
6. retrain applicable models in its Revenue Management Products so that data used to train all models is restricted to data that complies with Paragraph IV.A.3-5.
B. Within 180 days after entry of the Stipulation and Order, Defendant must not share, publish, disclose, or otherwise provide or make accessible in a Revenue Management Product (including in Runtime Operation) to any licensee of a Revenue Management Product any Unaffiliated Property Data or Owner Inputted Data inputted by another Property Owner, or a Property Manager acting on the Property Owner's behalf, regardless of form, aggregation, anonymization, or age of the Unaffiliated Property Data or Owner Inputted Data except as permitted in Paragraph IV.E.
C. Within 180 days after entry of the Stipulation and Order, Defendant must not use the same Synthetic Curve within the same CBSA for Unaffiliated Properties or use Unaffiliated Property Data to supplement Floor Plan data in Revenue Management Product(s). Provided, however, that Defendant may use Unaffiliated Property Data to supplement a Floor Plan's Transactional Data if, and only if, there is no comparable Surrogate Data available from the same reasonably identifiable Property Owner, and only until the Subject Property has achieved two years of its own Transactional Data. Defendant must obtain the Unaffiliated Property Data used pursuant to this Paragraph IV.C from a property outside of the CBSA of the Subject Property, and Defendant cannot use such data for different Unaffiliated Properties in the same CBSA as the Subject Property. Defendant must not disclose the location or the identity of the Property Owner, Property Manager, or any Unaffiliated Property whose Nonpublic Data is used to supplement a Floor Plan's Transactional Data.
D. Defendant must not conduct, commission, solicit, or otherwise knowingly accept Nonpublic Data through Market Surveys (i) for use in Revenue Management Product(s) or (ii) otherwise for purposes of recommending a Subject Property's Floor Plan pricing, unit level pricing, or occupancy levels.
E. Defendant must not use, share, publish, disclose or otherwise provide to Unaffiliated Properties, (i) in Revenue Management Product(s) or (ii) otherwise for purposes of recommending a Subject Property's Floor Plan pricing, unit level pricing, or occupancy levels, data or information on rental occupancy, availability, or prices collected through Market Surveys conducted, commissioned, or otherwise obtained by Defendant after September 30, 2024.
F. Nothing in this Final Judgment prohibits or limits Defendant's collection of data or information from a Property Owner, or a Property Manager on behalf of the Property Owner, for use that is consistent with the terms of this Final Judgment.
A. Within 180 days after entry of the Stipulation and Order, Defendant must not offer any Revenue Management Product that:
1. includes any Auto Accept feature that does not require a licensee or user to individually set parameters (including as to a maximum increase or decrease in rent);
2. includes any Governor Guardrail that does not have symmetrical upper and lower bounds for the recommended change in rental price, by a percentage to be determined and adjusted by the licensee or user;
3. reduces the target number of leases, except to round up or down to the nearest whole number of leases when calculating expected revenue;
4. generates rental price recommendations under the Sold-out Guardrail using anything other than the Subject Property's own information, including historical position; or
5. prohibits, disincentivizes, or impedes in any way a user's or licensee's ability to reject or override any price recommendation;
B. Beginning 180 days after entry of the Stipulation and Order, any Revenue Management Product Defendant offers must allow the licensee or user to set parameters that permit pricing recommendations to go below the Pricing Floor to the same extent such pricing recommendations exceed the Pricing Ceiling.
C. Upon entry of the Stipulation and Order, Defendant may not require or provide any incentives, including economic incentives, to any licensee or user of RealPage's Revenue Management Products to accept any recommended rental prices or range of prices or incentivize any RealPage employee or agent to solicit, request, or get a licensee or user to accept any recommended rental prices or range of prices.
D. Upon entry of the Stipulation and Order, Defendant may not implement any Revenue Management Product feature that uses or relies on Unaffiliated Property Data in a manner inconsistent with this Final Judgment.
A. Within 60 days of the entry of the Stipulation and Order, Pricing Advisors must not disclose, share with, or otherwise disseminate Unaffiliated Property Data or Owner Inputted Data (i) in Revenue Management Product(s) or (ii) otherwise for purposes of recommending a Subject Property's Floor Plan pricing, unit level pricing, or occupancy levels.
B. Defendant must not through RealPage RMS Meetings discuss or facilitate discussions about market analysis or trends based on Nonpublic Data or Owner Inputted Data or pricing strategies. Provided, however, and for avoidance of doubt, this Paragraph VI.B does not prohibit (i) RealPage from discussing its products' functionality or software-related technical issues, or (ii) Pricing Advisors from having individualized discussions with individual licensees or users of RealPage Revenue Management Products about setting rental prices and software settings if those discussions are based solely on Public Data or that licensee's or user's Nonpublic Data.
A. Upon application of the United States, which Defendant may not oppose, the Court will appoint a Monitor selected by the United States in its sole discretion and approved by the Court. Defendant may propose a pool of three candidates for the Monitor appointment to the United States and the United States may consider Defendant's perspectives on the proposed candidates or any other candidates identified by the United States. The United States will retain the right, in its sole discretion, either to
B. The Monitor will have the power and authority to monitor Defendant's compliance with the terms of this Final Judgment and the Stipulation and Order entered by the Court and will have other powers as the Court deems appropriate. The Monitor will have no responsibility or obligation for the operation of Defendant's business. No attorney-client relationship will be formed between Defendant and the Monitor.
C. The Monitor will have the authority to take such steps as, in the judgment of the Monitor and the United States, may be necessary to accomplish the Monitor's responsibilities. The Monitor may seek information from Defendant's personnel, including in-house counsel, compliance personnel, and internal auditors. Defendant must establish a policy, annually communicated to all employees, that employees may disclose any information to the Monitor without reprisal for such disclosure. Defendant must not retaliate against any employee or Third Party for disclosing information to the Monitor.
D. Defendant may not object to actions taken by the Monitor in fulfillment of the Monitor's responsibilities under any Order of the Court on any ground other than malfeasance by the Monitor. Disagreements between the Monitor and Defendant related to the scope of the Monitor's responsibilities do not constitute malfeasance. Objections by Defendant must be conveyed in writing to the United States and the Monitor within 20 calendar days of the Monitor's action that gives rise to Defendant's objection, or the objection is waived.
E. The Monitor will serve at the cost and expense of Defendant pursuant to a written agreement, on terms and conditions, including confidentiality requirements and conflict of interest certifications, approved by the United States in its sole discretion. If the Monitor and Defendant are unable to reach such a written agreement within 14 calendar days of the Court's appointment of the Monitor, or if the United States, in its sole discretion, declines to approve the proposed written agreement, the United States, in its sole discretion, may take appropriate action, including making a recommendation to the Court, which may set the terms and conditions for the Monitor's work, including compensation, costs, and expenses.
F. The Monitor may hire, at the cost and expense of Defendant, any agents and consultants that are reasonably necessary in the Monitor's judgment to assist with the Monitor's duties. These agents or consultants will be directed by, and solely accountable to, the Monitor and will serve on terms and conditions, including confidentiality requirements and conflict-of-interest certifications, approved by the United States in its sole discretion. Within three business days of hiring any agents or consultants, the Monitor must provide written notice of the hiring and the rate of compensation to Defendant and the United States.
G. The compensation of the Monitor and agents or consultants retained by the Monitor must be on reasonable and customary terms commensurate with the individuals' experience and responsibilities.
H. The Monitor must account for all costs and expenses incurred.
I. Defendant's failure to promptly pay the Monitor's accounted-for costs and expenses, including for agents and consultants, will constitute a violation of this Final Judgment and may result in sanctions ordered by the Court. If Defendant makes a timely objection in writing to the United States to any part of the Monitor's accounted-for costs and expenses, Defendant must establish an escrow account into which Defendant must pay the disputed costs and expenses until the dispute is resolved.
J. Defendant must use best efforts to cooperate fully with the Monitor and to assist the Monitor to monitor Defendant's compliance with its obligations under this Final Judgment and the Stipulation and Order. Subject to reasonable protection for trade secrets, other confidential research, development, or commercial information, or any applicable privileges, Defendant must provide the Monitor and agents or consultants retained by the Monitor with full and complete access to all personnel (current and former), agents, consultants, books, records, and facilities. Defendant may not take any action to interfere with or to impede accomplishment of the Monitor's responsibilities.
K. The Monitor must investigate and report on Defendant's compliance with this Final Judgment and the Stipulation and Order, including as follows, and will have other powers as the Court deems appropriate: (i) to obtain and review Defendant's books, records, and documents relating to Defendant's compliance with the Final Judgment; (ii) to interview Defendant's officers, employees, and agents; (iii) to obtain, or inspect at a location chosen by the United States in its sole discretion, the code and Pseudocode for RealPage's Revenue Management Products; (iv) to obtain documents showing how the models for RealPage's Revenue Management Products are trained; (v) to obtain documents showing how RealPage's Revenue Management Products determine prices for multifamily rental property units during its Runtime Operation; (vi) to obtain documents showing whether Nonpublic Data is being used or shared, including compliance with Paragraph IV.A; and (vii) to make annual written reports to the United States, with the first report due six months after the Monitor's work plan is approved under Paragraph VII.L, which process will include such monitoring and verification throughout the monitorship period as necessary to establish that Defendant has complied with the obligations in this Final Judgment.
L. Within 30 calendar days after appointment of the Monitor by the Court, and on a yearly basis thereafter, the Monitor must provide to the United States and Defendant a proposed written work plan. Defendant may provide comments on the proposed written work plan to the United States and the Monitor within 14 calendar days after receipt of the proposed written work plan, after which the Monitor must produce a final work plan to the United States and Defendant, for approval by the United States in its sole discretion. Any disputes between Defendant and the Monitor with respect to any written work plan will be decided by the United States in its sole discretion. The United States retains the right, in its sole discretion, to require changes or additions to a work plan at any time.
M. The Monitor may communicate
N. The Monitor will serve for a term of three years beginning on the date that the Monitor's written work plan is finalized pursuant to Paragraph VII.L, unless the United States, in its sole discretion, determines a different period—not to exceed an additional 18 months (which need not be consecutive to the original three-year monitor term)—is appropriate.
O. If the United States determines that the Monitor is not acting diligently or in
P. To the extent there are multiple monitors in related Final Judgments against other defendants in
A. Within 30 days of entry of the Stipulation and Order, Defendant must submit a written antitrust compliance policy for approval by the United States in its sole discretion that complies with the obligations set forth in this Final Judgment. Defendant must annually train all employees with responsibility for developing, implementing, maintaining, selling, advising on, or otherwise involved in Revenue Management Product(s)or features in the United States, including Pricing Advisors, on this written policy.
B. Within 30 days of entry of the Stipulation and Order, Defendant must designate an antitrust compliance officer. Defendant must identify to the United States the antitrust compliance officer's name, business address, telephone number, and email address. Within forty-five (45) days of a vacancy in Defendant's antitrust compliance officer position, Defendant must appoint a replacement and must identify to the United States the replacement's name, business address, telephone number, and email address. Defendant's initial and replacement appointments of an antitrust compliance officer are subject to the approval of the United States in its sole discretion. Defendant is responsible for all costs and expenses related to the antitrust compliance officer. The antitrust compliance officer will be responsible for:
1. auditing on a bi-annual basis compliance with Paragraph V.A-B;
2. attending and monitoring, or arranging for the attendance or monitoring by another individual trained in antitrust law, any RealPage RMS Meeting;
3. performing bi-annual audits to ensure that Surrogate Data has been eliminated from a Subject Property's database if the Subject Property has achieved at least two years of historical Transactional Data, pursuant to Paragraph IV.C;
4. implementing and enforcing Defendant's antitrust compliance policy and annual training required by Paragraph VIII.A; and
5. reporting any communication regarding RealPage RMS Meetings pursuant to Paragraph VIII.D.
C. On an annual basis beginning 180 calendar days after entry of the Stipulation and Order, Defendant must:
1. submit to the United States a certification from Defendant's General Counsel attesting under penalty of perjury that (i) Defendant has established and maintained the antitrust compliance policy and annual training required by Paragraph VIII.A; (ii) Defendant has complied with the attestation requirement in Paragraph VIII.C.3; (iii) Defendant has complied with the requirements in Sections IV and V;
2. submit to the United States a certification from the antitrust compliance officer attesting under penalty of perjury that (i) Defendant has taken reasonable steps to comply with Paragraph IV.A.3; (ii) the antitrust compliance officer has attended, or arranged the attendance of another individual trained in antitrust law at, all RealPage RMS Meetings; (iii) RealPage RMS Meetings have complied with the restrictions described in Paragraph VI.B; (iv) the antitrust compliance officer has reported all communications pursuant to Paragraph VIII.D; and (v) the antitrust compliance officer has performed bi-annual audits to ensure compliance with Paragraphs VIII.B; and
3. require all Pricing Advisors to attest under penalty of perjury that they have complied with the requirements in Paragraph VI.A.
D. If any participant in a RealPage RMS Meeting discusses or facilitates discussions regarding topics prohibited by Section VI.B, the antitrust compliance officer, designated pursuant to Paragraph VIII.B, must provide to the United States and to the Monitor the following information about the RealPage RMS Meeting within 30 days:
1. the date, time, location, and a description of the meeting's content;
2. all participants, including denoting all participants who discussed or facilitated discussion of present or future market conditions, pricing, discounts, occupancy, renewal rates, or use of concessions;
3. a description of any document shown at the meeting, which Defendant must also produce to the United States;
4. a description of all documents received or provided by Defendant during the meeting, which Defendant must also produce to the United States; and
5. a description of all chats, recordings, or documents associated with the meeting, including agendas and meeting minutes, which Defendant must also produce to the United States.
A. For the purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Final Judgment or related orders such as the Stipulation and Order or determining whether this Final Judgment should be modified or vacated, upon written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division and reasonable notice to Defendant, Defendant must permit, from time to time and subject to legally recognized privileges, authorized representatives, including agents retained by the United States:
1. to have access during Defendant's business hours to inspect and copy, or at the option of the United States, to require Defendant to provide electronic copies of all books, ledgers, accounts, records, data, and documents wherever located, in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment; and
2. to interview, either informally or on the record, Defendant's officers, employees, or agents, wherever located, who may have their individual counsel present, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment. The interviews must be subject to the reasonable convenience of the interviewee and without restraint or interference by Defendant;
3. to obtain documents sufficient to show how RealPage's Revenue Management Product is trained and how it determines prices for multifamily rental property units during its Runtime Operation; and
4. to obtain, or inspect at a location at the Division's discretion and subject to necessary safeguards to protect confidentiality, the code and Pseudocode of RealPage's Revenue Management Product.
B. Upon the written request of an authorized representative of the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Defendant must submit written reports or respond to written interrogatories, under oath if requested, relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment.
A. Subject to reaching a settlement with all States that, as of the entry of the Stipulation and Order, are plaintiffs in
1. making up to 25 employees available for voluntary interviews for up to 100 hours total at the request of the United States relating to the Cooperation Subject Matter and considering reasonable requests for interviews of additional employees;
2. providing full and truthful written or oral testimony in deposition, trial, or other proceeding relating to the Cooperation Subject Matter and making witnesses available to the United States upon reasonable notice before any such testimony;
3. providing proffers, which may be made by counsel for Defendant, describing Defendant's knowledge of, and evidence relating to, the Cooperation Subject Matter;
4. within 30 days of receiving a written request (whether formal or informal) from the United States for documents, information, or other material relating to the Cooperation Subject Matter (or whatever additional time the Division grants in its sole discretion), produce to the United States all responsive documents, information, and other materials, wherever located, not protected under the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine, in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant or its agents, as well as a log of any responsive documents, information, or other materials that were not provided, including an explanation of the basis for withholding such materials, and authenticating or otherwise assisting with establishing the evidentiary foundation of any documents Defendant produced or produces to the United States; and
5. taking all steps necessary to preserve all documents, information, and other materials relating to the Cooperation Subject Matter until the United States provides written notice to Defendant that its obligation to do so has expired.
B. Subject to Defendant's full, truthful, and continuing cooperation, as required under Paragraph X.A, Defendant is fully and finally discharged and released from the Settled Antitrust Claims.
C. Nothing in this Section affects Defendant's obligation to respond to any formal discovery requests in litigation or a civil investigative demand issued by the United States.
A. No information or documents obtained pursuant to any provision in this Final Judgment, including reports the Monitor provides to the United States pursuant to Paragraph VII.K, may be divulged by the United States or the Monitor to any person other than an authorized representative of the executive branch of the United States, except in the course of legal proceedings to which the United States is a party, including grand-jury proceedings, or as otherwise required by law.
B. In the event that the Monitor receives a subpoena, court order, or other court process seeking production of information or documents obtained pursuant to any provision in this Final Judgment, including reports the Monitor provides to the United States pursuant to Paragraph VII.K, the Monitor must notify the United States and Defendant immediately and prior to any disclosure, so that Defendant may address such potential disclosure and, if necessary, pursue alternative legal remedies, including if deemed appropriate by Defendant, intervention in the related proceedings.
C. In the event of a request by a Third Party, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, for disclosure of information obtained pursuant to any provision of this Final Judgment, the United States will act in accordance with that statute and the Department of Justice regulations at 28 CFR part 16, including the provision on confidential commercial information, at 28 CFR 16.7. Defendant, when submitting information to the Antitrust Division, should designate the confidential commercial information portions of all applicable documents and information under 28 CFR 16.7. Designations of confidentiality expire 10 years after submission, “unless the submitter requests and provides justification for a longer designation period.” See 28 CFR 16.7(b).
D. If at the time that Defendant furnishes information or documents to the United States pursuant to any provision of this Final Judgment, Defendant represents and identifies in writing information or documents for which a claim of protection may be asserted under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendant marks each pertinent page of such material “Subject to claim of protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” the United States must give Defendant 10 calendar days' notice before divulging the material in any legal proceeding (other than a grand jury proceeding).
The Court retains jurisdiction to enable any party to this Final Judgment to apply to the Court at any time for further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out or construe this Final Judgment, to modify any of its provisions, to enforce compliance, and to punish violations of its provisions.
A. If at any time during the five-year period following entry of this Final Judgment, the United States determines in its sole discretion that the Final Judgment has failed to fully redress the violations alleged in the Complaint, then the United States may re-open this proceeding to seek additional relief. Such additional relief may be ordered by this Court upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reasonable probability that the proposed Final Judgment did not fully redress the violations alleged in the Complaint.
B. The United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the provisions of this Final Judgment, including the right to seek an order of contempt from the Court. In a civil contempt action, a motion to show cause, or a similar action brought by the United States relating to an alleged violation of this Final Judgment, the United States may establish a violation of this Final Judgment and the appropriateness of a remedy therefor by a preponderance of the evidence, and Defendant waives any argument that a different standard of proof should apply.
C. This Final Judgment should be interpreted to give full effect to the procompetitive purposes of the antitrust laws and to restore the competition the United States alleges was harmed by the challenged conduct. Defendant may be held in contempt of, and the Court may enforce, any provision of this Final Judgment that, as interpreted by the Court in light of these procompetitive principles and applying ordinary tools of interpretation, is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, whether or not it is clear and unambiguous on its face. In any such interpretation, the terms of this Final Judgment should not be construed against either party as the drafter.
D. In an enforcement proceeding in which the Court finds that Defendant has violated this Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for an extension of this Final Judgment, together with other relief that may be appropriate. In connection with a
E. For a period of four years following the expiration of this Final Judgment, if the United States has evidence that Defendant violated this Final Judgment before it expired, the United States may file an action against Defendant in this Court requesting that the Court order: (1) Defendant to comply with the terms of this Final Judgment for an additional term of at least four years following the filing of the enforcement action; (2) all appropriate contempt remedies; (3) additional relief needed to ensure Defendant complies with the terms of this Final Judgment; and (4) fees or expenses as called for by this Section.
Unless the Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire seven years from the date of its entry, except that after four years from the date of its entry, this Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court and Defendant that continuation of this Final Judgment is no longer necessary or in the public interest.
This Final Judgment terminates only the claims stated in the Complaint against Defendant and does not affect other charges or claims the United States may file. The United States retains all rights to investigate or prosecute, under all applicable laws, any other claims against the Defendant that may be brought in the future. The entry of this Final Judgment does not limit the ability of any non-settling attorney general of any State to bring or maintain any action under federal or state law against Defendant.
Nothing in this Final Judgment impairs or limits any authority of a State or local government to impose different or additional requirements on the use of Nonpublic Data by statute, regulation, or ordinance, or affects Defendant's obligations under state or local law.
Entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest. The parties have complied with the requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16, including by making available to the public copies of this Final Judgment and the Competitive Impact Statement, public comments thereon, and any response to comments by the United States. Based upon the record before the Court, which includes the Competitive Impact Statement and, if applicable, any comments and response to comments filed with the Court, entry of this Final Judgment is in the public interest.
[Court approval subject to procedures of Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16]
The United States has obtained a settlement with RealPage that protects American renters by prohibiting the use of competitively sensitive information in RealPage's software to set rental prices, and by ending anticompetitive practices to align pricing among competing landlords. In accordance with the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h) (the “APPA” or “Tunney Act”), the United States files this Competitive Impact Statement related to the proposed Final Judgment as to Defendant RealPage, which has been filed in this civil antitrust proceeding (ECF No. 159-1).
On August 23, 2024, the United States, along with co-plaintiff States, filed a civil antitrust Complaint (the “Complaint”) against RealPage, Inc. (“RealPage”). On January 7, 2025, the United States and its co-plaintiff States amended the Complaint to add six property management companies as Defendants.
RealPage licenses three revenue management products to property management companies and property owners (collectively, “landlords”). These software products are AI Revenue Management (“AIRM”), YieldStar, and Lease Rent Options (“LRO”). RealPage's revenue management products are used by landlords to determine how to price floor plans and units in conventional multifamily rental housing,
The Complaint alleges that RealPage, along with six landlords, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by unlawfully agreeing to share and use competitively sensitive information for the properties that each landlord manages and leases. RealPage uses nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to train its algorithmic models (“models”) that AIRM leverages, and to provide floor plan price recommendations and unit-level pricing to landlords when they are running AIRM or YieldStar. The sharing and use of nonpublic, competitively sensitive information harms or is likely to harm the competitive process, renters, and prospective renters.
The Complaint further alleges that RealPage and the landlords that use AIRM and YieldStar violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, by unlawfully agreeing to use RealPage's software to align pricing among competing landlords. RealPage entered into individual agreements with landlords to use AIRM or YieldStar. By agreeing to use AIRM or YieldStar as it has been designed by RealPage, competing landlords align their pricing processes, strategies, and pricing responses,
Finally, the Complaint alleges that RealPage violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the commercial revenue management software market for conventional multifamily rental housing. Through its licensing agreements with landlords that use its software products, RealPage has amassed a massive reservoir of competitively sensitive data from competing landlords. RealPage has ensured that other providers of revenue management products cannot compete on the merits unless they enter into similar agreements with landlords, thereby obstructing them from
On November 24, 2025, the United States filed a proposed Final Judgment and a Stipulation and Order (“Stipulation and Order”) (ECF Nos. 159 & 159-1), which are designed to remedy the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint due to RealPage's conduct.
The proposed Final Judgment, which is explained more fully below, imposes a number of requirements and restrictions on RealPage that address the United States' concerns regarding RealPage's anticompetitive conduct alleged in the Complaint.
First, the proposed Final Judgment imposes restrictions on how RealPage can use competitively sensitive data from landlords. The proposed Final Judgment identifies two discrete phases of how RealPage's revenue management products operate: runtime operation and model training. Runtime operation is a landlord's use of the software to provide pricing recommendations and prices for the specific floor plans and units in a particular rental property. Model training is any process of analyzing data to create a model or algorithm, including the models that RealPage uses to predict supply and demand, which is then used in the runtime operation. Subject to limited exceptions, RealPage will not be allowed to use nonpublic data from competing properties in runtime operation. In training the models, RealPage will be limited to using backward-looking data that has been aged at least 12 months and is not from active leases,
Second, the proposed Final Judgement restricts RealPage's ability to source and share nonpublic information between landlords. The proposed Final Judgement imposes significant limitations on RealPage's ability to use, share, publish, disclose or provide competitors' nonpublic data to a landlord, including through RealPage's revenue management products or its pricing advisors. Relatedly, RealPage must not conduct any market surveys, the collection of potentially competitively sensitive nonpublic data through call arounds, emails, or other methods, for use in its revenue management products or to recommend a rental price or occupancy level during the term of the proposed Final Judgment. Finally, RealPage must not discuss or facilitate discussions among landlords about market analyses or trends based on nonpublic data, or about pricing strategies.
Third, the proposed Final Judgement limits RealPage's ability to use models trained using nonpublic, competitively sensitive information to determine price and supply below a certain geographic level. RealPage may not train AI Demand, AI Supply I, and AI Supply II with a geographic variable narrower than a state. RealPage may not use nonpublic, competitively sensitive data to train any future models with a geographic variable narrower than the nation.
Fourth, RealPage must modify or ensure that certain software features are designed to address the allegations in the Complaint. For example, RealPage may not prohibit or impede a landlord's ability to reject or override a recommended price. Similarly, any software feature that automatically accepts recommended prices must require that a landlord individually sets the parameters regarding that acceptance. Any limit on price increases and decreases must be symmetrical, and a landlord must individually determine the limits.
Fifth, RealPage must adopt and comply with a series of compliance measures. A monitor will be appointed for a term of three years, which the United States may extend by up to 18 months if it deems appropriate. RealPage will also adopt a written antitrust compliance policy and train its employees on the policy. RealPage must allow the United States to inspect its documents and to interview its employees to ensure compliance with the Final Judgment.
Finally, RealPage must provide cooperation to the United States in this civil proceeding (
Under the terms of the Stipulation and Order, RealPage must abide by and comply with the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment until it is entered by the Court or until the time for all appeals of any Court ruling declining entry of the proposed Final Judgment has expired.
The United States and RealPage have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the APPA. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment will terminate this action with respect to RealPage, except that the Court will retain jurisdiction to construe, modify, or enforce the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment and to punish violations thereof by RealPage.
RealPage, headquartered in Richardson, Texas, is the largest provider of commercial revenue management software for conventional multifamily rental housing in the United States. Currently, RealPage offers three revenue management products: AIRM, YieldStar, and LRO. RealPage's software calculates a recommended rental price for floor plans and a rental price for units for landlords across the United States.
RealPage provides landlords who use its revenue management products with pricing recommendations and pricing based on competitors' competitively sensitive data. When they are running, AIRM and YieldStar leverage confidential, competitively sensitive data collected from landlords as critical inputs to generate price recommendations for competing landlords. These data include rental applications, executed new leases, renewal offers and acceptances, and occupancy estimates and projections. The data are pulled from property management software, such as RealPage's OneSite product, that landlords use to collect and track rental payments, manage leases, track property maintenance requests, perform accounting functions, and perform other property management functions. By contrast, LRO relies on data that a landlord manually inputs into the software. The sensitive nature of this information may vary by user. The data inputted by a licensee or user into LRO could potentially be—and has historically included—nonpublic, competitively sensitive information.
Widespread adoption and use of RealPage's revenue management products lead to pricing decisions by competing landlords that are based on recommendations coming from a common pricing model that is powered by competitively sensitive, nonpublic data, which harms the ability of renters to obtain a competitive price for their housing. The use of competitors' competitively sensitive data in this manner harms current and prospective renters as well as the competitive process itself.
AIRM and YieldStar, additionally, incorporate certain product features that, as alleged in the Complaint, align pricing of competing landlord users. For example, AIRM and YieldStar incorporate special rules, called “guardrails,” that override the ordinary functioning of the model in ways that tend to push rival landlords' rental prices higher than would occur in a competitive market.
In addition to information sharing that occurs through the running of the software, the Complaint alleges that competitively sensitive information was shared during RealPage revenue
In summary, the Complaint alleges that RealPage unlawfully used nonpublic, competitively sensitive information in software for pricing competitors' rental units; that RealPage designed its software to align pricing between competitors; and that by unlawfully using nonpublic, competitively sensitive information, RealPage has also unlawfully monopolized the commercial revenue management software market for conventional multifamily rental housing.
The relief required by the proposed Final Judgment is designed to remedy the loss of competition in the conventional multifamily rental housing markets alleged in the Complaint by significantly limiting RealPage from sharing competitively sensitive, nonpublic information, directly or indirectly, with competing landlords, and from offering software features that would align pricing between competing landlords. Additionally, the proposed Final Judgment is designed to remedy the loss of competition in the commercial revenue management software market for conventional multifamily rental housing by enabling competing revenue management software that does not illegally use confidential, competitively sensitive data to more effectively compete against RealPage's software. The terms described below are designed to ensure that RealPage ends its anticompetitive conduct and prevent RealPage from engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.
The proposed Final Judgment imposes restrictions on how RealPage uses nonpublic data in its revenue management software during runtime operation and in model training. Determining the appropriate parameters for the use of nonpublic data requires an industry- and fact-specific analysis. The agreed-upon terms in this settlement are guided by the specific facts and claims at issue here, including: (1) the specific characteristics of and competitive dynamics in the conventional multifamily rental housing industry; (2) how the data are used in the industry and the applicable software; and (3) the principle that firms should not make pricing decisions using insight drawn from their competitors' nonpublic, competitively sensitive data.
Paragraph IV.A.1 generally prohibits RealPage from using competing landlords' data in the runtime operation of its revenue management software. Runtime operation refers to the process by which the software generates a recommended price for a floor plan or a unit-level price in a particular multifamily rental property. In other words, this is the execution of a model, including the application of a model to property-specific data, to generate a pricing recommendation. Runtime operation does not include the training of an underlying model. This Paragraph ensures that the software's floor plan price recommendation or unit-level price, as determined during the runtime operation, is solely based on a property owner's own nonpublic data or data available to the general public. The prohibition will help to restore competition between landlords.
Paragraph IV.B generally prohibits RealPage from sharing, publishing, disclosing, or otherwise providing or making accessible any nonpublic, competitively sensitive data in its revenue management products, including in their runtime operations. This Paragraph covers not only other landlords' data shared with RealPage but also any data from a competing property that a landlord might have obtained and entered in the software from a source other than RealPage. Relatedly, Paragraph IV.A.2 requires RealPage to notify landlords that RealPage is not seeking nonpublic, competitively sensitive information from competing properties.
Paragraph IV.C also limits RealPage's use of surrogate data or synthetic curves. Surrogate data refers to data used when a property does not have at least two years of its own transactional history or enough units within a given floor plan to run RealPage's software. Synthetic curves are demand or supply curves created by RealPage without the use of transactional data or nonpublic data of any kind. Surrogate data and synthetic curves are used to construct market response curves—analogous to market demand curves—when a property does not have enough of its own property data. The restrictions in Paragraph IV.C prevent competing properties with different owners from using the same surrogate data or curves to determine prices and thereby prevent a meaningful means of pricing alignment.
The proposed Final Judgment allows for two exceptions to the prohibition of using data from other landlords in the runtime operations of RealPage's revenue management products. First, Paragraph IV.C allows RealPage to use nonpublic data from a property with a different owner as surrogate data only if: (1) a subject property does not have at least two years of its own transactional data and (2) the subject property owner does not have two years' worth of comparable data from a different property it owns. If these conditions are met, RealPage may supplement a floor plan's history with comparable surrogate data from a property with a different owner but only if that property is in a different Core-Based Statistical Area (“CBSA”).
Paragraph IV.E provides a second exception to RealPage's use of nonpublic data in its runtime operation: data collected through market surveys that were conducted before September 30, 2024. A market survey is a practice whereby RealPage and landlords, through call arounds, emails or other methods, collect potentially competitively sensitive, nonpublic data from competing landlords to use in the software's runtime operation for competing properties. Under Paragraph IV.D, RealPage agrees not to conduct any new market surveys during the duration of the Final Judgment. Before September 30, 2024, RealPage's software used data collected through market surveys to determine a floor plan's market position. The Final Judgment permits limited use of the pre-September 30, 2024, aged, nonpublic data to minimize disruption to the operation of certain aspects of the software that do not pose threats to competition.
The prohibitions in the proposed Final Judgment and described above are designed to ensure that, going forward, use of RealPage's revenue management products will not constrain independent
Paragraphs IV.A.3-6 set forth restrictions and obligations on what nonpublic data RealPage may use in training its models for revenue management products. Model training is any process of analyzing data, including by machine learning or regression analysis, to create or adjust a model or algorithm to improve the accuracy of the model's or algorithm's predictions. Models are trained using data to define and refine the rules or instructions by which they operate. The proposed Final Judgment permits limited use of nonpublic, property-specific data in model training.
RealPage relies on three models in AIRM: AI Demand, AI Supply I, and AI Supply II. AI Demand predicts the likelihood that a prospective tenant will apply for a unit at a specific property. The AI Supply models predict the likelihood that an expiring lease will be renewed rather than terminated. AI Supply I predicts the likelihood of renewal before a renewal rent offer has been approved by the landlord, while AI Supply II predicts the likelihood of renewal using an approved renewal rent offer. Each of RealPage's models is one of multiple inputs used to determine, during runtime operation, the supply and demand at a particular property.
Paragraph IV.A.3 prohibits RealPage from using current, forward-looking, or historical nonpublic data in training its revenue management software models, unless the data are at least 12 months old and not from active leases. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 12 months is the most common lease length with only about 7% of leases being over 12-months.
The combination of these requirements prevents RealPage from using current, forward-looking, or certain historical nonpublic data in training the models, minimizing any competitive concerns related to the use of this nonpublic information to determine how the models are trained.
Paragraph IV.A.4 of the proposed Final Judgment restricts RealPage from using rental price data in training its model, including a prohibition on using nonpublic data to calculate a market rent or market rank (
Paragraph IV.A.5 prohibits RealPage's current or future models from being used in a manner that restricts or filters nonpublic data by geography or that can identify geographic effects that are narrower than nationwide. This will limit RealPage's ability to create new regional, state-wide, or local models by using geographic variables narrower than nationwide. The proposed Final Judgment permits RealPage to continue using state and regional variables in training its current models: AI Demand, AI Supply I, and AI Supply II. Because of the nature of these three models and because states tend to be larger than the largest local market (CBSAs) alleged in the Complaint, the United States determined that anticompetitive conduct in the alleged local markets due to this exception is not likely.
Paragraph IV.A.6 requires RealPage to retrain its models, should it be necessary, in accordance with the restrictions described above.
The Complaint alleges that some of RealPage's revenue management software features align pricing between competing landlords. Paragraphs V.A-C are designed to address alignment of pricing through use of common nonpublic data or through software design.
Paragraphs V.A-C require RealPage to refrain from implementing existing product features in its revenue management products unless certain conditions are met. Paragraph V.D bars RealPage from implementing in the future any feature that relies on competing landlords' data.
Paragraph V.A.1 requires any auto-accept feature in a RealPage revenue management product (a feature that allows recommended prices to be automatically implemented) to be able to be configured individually by licensees or users. Paragraph V.A.4 requires that RealPage not use data from a particular property's competitors when the sold-out guardrail is active for that property. The sold-out guardrail is an operation in the software that increases the recommended rental price for a floor plan when the property's floor plan reaches its target occupancy. Thus, a landlords' own data—not competitors' nonpublic, competitively sensitive data—will dictate the recommended price for a landlord's units.
Paragraph V.A.3 addresses how RealPage may alter the target number of leases for each floor plan. This feature determines the number of units that should be rented out at a given point in time to reach sustainable capacity—the target number of units per floor plan that a landlord wants to lease—by the end of the leasing window. Therefore, altering the target leases for a floor plan can directly influence the recommended price. Paragraph V.A.3 prohibits RealPage from artificially reducing the number of target leases.
The Complaint alleges that RealPage's software did not recommend prices below a price floor, a value determined by a property's competitors. RealPage allowed price recommendations to go above the price ceiling, a value also determined by competitors' nonpublic, competitively sensitive data. Paragraphs IV.A.1 and V.B address these allegations. Paragraph IV.A.1, discussed above, prohibits RealPage from using nonpublic, competitively sensitive data in runtime operation, including in determining the price ceiling and floor. Paragraph V.B requires RealPage to allow prices to go below the price floor by the same percentage as it allows the price to go above the price ceiling. This eliminates the disparity between the “hard floor” and “soft ceiling” identified in the Complaint. In addition, the maximum percentage by which the price can fluctuate must be set by the landlord, not RealPage. This will promote independent decision making from each landlord based only on the public data available to them. It also allows renters to benefit from market fluctuations, preventing RealPage from favoring price increases over price decreases.
Paragraph V.C prohibits RealPage from requiring landlords, or providing them with any incentives, to accept any recommended rental prices or range of prices. This restriction promotes landlords' independent decision making.
Paragraph V.D prohibits RealPage from implementing additional features that rely on nonpublic, competitively
Paragraph VI.A specifically prohibits pricing advisors, RealPage employees who consult on software configurations and revenue management, from disclosing nonpublic, competitively sensitive data from other property owners while assisting a user or licensee with setting rental prices or occupancy levels. Paragraph VI.B prohibits RealPage from discussing or facilitating discussions in RMS meetings about market analyses or market trends based on nonpublic data, or about pricing strategies.
The proposal Final Judgment requires that RealPage be subject to an appointed compliance monitor selected by the United States in its sole discretion. The monitor will assess RealPage's compliance with the Final Judgment, in particular RealPage's use of nonpublic data in its revenue management products, RealPage's compliance with the requirements regarding product features in its revenue management products, and RealPage's compliance with discussions using nonpublic data outside of the software.
Paragraph VII.B provides the monitor with authority to investigate RealPage's compliance with the Final Judgment. Per Paragraph VII.C, the monitor will have the authority to take steps necessary to accomplish the monitor's responsibilities. These steps may include interviewing RealPage employees and collecting RealPage documents. The monitor will also provide an annual report to the United States setting forth RealPage's efforts to comply with its obligations under the Final Judgment.
The monitor will serve at RealPage's expense, on such terms and conditions as the United States approves in its sole discretion. RealPage will be required to assist the compliance monitor in fulfilling his or her obligations. The monitor will serve for three years from the approval of the workplan. The United States has the ability, in its sole discretion, to extend the term of the monitor by up to 18 months which need not be consecutive to the original three-year term.
Pursuant to Paragraph IX.A, RealPage must provide the United States with access to RealPage's books, records, data, and documents, including communications with other property management companies, to enable the United States to assess RealPage's compliance with the terms of the Final Judgment. RealPage must also permit the United States to interview RealPage's officers, employees, or agents relating to any matters contained in this Final Judgment. Additionally, Paragraph IX.A. provides that RealPage must, upon request, provide the United States with documents describing how RealPage's software is trained and how it determines prices for properties, as well as changes to these processes. RealPage must also allow the United States to inspect RealPage's software code and pseudocode of that software for independent verification.
Paragraph VIII.B requires RealPage's antitrust compliance officer to implement and enforce RealPage's antitrust compliance policy and annual training, audit compliance with the software feature requirements, attend any RealPage RMS meetings, and audit the use of surrogate data, per Paragraph IV.C. Paragraph VIII.C requires RealPage to submit an annual certification from its General Counsel that RealPage has established and maintained this annual antitrust compliance policy and training, that pricing advisors have attested under penalty of perjury that they have not shared nonpublic, competitively sensitive data per Paragraph VI.A, and that RealPage has complied with the restrictions regarding use of nonpublic data and with certain product features, described above.
Finally, Paragraph VIII.D requires RealPage to notify the United States and the monitor should anyone during the RealPage RMS meetings discuss pricing strategies or market trends.
Under the terms of the proposed Final Judgment, and subject to RealPage reaching settlement with certain States, RealPage must cooperate with the United States relating to the United States' claims against the remaining property management company defendants included in the Complaint. This required cooperation includes voluntary interviews with at least 25 RealPage employees for up to 100 hours. In addition, RealPage must provide cooperation to the United States by making witnesses available before trial, providing testimony, proffering evidence, and producing documents and other information.
The proposed Final Judgment also contains provisions designed to promote compliance with and make enforcement of the Final Judgment more effective. Paragraph XIII.A allows the United States to seek additional relief if during the five-year period following the entry of the Final Judgment, the United States determines in its sole discretion that the Final Judgment has failed to fully redress the violations alleged in the Complaint. Paragraph XIII.B provides that the United States retains and reserves all rights to enforce the Final Judgment, including the right to seek an order of contempt from the Court. Under the terms of this paragraph, RealPage has agreed that in any civil contempt action, any motion to show cause, or any similar action brought by the United States regarding an alleged violation of the Final Judgment, the United States may establish the violation and the appropriateness of any remedy by a preponderance of the evidence and that RealPage has waived any argument that a different standard of proof should apply. This provision aligns the standard for compliance with the Final Judgment with the standard of proof that applies to the underlying offense addressed by the Final Judgment.
Paragraph XIII.C provides additional clarification regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the proposed Final Judgment. Pursuant to Paragraph XIII.C of the proposed Final Judgment, RealPage agrees that it will abide by the proposed Final Judgment and that it may be held in contempt of the Court for failing to comply with any provision of the proposed Final Judgment that is stated specifically and in reasonable detail, as interpreted in light of its procompetitive purpose.
Paragraph XIII.D provides that if the Court finds in an enforcement proceeding that RealPage has violated the Final Judgment, the United States may apply to the Court for an extension of the Final Judgment, together with such other relief as may be appropriate. In addition, to compensate American taxpayers for any costs associated with investigating and enforcing violations of the Final Judgment, Paragraph XIII.D provides that in any successful effort by the United States to enforce the Final Judgment against RealPage, whether litigated or resolved before litigation, RealPage must reimburse the United States for attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs incurred in connection with that effort to enforce this Final Judgment, including the investigation of the potential violation.
Paragraph XIII.E states that the United States may file an action against RealPage for violating the Final Judgment for up to four years after the Final Judgment has expired or been terminated. This provision is meant to address circumstances such as when evidence that a violation of the Final
Finally, Section XIV of the proposed Final Judgment provides that the Final Judgment will expire seven years from the date of its entry, except that after four years from the date of its entry, the Final Judgment may be terminated upon notice by the United States to the Court and to RealPage that continuation of the Final Judgment is no longer necessary or in the public interest.
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, provides that any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover three times the damages the person has suffered, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment neither impairs nor assists the bringing of any private antitrust damage action. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(a), the proposed Final Judgment has no prima facie effect in any subsequent private lawsuit that may be brought against RealPage.
The United States and RealPage have stipulated that the proposed Final Judgment may be entered by the Court after compliance with the provisions of the APPA, provided that the United States has not withdrawn its consent. The APPA conditions entry upon the Court's determination that the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest.
The APPA provides a period of at least 60 days preceding the effective date of the proposed Final Judgment within which any person may submit to the United States written comments regarding the proposed Final Judgment. Any person who wishes to comment should do so within 60 days of the date of publication of this Competitive Impact Statement in the
Written comments should be submitted in English to: Danielle Hauck, Acting Chief, Technology and Digital Platforms Section, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice, 450 Fifth St. NW, Suite 7100, Washington, DC 20530.
The proposed Final Judgment provides that the Court retains jurisdiction over this action, and the parties may apply to the Court for any order necessary or appropriate for the modification, interpretation, or enforcement of the Final Judgment.
As an alternative to the proposed Final Judgment, the United States considered a full trial on the merits against RealPage. The United States could have continued its litigation against RealPage and brought the case to trial, seeking relief including an injunction against RealPage's sharing of competitively sensitive, nonpublic data with competing landlords, an injunction against RealPage imposing product features in its revenue management products that may have the effect of aligning prices, and an injunction preventing RealPage from facilitating communications in RealPage meetings regarding market trends or pricing strategies. The United States concludes that entry of the proposed Final Judgment is in the public interest insofar as it avoids the time, expense, and uncertainty of a full trial on the merits.
Under the Clayton Act and APPA, proposed Final Judgments, or “consent decrees,” in antitrust cases brought by the United States are subject to a 60-day comment period, after which the Court shall determine whether entry of the proposed Final Judgment “is in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(1). In making that determination, the Court, in accordance with the statute as amended in 2004, is required to consider:
(A) the competitive impact of such judgment, including termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and modification, duration of relief sought, anticipated effects of alternative remedies actually considered, whether its terms are ambiguous, and any other competitive considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment that the court deems necessary to a determination of whether the consent judgment is in the public interest; and
(B) the impact of entry of such judgment upon competition in the relevant market or markets, upon the public generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of the issues at trial.
As the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has held, under the APPA a court considers, among other things, the relationship between the remedy secured and the specific allegations in the government's Complaint, whether the proposed Final
The United States' predictions about the efficacy of the remedy are to be afforded deference by the Court.
Moreover, the Court's role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its Complaint, and does not authorize the Court to “construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.”
In its 2004 amendments to the APPA, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of using judgments proposed by the United States in antitrust enforcement, Public Law 108-237 § 221, and added the unambiguous instruction that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.” 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2);
There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment.
Dated: November 24, 2025
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or we) proposes to overhaul and modernize the Commission's space and earth station licensing process to help “ensure that new space-based industries, space exploration capabilities, and cutting-edge defense systems are pioneered in America rather than by our adversaries.” In particular, the NPRM proposes to develop a “licensing assembly line” designed so applications can be routed along different paths and segmented for review based on specific aspects of a request. This new process would set the stage for ongoing efficiency gains and would provide greater predictability and flexibility for applicants. In this way, we expect—like actual assembly lines—that the space review processes can be dramatically accelerated while improving the quality of the Commission's space licensing work.
Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) are due January 20, 2026. Reply Comments are due February 18, 2026.
You may submit comments, identified by SB Docket No. 25-306, by any of the following methods:
☐
☐
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Carolyn Mahoney, 202-418-7168,
This is a summary of the Commission's NPRM, FCC 25-69, adopted October 28, 2025, and released October 29, 2025. The document is available for public inspection online at
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the
•
•
• 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 Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 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.
•
•
Pursuant to § 1.1200(a), this proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
The NPRM may contain new or proposed modified information collections. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any information collections contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
The OPEN Government Data Act requires agencies to make “public data assets” available under an open license and as “open Government data assets,”
Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on
1. Across the United States, the space economy is booming and American companies are building to ensure our nation leads into the final frontier. To assure our nation's continued space leadership, the United States must be the place where the world's space industry builds, operates, and licenses. In a recent Executive Order, the President set our nation on a course “to ensure that new space-based industries, space exploration capabilities, and cutting-edge defense systems are pioneered in America rather than by our adversaries.” And the Administration has called for investments in space as a key priority to “assure America's continued space dominance.”
2. To achieve these goals and to be the nation of choice for space excellence, the United States must also have a modern, efficient space licensing system that enables innovation and exploration. That is why with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) we are launching a proceeding to modernize the Commission's space and earth station licensing rules to meet the needs of the space economy for today and tomorrow. We expect that modernizing our rules will support the vibrant space economy so that the United States can achieve what the President called for in his 2025 Address to Joint Session of Congress when he said, “We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars and even far beyond. And through it all, we are going to rediscover the unstoppable power of the American spirit, and we are going to renew unlimited promise of the American dream.”
3. With these goals in view, our proposal in the NPRM designs a “licensing assembly line” to process space and earth station applications with great efficiency and at the speed and scale required by the 21st century space economy. Like a physical assembly line, we seek to move standardized application materials in direct paths from one stage of the review process to the next in a highly predictable way. Given the nature of our licensing duties, our assembly line will be designed so applications can be routed along different paths and segmented for review based on specific aspects of a request. By modernizing processes in our rules, we aim to set the stage for increasing automation over time. In this way, we expect—like actual assembly lines—that the space review processes can become more efficient and dramatically accelerated while improving the quality of the Commission's licensing work for the American people.
4. In the early years of the Commission's work licensing space-based communications, the industry encompassed a small number of entities, many of which were quasi-governmental and largely focused on geostationary Earth orbit (GEO) deployments. In the 1990s and 2000s, there were cycles of investment and excitement, including increased interest in non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) systems, but many of these proposals met financial or technical challenges. The idea of a satellite broadband service that could fully connect rural areas and even compete with terrestrial offerings seemed impossible. However, in the last decade, the number of satellites launched into orbit, particularly by private companies, has increased dramatically, seeing a more than 10-fold increase in a decade. As a result of this increased launch cadence and growth in satellite technology, the Commission found that last year, the “. . . availability data indicate that satellite service offering 100/20 Mbps speeds is available to almost 100% of the U.S. population.” And beyond delivering high-speed internet service, the commercial space industry now includes a varied array of companies providing direct-to-device cell service, resilient enterprise and military connectivity, Earth observation services, and novel space activities. Innovators and explorers are embarking on lunar and interplanetary missions and considering how to use the resources of outer space for the good of humanity. This change and rapid growth in the space industry has created new demands on the Commission's resources and raised new questions about how to apply the existing licensing framework to new satellite and earth station technologies.
5. The expansion of the space economy has resulted in significantly more licensing activity at the Commission. The Commission received 295 space station applications and 2,684 earth station applications in 2024. In contrast, the Commission received only 124 space station applications and 974 earth station applications in 2016. During this time, the complexity, size, and variety of license applications has also changed. Such rapid change in the space economy—and the resulting demands on the Commission's existing licensing system—means our rules and operations must be modernized to
6. As we modernize the Commission's space and earth station licensing process, we aim to align our rules with the pace, growth, and innovation in the space economy while upholding our statutory duties. Unnecessary regulatory burden imposed on a dynamic, early growth industry can have substantial costs. Inefficient, slow, and costly license processing thwarts innovation and reduces competition. Complex and prescriptive regulation can support incumbents' lobbying against new innovators, and highly discretionary regulation can enable regulators to arrogate their power at the expense of the public. If regulation prevents deployment of new space systems, consumers and businesses must wait to realize the tangible benefits of new innovations and services flowing from the space economy. Many satellite systems also combine commercial and national security components, and the costs of inefficient regulation may hinder America's defenses or put us at a strategic disadvantage with our adversaries.
7. With the NPRM, we have four main goals: (1) to increase license processing speed; (2) to provide more predictability to applicants and licensees; (3) to provide more flexibility for innovation and for licensees' operations; and (4) to faithfully meet our responsibilities. Pursuit of these goals guides each element of our proposal as we aim to design a system which can efficiently scale with the space economy. These goals flow directly from the mandates in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), directing the Commission “to make available, so far as possible, to all people of the United States . . . . world-wide wire and radio communications service” and to “encourage the provision of new technologies and services to the public.” Additionally, the Act provides for the regulation and licensing of radio communications, including satellite communications, for the purpose of national defense and in service of the “public convenience, interest, or necessity.” We believe these statutory mandates strongly support our goals of greater speed, predictability, and flexibility in the space and earth station licensing process to promote the wide availability and proliferation of communications and new technologies for the public.
8. Therefore, we direct our space licensing review toward a clear and limited set of concerns when determining if granting a license will serve the “public convenience, interest, or necessity.” In particular, these areas are (1) harmful interference, (2) spectrum efficiency, (3) space safety, and (4) foreign ownership. As we re-design the Commission's space licensing processes to increase speed, predictability, and flexibility we must do so in a way that guides our determination as to whether a license for space-based communications is in the public interest based on evaluation in these areas. We recognize that a process which efficiently and effectively reviews license applications for these factors will promote the wide availability of communications delivered by a thriving space economy employing new technologies. In addition, it is our intention that by simplifying and modernizing our space licensing procedures we will ensure that the use of part 5 experimental licenses will again be for the testing and development of truly novel space concepts.
9.
10.
11.
12. Lastly, in addition to our key goals, we also take this as an opportunity to propose clearing out regulatory underbrush. In crafting the proposals in the NPRM, we heavily incorporate suggestions from the
13. To modernize our licensing process so it can scale to meet the needs of the space economy, we propose three pivots away from the current framework in our part 25 rules. First, we propose a review process to facilitate permissionless innovation. Second, we propose an overhaul of the application materials for more efficient processing. Third, we propose expanding the freedom applicants and licensees have for designing and operating their systems. We believe these pivots are the conceptual path to achieving greater speed, predictability, and flexibility in space and earth station licensing.
14.
15. Our aim is for this approach to support expedited review of any portions of an application that meet bright-line rules. Doing so then allows for targeted review of any elements which do not meet the bright-line criteria, essentially allowing the Commission to make decisions about systems once in a rulemaking (for all applicants) and taking a posture of defaulting toward permitting any requests meeting the criteria. Space companies will then be incentivized to design their systems to meet these standards that the Commission has found are in the public interest while still allowing for deviation as necessary.
16. One key element of this approach that we propose is an expedited processing pathway. We propose that an application will be placed on public notice for seven days and then be granted quickly in most circumstances if it: (1) meets certain presumed acceptable criteria that the Commission has found to be in the public interest; (2) does not request waivers; and (3) is not subject to certain limited “exceptions” to expedited processing. Our expectation is that operators will see expedited processing as a highly desirable way to obtain a license and will design their systems and organize their licensing requests to take advantage of this path. Such an approach with expedited processing delivers by providing faster processing speeds, more predictability as to what features of a system are unobjectionable, and greater flexibility to design systems within the performance parameters presumed to be in the public interest.
17. For applications that do not qualify for expedited processing, our proposal still postures toward granting a license application. We recognize that many applications may not meet all the bright-line standards or that may seek a waiver of the Commission's rules. There also are situations where the Commission will need to consider issues beyond the performance of a particular proposed system, such as how that proposed system will impact other operators' ability to use spectrum. To handle these situations, we propose to adopt a limited set of “exceptions” to the expedited processing pathway. We envision using these exceptions as a clear way to identify specific aspects of applications that require targeted review, like off-shoots from an assembly line.
18. Identified exceptions for a given application would serve as the basis for targeted review. That is, the Commission will focus on review and consideration of any identified exceptions in determining whether granting an application is in the public interest. However, existence of an exception should not necessarily mean an extensive or delayed process. For most applications with an identified exception, we propose to place complete applications on public notice for 15 days. After the public comment period ends, we expect the Commission will work quickly through the areas needing focused review. To facilitate timely review and to increase transparency, we also propose the Commission will notify applicants of any or all exceptions still undergoing
19.
20. Over time, we expect that our standardized and modular application design will allow for increasing automation of licensing. We envision applicants being able to submit requests into an FCC system where, based on responses, the application form dynamically adjusts. Applicants would be able to quickly see which rules apply to their proposal and make certifications alongside such information. The system would also then be able to conduct validation checks, identify incomplete elements, and then route the application to Commission staff with any exceptions already identified. With standardized, machine-readable application materials organized by design, an FCC system could automatically generate public notices and draft grant materials. During the public notice period, commenters could respond to particular elements of a proposal in a system, so that when the comment period closes, all application materials and public comments are already organized by issue so that staff does not have to do such sorting. With time, artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be used to assist, automating parts of the review so that staff can focus on more complex policy questions. While our proposal does not take these steps, our enhanced application design anticipates such developments. Further, section 8(a) of the Communications Act mandates that the Commission assess and collect application fees based on the Commission's costs to process applications. Section 8(c) also requires the Commission to amend the application fee schedule if the Commission determines that the schedule requires amendment to ensure that: (1) such fees reflect increases or decreases in the costs of processing applications at the Commission or (2) such schedule reflects the consolidation or addition of new categories of applications. Thus, as we make changes to our application process, we will also consider as necessary, any changes to the Commission's schedule of application fees that result from a more standardized and modular application design.
21. Under our proposal, applicants would be able to flexibly select the application modules relevant to the system's frequency bands, orbital characteristics (
22. One particular example of the flexibility and reduced burden afforded by the modular license approach that we propose is that entities be able to complete the FCC Form 312—Main Form with basic contact and ownership information
23. Perhaps most important to enhancing the application process, our proposal introduces a series of certifications concerning the bright-line elements that carry a public interest presumption. These certifications are specific to the type of proposed system, such as GSO or NGSO, and applicants will certify affirmatively or negatively as to whether their proposed system meets these prespecified elements. Not only do these certifications allow us to relieve applicants of certain showings, but these certifications can be used to quickly identify specific areas where targeted review is needed. Applicants who provide a negative certification—that is, applicants who certify that their system will
24.
25. Our proposal allows for freedom and flexibility in numerous respects so that applicants can seek authorizations that work best for their operations and so that licensees can operate as necessary. As a general matter, we follow the principle that if a request or activity does not trigger one of the specific exceptions then it is presumed to be in the public interest and requires minimal review. We also seek to allow entities, in some instances, to evaluate tradeoffs within the licensing process and then choose how to proceed with an application. Here, we note key elements of our proposal intended to offer flexibility to applicants and licensees. First, we propose to expand the set of modifications to a license which would be permitted through only a simple notification and/or certification. This means that licensees will be able to operate more freely and only have to
26. A final important element of flexibility in our proposal considers new areas of space and satellite innovation that do not fit neatly into the traditional GSO or NGSO categories. In particular, we propose to create a new category of Variable Trajectory Spacecraft System (VTSS). This proposed category would provide a new licensing pathway for applicants seeking to operate space stations on spacecraft that may not follow predictable trajectories. For example, we believe that the VTSS category would include certain ISAM operations, as well as lunar missions, or missions to other celestial bodies. We recognize these systems need greater flexibility in their operations and therefore propose to update our licensing process and rules to accommodate these operations. One particular way we do this is by proposing to allow VTSS licensees to file propagated ephemeris and engage in collision avoidance rather than having to generally prespecify all activities over the license term.
27. The NPRM seeks comment on all aspects of the proposal and alternative possibilities. We have organized the discussion in the NPRM around four main threads: (1) the licensing assembly line in which we describe our proposals related to the application process for space and earth stations, including application materials, handling, and decision processing; (2) additional reforms for licensing efficiency where we describe proposals related to space and earth station licenses, such as milestones and surety bonds, and the transition to part 100; (3) operational and technical requirements where we describe our proposals related to operational and technical rules for licensees; and (4) compliance where we describe our proposals for rules addressing violations. In each, we seek to explain how our proposals support the overall goals of the modernization process.
28. We propose to adopt a new part 100 of the Commission's rules that would replace the existing part 25 rules. We believe that creating a new rule part altogether would provide a better organized and improved framework for applicants and industry stakeholders, rather than extensively revising the current rules and potentially creating unnecessary confusion. We therefore propose to create part 100 and sunset part 25. Part 100, which is Reserved, is contained in 47 CFR Subchapter D—Safety and Special Radio Services which is preferrable to the current placement of part 25 in Subchapter B—Common Carrier Services. We make this proposal because, while not all our licensees or market access grantees provide common carrier services, all use radio services. We also propose titling part 100 as “Space and Earth Station Services” rather than the current part 25 title, “Satellite Communications.” Satellite communications is a subset that does not include communications with earth stations or spacecraft that are not satellites, and as such is limited. The new proposed title encompasses a broader set of communications operations that reflect the current space industry. We seek comment on implementing the new part 100 and on the overall structure of the proposed modernized rules. Are there benefits to retaining part 25, or are there alternative solutions that the Commission should consider in restructuring the rules?
29. Appendix A to the NPRM contains the largely complete proposed part 100. By providing a largely complete text of proposed rules, we aim to provide the public with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the overall framework and detailed, specific rule sections. There are instances where we do not propose specific regulatory text and instead describe a proposal in the text of the NPRM and seek comment on appropriate additional regulatory text. We also propose alternatives to the proposed rule text and seek comment on both the proposed rules in Appendix A and any alternative proposals in the NPRM. In addition, other parts of the Commission's rules contain cross-references to part 25, or specific sections within it, that would need to be updated if part 100 replaces part 25. We also seek comment on the necessary revision of these cross-references, including whether any would involve substantive changes to those rule parts.
30. We propose to organize the new part 100 into four subparts:
31. Two of the main goals of this modernization effort are to make the Commission's space and earth station licensing rules easier to understand and to make the application process easier for incumbent and new operators alike. In this regard, an overhaul of certain aspects of our rules could bring more clarity to regulated entities, such as removing redundant portions and separating application requirements from operational rules to clarify for applicants what is required in the application process versus after grant. We believe that the proposed organization of part 100 will help applicants and licensees to more easily understand the application requirements, the application process, the rules applicable to a licensee, and the consequences for non-compliance of the rules and requirements. We seek
32. Another fundamental way in which we seek to provide greater clarity as part of our modernization efforts concerns the Commission's use of terms regarding the physical objects in space to which our rules and regulations apply. In the past, the Commission has at times used the terms “space station,” “satellite,” and “spacecraft” interchangeably despite the different definition of each term in the rules. However, such ambiguity does not support a predictable regulatory environment where defined terms carry precise meaning so that the public can understand the rules. Therefore, throughout our proposed revisions, we aim to more carefully apply and delineate these terms. The Commission's statutory authority is rooted in regulating the “apparatus,” which in this context includes the “space station,” or antenna, as a radiocommunication transmitting device. The space stations in a satellite system that the Commission licenses and regulates are often combined with a “satellite” or “spacecraft” such that interchangeability of these two terms is not a problem. However, as the Commission anticipates that it will continue to receive more new and novel licensing requests, it is important to clearly distinguish these terms to promote clarity in our rules and in matters of statutory authority. Therefore, we propose to incorporate the definitions of “space station,” “satellite,” and “spacecraft” from parts 2 and 25 into part 100, and use these proposed definitions throughout the NPRM. We broadly seek comment on these definitions and these concepts. We also seek comment on the use of each term throughout the proposed rules and ask whether there are instances where a different term or definition may be more appropriate.
33. Our proposed “licensing assembly line” is designed so applicants can efficiently prepare applications which can be routed so that applications are identified for quick review (
34. The licensing assembly line proposes three key phases. First, the modular application phase where applicants submit applications or other requests to the Commission. Second, the application processing phase where the request is prepared for a decision in a timely fashion by establishing completeness, seeking public comment, and requesting or receiving any additional information or amendments. Third, the application decision phase in which the Commission applies a structured review process to decide on the request in accordance with the rules. The particulars of these three phases are embodied by the rules proposed in Appendix A and are discussed below.
35. Within the proposed part 100, “Subpart B—Applications and Licenses” is where we propose rules for accepting and processing applications. In subpart B, we propose to organize the rule sections covering the space and earth station application requirements as well as rules for application review. Our expectation is that subpart B would be the primary portion of our rules that the public and regulated entities would reference to understand how to apply for a space station or earth station license and the application review process. We seek comment on the general organization of part 100 proposed below and in Appendix A, as well as on the specific proposals for each section.
36. We propose to require applicants to submit their space and earth station applications by completing one or more application pieces depending on the nature of the request. Relying on modularity will mean applicants only need to complete relevant portions of the application and the Commission can efficiently design and update internal review processes for applications. We intend for this approach to apply to any type of application, including initial space and earth stations applications, petitions for market access, amendments, modifications, requests for special temporary authority (STA), and any other applications. The key modular pieces of the application materials under our proposal for space station applications include General and Ownership Information on FCC Form 312—Main Form, Orbital Elements on Schedule O to the FCC Form 312, and Frequency Elements on Schedule F to the FCC Form 312. Earth station applicants would file FCC Form 312—Main Form and Schedule B to FCC Form 312. Additional information would be required for applications to provide Supplemental Coverage from Space (SCS) and petitions for U.S. market access.
37. We propose to modularize the information that space station applicants must provide in the new part 100. Specifically, we propose to condense the information required for space station applications into three rule sections in part 100: one section for general applicant information; one section that contains the orbital information for a proposed system; and one section that contains the frequency information for a proposed system. Many of the information requirements that we propose in these sections are similar to the current part 25 rules, though we have sought to significantly reduce what is required. We also propose in many of these information requirements to shift away from requiring narratives and demonstrations and shift to requiring more straightforward pieces of information. In making these changes we propose to replace the current Schedule S and much of the narrative required for space station applicants with two new schedules to the FCC Form 312: Schedule O and Schedule F. Schedule O would contain the orbital information and Schedule F would contain the frequency information related to the space station application. We propose to still require earth station applicants to submit Schedule B but propose streamlined revisions.
38. Applicants would only need to complete the portions of the forms that pertain to their requested operations. We propose to still require a description of the proposed system in the application but seek to substantially reduce the narratives required. Experience with part 25 application requirements shows that lengthy narratives and non-standard submissions can slow the review process as the Commission must spend time parsing the narrative and reconciling inconsistencies with other parts of the application. Additionally, we believe that this approach could facilitate intake of application data in standardized formats for improved review over time. By modularizing the orbital and frequency information, we seek to provide a wide range of flexibility for applicants. For instance, we envision this modularity facilitating simpler approval of hosted space stations and space-as-a-service systems by only requiring the information needed for their proposal. We seek comment on how our proposed application design could support such flexibility. Are there any changes we should make to our proposal for these
39. We also propose to continue to require electronic submission of applications via ICFS or another successor system and propose delegating to the Space Bureau the ability to designate the specific application filing system. In addition, we propose to codify that waiver requests are not necessary for submission of supplements or exhibits filed contemporaneously with applications due to technical limitations of the designated forms. We also propose that, consistent with Commission precedent and practice, applicants would not be entitled to refund of application filing fees once an application is reviewed. We seek comment on these proposed changes and generally on whether any changes related to the application fee rules in part 1, subpart G, or the ICFS rules in part 1, subpart Y would be required as a result of the proposals in the NPRM.
40. While the proposed rules set forth the requirements for application materials, we expect the form and format will need to be carefully designed to support our goals. Furthermore, we anticipate the need for the form and format of applications to evolve over time. Therefore, we plan to delegate authority to the Space Bureau to determine and revise the form and format for filing application materials and for designating the system for the intake of those materials. In particular, we plan to delegate to the Space Bureau the authority to announce through public notice any changes to the form and format of required application materials. This delegated authority would allow the Space Bureau to modernize and streamline the application process as necessary through improved technology and other process design improvements. We also propose to delegate authority to the Space Bureau to proceed by notice and comment rulemaking in making these changes if the Space Bureau deems required or advisable. Delegating authority to the Space Bureau as set forth above will allow it to effectuate improvements as quickly as possible. Since these delegations of authority, if made, might be of a continuing nature, we seek comment on whether corresponding rule changes should be made to Section 0.51 or other parts of our regulations. We seek comment on this approach.
41. Section 25.114(a) directs applicants for NGSO and GSO space station authorizations to submit applications via FCC Form 312—Main Form, with the required exhibits attached. The FCC Form 312—Main Form also prompts applicants to respond to a number of questions relating to the applicant's compliance with the Commission's environmental policy rules, basic qualifications, and ownership, and requires certifications to the accuracy of the information provided therein. We propose to create a new rule section entitled “Application Requirements of the FCC Form 312—Main Form” that aggregates the required information for space or earth station license applications with the FCC Form 312—Main Form. Specifically, this section would continue to require applicants to submit contact information, management and ownership information, and attest to certifications that are included in the existing application forms. We propose to connect the requirements with the FCC Form 312—Main Form in the rules so that it is clear what information applicants must provide in applications. We seek comment on these proposals. Does this proposal provide predictability for applicants? Is there additional information that should be included in this form?
42. We propose to retain the FCC Form 312—Main Form existing requirement that the applicant include an attestation, made under penalty of perjury, that all information submitted on FCC Form 312—Main Form and any associated forms has been verified for accuracy and is believed to be complete and accurate at the time of submission similar to what is currently required by our forms. The Commission often receives applications with incomplete, inconsistent, and inaccurate information, and staff have generally engaged in a time-consuming process of guiding applicants on how to correct and amend applications so that they are acceptable for filing. Should an additional requirement be added so that the attestation be made by an officer of the applicant filing the FCC Form 312—Main Form to better ensure that the information is complete, consistent, and accurate since the submission might be taken more seriously by leadership of the entity filing the authorization if an officer has to attest? Currently, all applications are subject to the requirements outlined in part 1 of the Commission's rules to maintain the ongoing accuracy of its materials.
43. We also seek to reduce the need for applicants to fill out the same form multiple times with identical information when applying for additional space or earth station authorizations. Under the current rules, applicants must re-file the same information required by FCC Form 312, Main Form for every request. We propose to allow applicants to certify that no information has changed from a previously filed FCC Form 312—Main Form rather than requiring them to submit a new FCC Form 312—Main Form with each request. We seek comment on this proposal generally and invite suggestions on how to operationalize this requirement. Specifically, should the Commission allow applicants to certify that no information has changed from a previously submitted FCC Form 312—Main Form and provide the corresponding file number? Would this proposal relieve any significant burdens on applicants such that it would justify the operational changes that may need to be made to ICFS?
44. We also propose an avenue that would bifurcate the FCC Form 312—Main Form from the associated application schedules so that applicants could elect to file the FCC Form 312—Main Form independent of an application for space or earth station authorization. We believe that independent filing of the FCC Form 312—Main Form would allow the Commission to make a preliminary determination as to whether an applicant is qualified to hold a space station or earth station license before they actually apply for a license. Since the FCC Form 312—Main Form collects ownership information, we propose to allow entities to seek preliminary-clearance to hold a license which could facilitate accelerated review for transfers of control or assignments. Specifically, this would allow an applicant seeking to obtain a space station or earth station authorization to submit an FCC Form 312—Main Form in advance of a transfer of control or assignment and have the Commission review the ownership and legal qualifications of the applicant in advance of any transfer or assignment. It could also be a way for entities who do not typically operate space or earth stations to be pre-cleared to hold a license if that would facilitate a contractual arrangement. We seek comment on this proposal and any potential alternatives. Would this proposal facilitate a more efficient review of basic licensee qualifications
45. The Commission also proposes to codify in part 100 the long-standing requirement that space station applicants include a disclosure of certain management and ownership information in FCC Form 312—Main Form, and to expand this requirement to every applicant filing an FCC Form 312—Main Form, including all earth station applicants. This information has been required to ensure that applicants meet the basic qualifications to hold satellite licenses and grants of market access. While this information is already required by the current FCC Form 312—Main Form for space station applicants, we propose to include a reportable ownership requirement in part 100 that all applicants disclose information about individuals or entities holding a 10% or more direct or indirect (equity and/or voting interest) in the applicant or a controlling interest, as well as the names, citizenship, and address of each officer and director in the applicant. These requirements would also allow the Commission to identify domestic and foreign persons, governments, or entities that hold 10% or more interest, consistent with current practice. We believe that such information allows the Commission to assess whether grant of an application will serve the public interest, including consideration of any national security concerns and a determination of whether to refer an application to the Executive Branch for review to assess any national security or law enforcement issues presented by foreign ownership. We seek comment on how these proposed regulations interact with 47 CFR 1.5000 et. seq., which apply to satellite or earth station common carriers, and how to enable a single set of ownership rules with a uniform 10% reportable ownership threshold that apply to all satellite and earth station licensees and recipients of market access grants.
46. The Commission adopted a
47. Finally, we propose to incorporate the current requirement that applicants submit an ownership diagram that illustrates the applicant's vertical ownership structure, including the direct and indirect ownership interests with 10% or more ownership interest or controlling interest. This chart should clearly indicate the non-U.S. citizenship entities. As ownership and control structure of companies in the space industry have become increasingly complex, Commission staff have routinely requested that applicants provide information in this format to facilitate their analysis. We propose requiring this submission with the FCC Form 312—Main Form at the initial stage of the application process to avoid delays. We seek comment on whether this proposal should be included in final rules and any alternative methods for collecting ownership information.
48. We propose to create a rule section that would aggregate many of the space station application requirements currently found in separate sections of part 25 and that apply to all space station applicants. This rule section would consolidate certain part 25 rules into one rule section requiring applicants to provide the type of authorization requested, contact information for the applicant, a comprehensive description describing the satellite system, a brief public interest statement, and ITU filings and cost recovery materials. These proposed requirements are similar to the current requirements found in part 25, but we seek comment on whether certain information should be added, eliminated, or modified.
49. The FCC Form 312—Main Form requires space station applicants to submit contact information for the applicant and a point of contact if different from the applicant. We propose to retain this information and include contact information for the person or entity capable of and responsible for ceasing transmissions directly on the FCC Form 312—Main Form, which applicants are already required to submit to the Commission under the § 25.271 point of contact filing requirement. This section would also require applicants to submit a comprehensive statement that includes a description of the satellite system, detailing its services, orbits, and planned operations. While we propose to require applicants to submit most technical elements of their applications on one or more schedules to the FCC Form 312, we view the comprehensive statement as the portion of the application that describes in relatively plain language the overall design and operations of the proposed system. We see this as a valuable element that puts the rest of the information in the application into context and makes it easier for the public to understand and comment on applications when they are placed on public notice. However, we would also like to reduce the burden of unnecessary requirements. Accordingly, we propose that applicants provide a comprehensive statement rather than the currently required “comprehensive proposal” in § 25.114, which refers to the application in its entirety. We tentatively conclude that a statement will result in a reduced burden on applicants while still giving the public and the Commission an opportunity to scrutinize any planned operations. Should we issue additional guidance
50. We also propose in Appendix A to retain the required public interest statement supporting grant of the proposed operations. However, we seek comment on whether a public interest statement is necessary. Our proposed modified application process is designed to identify parts of an application where either a public interest presumption cannot be made
51. We also propose to codify that an operator may file an application requesting authority for multiple GSO satellites under a single call sign as long as the necessary information is provided for each specific GSO satellite listed in the application. Historically, the Commission has licensed single GSO satellites for a single location on the geostationary arc. This is largely due to the distance from Earth, which requires high power and large GSO satellites that are expensive to construct, launch, and operate. But that is beginning to change. As satellite systems are becoming more advanced with increased technical capabilities, we anticipate that applicants may seek to operate multiple satellites at one location on the geostationary arc. We therefore propose to modify our rules to allow applicants to file for and receive a GSO space station license for multiple GSO satellites. We seek comment on this proposal. Should applicants only be allowed to file a single application for multiple GSO satellites if those satellites will be located at the same location on the GSO arc? Should there be a maximum number of GSO satellites allowed to operate under one license? Should existing operators be allowed to combine multiple GSO satellites under one license?
52. Finally, are there any additional requirements that generally pertain to space station applicants that should be included here? Are there elements we propose which should be removed or changed?
53. We propose to create a new schedule to the FCC Form 312, Schedule O, as part of the application requirements for space station applicants to submit the corresponding orbital information for proposed systems. Applicants seeking license authorizations for GSO satellite systems, NGSO satellite systems, VTSS, and Multi-Orbit Satellite Systems (MOSS) would be required to submit Schedule O as part of their initial application.
54. In the proposed Schedule O, applicants would provide the system's orbital information, such as the number of satellites and orbital planes. Applicants would also certify whether a proposed system would meet a set of bright-line orbital criteria. These certification criteria, including collision risk and human casualty risk, would define the contours of the orbital criteria that the Commission presumes to be in the public interest. We want the part 100 application materials to clearly define what applicants must submit and we believe that the proposed Schedule O will help to reduce uncertainty on the orbital information required. Certain current part 25 rules require statements or technical disclosures demonstrating how the applicant meets the orbital criteria. Under our proposal, we seek to allow applicants to certify affirmatively or negatively that their system will meet the criteria, instead of preparing statements describing in detail how their system will meet a certain standard, and the Commission can verify this certification via the technical information included in the submitted orbital debris mitigation plan. In the case of a negative certification, the applicant would then submit additional information to justify why the request is in the public interest. We have largely transferred from part 25 to part 100 the same required orbital showings, but have sought to revise these showings into bright-line standards to support our certification approach where possible. In this way, applicants can have clarity on what exactly the Commission will consider and then need only submit a public interest justification for a request outside of the presumed acceptable orbital debris criteria.
55. The proposed Schedule O would aggregate some of the requirements located in part 100 to help applicants easily determine and certify whether the orbital components of their proposed system are in compliance with the Commission's rules. Additionally, Commission staff would be able to review an applicant's Schedule O to quickly determine whether the application meets the orbital requirements or requires further review. With this proposed Schedule O, we seek to clearly organize the information required under the proposed rules and provide Commission staff with an easy way to identify applications that require closer review, thereby making the licensing process more efficient. In cases where the applicant cannot certify compliance in the affirmative, then the applicant would be permitted to submit a justification for Commission review to determine if granting the license is in the public interest. In this way, the application materials would, by design, assist with routing an application along the licensing assembly line. We seek comment on this as well as the general proposal outlined here. Are the proposed Schedule O and orbital certifications therein sufficient for the Commission and the public to analyze space station applications?
56. As part of providing the orbital information for a system, under our proposal applicants will need to identify their proposal as a GSO satellite system, an NGSO satellite system, a VTSS, or a MOSS. Depending on the type of request, we propose specific application requirements. The proposed definitions and application requirements for each type of system are discussed below.
57. The Commission's rules currently define a “Geostationary-orbit satellite” as “[a] geosynchronous satellite whose circular and direct orbit lies in the plane of the Earth's equator and which thus remains fixed relative to the Earth; by extension, a geosynchronous satellite which remains approximately fixed relative to the Earth.” This definition is included in both parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's rules, and we therefore propose to forgo its inclusion in part 100 as unnecessary and retain the definition in part 2. We do, however, propose to adopt a definition of “GSO satellite system” to help applicants and operators determine when a defined GSO satellite would be classified as part of a larger GSO system in the context of the Commission's regulations. We propose to define a “GSO satellite system” as, “a system composed of one
58. We propose to significantly reduce the amount of information required for applicants for GSO space stations and satellite systems. Specifically, we propose to require the requested orbital location, certifications as to whether the satellite(s) will comply with the two-degree spacing requirements on the U.S. arc and the orbital debris mitigation rules we propose in subpart C. We also propose to require materials be provided to explain orbital debris mitigation plans and end-of-life disposal plans in support of the certification. We seek comment on this proposal. Is there any additional information the Commission should include in this section? Are the rules proposed in Appendix A clear so that applicants understand what is required?
59. We propose to codify a definition of “NGSO satellite system.” We think that this will make it easier for Commission staff and applicants to refer to applications and discrete satellite systems, particularly if certain applicants apply for multiple satellite systems. Specifically, we propose to define “NGSO satellite system” as “[a] system of one or more non-geostationary orbit satellites operating together under one space station call sign.” We seek comment on the proposed definition and whether it will facilitate flexibility for operators over time. Does this definition support flexibility and efficiency in how operators organize their systems? As operators build and modify their systems through the licensing process, there may be value in allowing an operator to consolidate multiple call signs so that changes to the operator's deployed system only require a change to one call sign. Should we limit the proposed “NGSO satellite system” definition or make clear that licensees cannot consolidate satellites that would otherwise be viewed as separate systems into a single system with a single call sign? How should we determine whether satellites are “operating together”? Should we allow applicants to define the limits of their own satellite systems for purposes of deciding whether a separate license and/or call sign is necessary?
60. We propose to divide the information that NGSO space station applicants must provide into three parts: technical information, certifications, and additional information. The technical information that we propose to require is similar to current part 25 requirements. We propose rules in Appendix A that include information such as the number of satellites in a constellation, the requested orbital planes, inclinations, and apogee and perigee, among others. We seek comment on this proposal. Does the information we propose to require provide enough flexibility for modern systems to be described?
61. Is there any additional information that the Commission should require for both the Commission and the public to better evaluate applications, or information we do not need to require? For NGSO satellite systems, are there different aspects of a system design we should collect, or aspects we should collect differently, to ensure applicants can request the type of flexibility needed for their proposed operations? For example, do the requirements afford the opportunity for requests involving flexibility in adjusting systems across orbits or shells? Do we need to specify that the information provided only needs to reflect an applicant's initial deployment but that the system can operate flexibly as long as it is done within our rules and subject to any license conditions? Are there other areas we can build in flexibility so that applicants may request to operate within certain envelopes? If so, how would we incorporate this into our application requirements and the forms?
62. The list of proposed certifications for NGSO satellite system applicants is set forth in Appendix A. These proposed certifications include bright-line criteria that applicants must certify whether or not their requested system will meet. Many of these criteria are taken from the current streamlined small space station authorization process in part 25. For example, we propose to require applicants to certify whether their satellite(s) will be 10 cm or larger in the smallest dimension. We believe that these bright-line criteria, drawn largely from current information requirements in part 25, will make the application review process more efficient because it will remove subjective elements from the review. We seek comment on this proposal, including on the specifics of each certification we propose. Are the certifications clear enough so that applicants can make accurate certifications? Is the way we propose to rely on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Debris Assessment Software appropriate? Do we need to provide additional guidance as to how collision probabilities should be calculated? Do we need to provide guidance on what it means for a satellite to be able to be “maneuvered effectively” under proposed rule § 100.111(c)(2)(vi)? Are there additional certifications that should be added, or proposed certifications that should be deleted? Are there other proposed rules or requirements that could be turned into certifications?
63. Similar to our current application process, we propose to require that applicants submit an orbital debris mitigation plan that details their end-of-life disposal plan and demonstrates how the applicant will comply with the orbital debris rules and required certifications in subpart C of the proposed new part 100. Additionally, for applicants who may request a waiver of any orbital debris rules or certify that they will not comply with one of the bright-line rules we propose that they would provide the necessary technical information to supporting the specific waiver request. We seek comment on this proposal. Would it be helpful for the Commission to release guidance documents with examples for newer applicants to use as a model? Our goal is for the orbital debris mitigation plans to create as little burden as possible while supporting the certifications made in the application. Therefore, what steps can the Commission take to reduce the burden of these plans? Given that ensuring compliance with the orbital debris certifications will require running orbital debris models, is requiring submission of the report any more burdensome?
64. We also propose to require NGSO satellite system applicants whose requested operations trigger certain information requirements to submit additional information. We believe that these situations will arise in two cases. First, when an applicant certifies that it will not meet one of the proposed bright-line criteria, that applicant would need to provide additional justification to support a grant by the Commission. For example, an application for an NGSO satellite system with a human casualty risk that is greater than 1 in 10,000 would not fit within the criteria that the Commission presumes
65. Increasingly, the Commission is receiving applications for systems that do not fit neatly into the construct of a traditional NGSO or GSO system. These applications instead seek authority for operating space stations on spacecraft with variable orbital parameters in order to conduct novel space activities. Additionally, the Commission has already issued licenses and continues to receive numerous applications for lunar landers and operations. In line with the Commission's modernization goals, we propose to add a new type of license for space stations on a “Variable Trajectory Spacecraft System” or VTSS. Specifically, we propose to define VTSS as, “[o]ne or more spacecraft either operating beyond the geosynchronous orbit or operating without fixed or predictable orbital patterns over the course of its lifetime and operating under one space station call sign.” We intend for this defined category of operations to capture applications for systems that do not fit within the traditional idea of an NGSO or GSO satellite system which have generally predictable and stable orbits. Specifically, under our proposal we expect VTSS would encompass applications for many ISAM systems, orbital transfer vehicles, lunar operations, other novel space activities and operations beyond geosynchronous orbit to asteroids and other planets, and applications for space stations that do not fit neatly within the traditional idea of an NGSO or GSO satellite or satellite system. These operations are often unique in their orbital parameters because satellites or spacecraft may move around to service different spacecraft in orbit, or they may move between NGSO and GSO orbits, or because they transit to or orbit around the moon or other celestial bodies. Our expectation is that VTSS license requests will be distinct from GSO or NGSO requests because of the variability in the orbital parameters of the spacecraft over the course of the license term. We seek comment on this definition and whether it will provide the clarity and distinction needed so that applicants are able to clearly determine whether they need to file an application for a VTSS or a different system type.
66. We seek comment on the proposed definition of VTSS and on the category more broadly. We believe there is a need to have a definition and licensing category for space stations that encompasses the wide range of applications the Commission has received and will continue to receive as companies innovate and seek authorizations for radiocommunications to support novel space activities. Does our proposal for the VTSS definition and licensing category adequately encompass the types of novel operations at the forefront of the industry? Is it sufficiently future-looking and distinct from our proposed definitions of GSO satellite system and NGSO satellite system? Would it make more sense to separate the definition so that space stations traveling beyond the geosynchronous orbit are separate from space stations operating in NGSO or GSO with variable orbits? While we propose to define VTSS (and NGSO and GSO) with respect to the orbital parameters of the system containing the space station(s) being licensed, would it make more sense to define this category based on spectrum use, with a focus on space stations that seek authority for communications not to provide services directly to consumers on Earth, but to operate spacecraft that will provide services in or beyond Earth's orbit? To provide modularity and flexibility, our proposal seeks to separate in the application process the orbital parameters of a system from the frequencies and spectrum use but we welcome suggestions for other approaches. Should we permit operators to file separate Schedule O and Schedule F for propulsion, sensor, or communications payloads that evolve over time? Furthermore, are there alternative names that would fit this definition better? Would Dynamic Satellite (or Spacecraft) System, Non-Standard Orbital Operations, Flexible Space Activities, Non-Conventional Satellite (or Spacecraft) System, or Mission Infrastructure Support Communications (MISC) be better names? Or should the Commission select a more colloquial name like Weird Space Stuff (WSS) to describe this class of applications?
67. We propose to separately specify the information that VTSS applicants must submit when filing an application under the proposed part 100 to make it easier for applicants to know which information is required of them and as a recognition that review of VTSS applications will differ from review of NGSO or GSO applications due to the unique nature of the system. Specifically, we propose to require VTSS applicants to submit information about the number of spacecraft they seek authority for as part of the system, the range of altitudes at which those space stations will operate, and the anticipated amount of time the space station(s) are expected to operate in any particular phase of a mission. These proposed requirements are similar to the proposed requirements for NGSO satellite systems, but differ slightly because we believe they will give operators flexibility in designing systems that do not follow traditional NGSO or GSO operations, while allowing the Commission to collect the information necessary to evaluate a system's potential to cause interference to other operators. We seek comment on these proposed requirements. Are there additional information requirements that should be included? Should they be further subdivided so that certain requirements only apply to certain sub-categories of VTSS, like lunar missions?
68. We also propose to include certifications for VTSS applicants similar to the certifications we propose for GSO and NGSO applicants. We propose fewer certifications for VTSS applicants than NGSO applicants to account for the added flexibility that we seek to provide these operators. Some certifications are unique to the types of operations anticipated under a VTSS application. Specifically, we propose to require applicants who plan to conduct
69. We currently propose adding a rule that requires all space station licensees to share ephemeris data more broadly, which is discussed further below. Is that proposed rule sufficient for VTSS applicants who will be moving spacecraft around more variably and interacting with other satellites on orbit? Should the rule be modified or changed to effectuate the goals outlined above for VTSS applicants and licensees? Should the Commission encourage or require standardized telemetry formats for conjunction assessment and covariance data? What sources might be used to set such standards?
70. In addition to the rule requiring space station licensees to share ephemeris data, we propose to require VTSS applicants to certify whether they will share propagated ephemeris and covariance data prior to and during any planned maneuvers or rendezvous and proximity operations. We believe that for operators planning to move their spacecraft over the course of their lifetime and perform RPO maneuvers, sharing propagated ephemeris and covariance data is in the public interest so the Commission and public may have information on the location of the licensed space station(s) attached to the spacecraft. Having VTSS operators share propagated ephemeris could allow licensees the flexibility to move between orbits while maintaining transparency as to where a licensed space station is. Additionally, this will support space safety and help other operators protect their satellites as well. We therefore propose adding this certification to encourage applicants to file ephemeris and to assist the Commission in quickly identifying VTSS applications that need further review if the applicant is not willing or able to share ephemeris information. We seek comment on this proposal.
71. We also seek comment on whether we should allow VTSS operators who decline to share their propagated ephemeris and covariance data to instead submit a completed agreement with another government agency approving the applicant's space safety plan. Given that some operators work closely with federal agencies, would it be feasible to rely on another federal agency to review and coordinate a VTSS applicant's plans consistent with our obligations under the statute? Could allowing applicants to work with other government agencies for operations that are unique like those we envision under the VTSS framework and submit a coordinated agreement for consideration by the Commission be a substitute for sharing propagated ephemeris and covariance data? Are there other possible ways that operators could meet the needs we identify as in the public interest if they cannot or will not certify to submitting their ephemeris data? Should operators ever be allowed to refuse to submit this data if they are planning on performing maneuvers and RPO? Should we let VTSS applicants submit an orbital debris mitigation plan and certifications to the requirements for NGSO satellite systems or GSO satellite systems, depending on the proposed operations?
72. We also propose to require that VTSS applicants submit certain additional information depending on the specific requested operations. In this section for additional information, we propose to require VTSS applicants whose space stations will travel beyond the geosynchronous orbit to submit a description of any instruments or rovers onboard that will engage in radiofrequency communications with the spacecraft as well as a description of coordination with government entities such as the National Science Foundation We seek comment on this proposal. These information requirements come from the Commission's experience with lunar applications. Are there additional information requirements that the Commission should seek for these missions? We also propose to require applicants who plan to engage in servicing or otherwise interact with other spacecraft on-orbit to submit the following information: a list of FCC file numbers or call signs for applications or grants related to the operations, including for client space stations; a list of ITU filings or United Nations (U.N.) registration information, or the expected State of Registry with the U.N., for any space stations not licensed by the FCC or without market access that will be client spacecraft or related to the proposed operations; and a statement disclosing planned proximity operations and addressing any debris generation. Since many VTSS operators may not likely know at the application stage the particulars of this information, should we instead set this as a notification requirement unless the information is already known? Could the Commission, working with others in the United States government, create pre-cleared lists of nations for which operations need not be specifically disclosed? Or potentially a list of only spacecraft overseen by certain administrations? We seek comment on these proposals. Is there any additional information that the Commission should request?
73. We propose to adopt a new Schedule F to the FCC Form 312—Main Form on Space Station Frequency Information Requirements as the other main schedule for information that applicants must provide to the Commission. Schedule F would replace the current Schedule S but contain much of the same required frequency information. We believe that including all required frequency information in one section will make it easier in the future for the Commission to update both the Schedule F and the Commission's rules as industry and technologies evolve. In addition, we seek to reduce the number of technical showings that applicants must submit. For example, if the Commission were to use an electronic filing system that auto-populated information based on an applicant's requested services, orbital locations, and frequencies, we would not need to change the rules to accommodate that system. We seek comment on this proposal.
74. Similar to the space station orbital information requirements in the proposed Schedule O, we also propose to include certifications in the space station frequency information requirements section. Specifically, we propose to include the following certifications in Schedule F: the space station(s) will comply with all applicable technical rules; the space station(s) will operate under ITU coordinated procedures and agreements; and the space station(s) can be commanded to immediately cease transmissions to eliminate harmful interference. We believe that these certifications will help the Commission quickly identify applications that are in
75. The specific frequency information we propose to require is set forth in Appendix A. We seek comment on this proposed rule and the information and certifications. Are there any frequency information requirements that are no longer needed or relevant, either because they are not used in practice by space station operators to assess interference or because technology has evolved? Are there additional frequency or technical requirements or data that we should require applicants to provide? Are there alternative methods for collecting the relevant frequency information from applicants that the Commission should consider?
76. Because SCS is a developing service, we do not at this time propose to make any substantive changes to our rules from what is currently required in part 25. We generally believe that making substantive changes to the requirements for SCS at this juncture would be premature and may risk derailing efforts by the industry to build systems that comply with the current rules, with one exception where we propose to eliminate a current requirement.
77. As has been pointed out in other proceedings, and as we have seen in applications before the Commission, although we had endeavored to create a flexible and low burden approach to licensing devices for SCS, there may be some areas which can be further improved. We think this proceeding serves as an opportunity to potentially revise our SCS equipment rules in a targeted manner. As such, we seek comment on whether to remove the requirements for equipment authorization certifications under part 25 and omit them from new part 100 for SCS earth stations. We tentatively conclude that this requirement is unnecessary because all devices used for the provision of SCS must be certified under other rule parts and, the way the rule is structured, the certification under part 25 mirrors the certifications under other rule parts without requiring anything new. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Is there a reason to keep this requirement? If we do adopt our proposal, would a rule in the new part 100 making all equipment that meets the equipment authorization requirements of parts 22, 24, or 27, SCS earth stations by default be sufficient to classify the devices as earth stations for allocation purposes? Alternatively, is there a way that we can incentivize manufacturers who are responsible for equipment certifications to certify their equipment to be SCS compliant? We do not seek comment on any other matters related to SCS or the other rules previously adopted.
78. The Commission permits satellite systems that are licensed by jurisdictions other than the United States to access the U.S. market. Our current rules require a demonstration that U.S. licensed space stations have effective competitive opportunities to provide analogous services in the country in which the non-U.S. licensed space station is licensed. The Commission currently allows this access to the U.S. market via either a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the space station operator or a request to access the foreign satellite by a Commission-licensed earth station operator. We propose to continue to review market access applications to ensure U.S. licensed space stations have effective competitive opportunities to access other markets.
79. Additionally, we propose a change to our request for market access procedures to prohibit U.S. market access via earth station licensing. We seek comment on whether to prohibit companies that seek U.S. registration for a space station or system pursuant to the Registration Convention from receiving an FCC authorization for U.S. market access.
80. Current § 25.137 allows earth station applicants to request authority to communicate with a non-U.S. licensed space stations via a petition for declaratory ruling under requirements that are equivalent to those currently outlined in § 25.137 which governs access via satellites. In practice, however, we have found that this process creates confusion among operators since this rule provision only allows for communication with the specific earth station for which the petition for declaratory ruling was made and not broader access to the U.S. market. The current process also creates unnecessary burdens on the Commission to process multiple earth station market access applications rather than a single market access application for a non-U.S. licensed satellite or satellite system. Therefore, we propose to eliminate this option in our rules and only permit market access for non-U.S. licensed satellites pursuant to petitions for declaratory ruling for satellites and no longer via earth stations. We seek comment on this proposal.
81. We seek comment on whether to change our market access rules to prohibit applicants who seek registration by the United States under the processes defined in the Registration Convention from receiving authorization to access the U.S. market via a petition for declaratory ruling and instead require those entities to hold an FCC space station license. We seek comment on whether to require entities that seek registration from the United States to hold a U.S. space station license pursuant to our licensing authority under section 301(f) of the Act, the stated purpose of which is “to maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission,” and section 303(r) of the Act, which directs the Commission to make such rules and prescribe such restrictions to carry out the provisions of the Act and “any international radio [ ] communications treaty or convention, or regulations annexed thereto, including any treaty or convention insofar as it relates to the use of radio, to which the United States is or may hereafter become a party.” We seek comment on whether this change in our licensing process is necessary to fulfill the statutory objectives expressly stated in section 301, and to assist the United States as a party to the Outer Space Treaty, pursuant to the express requirements of section 303(r) of the Act. Under the Registration Convention, States register space objects in a registry maintained by each State in order to provide information regarding each space object to the U.N. We also seek comment on whether there are other sound reasons to make this change.
82. When entities seek authorization for space stations from non-U.S. administrations, in many cases, the authorization is of limited scope. For example, the authorization may only involve ITU filings for some, but not all,
83. Finally, it is our intention to ensure that operators who are granted authorization to access the U.S. market via a petition for declaratory ruling do not receive an advantage over entities holding a U.S. satellite license. Do our proposed rules meet that goal, and if not, how can they be improved? We note that the European Union (EU) recently proposed a comprehensive EU Space Law which includes additional requirements for non-EU entities to gain access to the EU market, such as appointing an EU legal representative. Under the EU proposal, some of these requirements may be waived if the European Commission determines the non-EU jurisdiction's regulatory framework is sufficiently equivalent to its own. Are there additional requirements, including requirements like those proposed by the EU, that should be incorporated into the Commission's rules for market access entities to establish a level playing field for U.S. operators? For example, there is no license term for U.S. satellite market access grants, and instead we rely on the review of the licensing administration, which establishes the term, if any, on the original license. Therefore, we propose to establish a 15- or 20-year license term for these authorizations, as discussed below. Are there additional requirements that should be imposed on the grantees of market access? For example, should the Commission require a periodic certification that grantees continue to hold a license from their authorizing administration, and/or the ITU and continue to provide service to end-users in the U.S. market? If so, when should such a certification be required? Commenters should describe proposals with specificity, including whether the requirement can be waived upon a showing of sufficiency of the regulation in the country in which the operator holds its original license.
84. We believe the Commission's small satellite and small spacecraft rules in §§ 25.122 and 25.123 have generally been successful despite applicants facing some of the same challenges as other applicants for part 25 licenses. In addition to the more straightforward criteria to qualify as a small satellite system (akin to our proposed approach to prespecify acceptable criteria), the current rules for small satellite systems afford applicants relaxed surety bond and milestone requirements. Accordingly, we do not propose separate rules for small satellite systems. Instead, under the proposed part 100, we expect that applications for all space stations will be reviewed against a prespecified set of standards for expedited processing, as described in the NPRM. Our proposed framework essentially expands the existing small satellite authorization process to encompass a broader range of systems eligible for faster processing. In addition, as proposed herein, small systems would not be required to post a surety bond. We therefore believe that applications that are currently eligible for small satellite or small spacecraft processing will receive the same benefits—no surety bond, exemption from processing rounds, faster processing—under the proposed part 100 rules. Further, our proposal expands the class of applications that would receive these benefits. We seek comment on this approach and alternatives.
85. First, we seek comment on whether we should eliminate the streamlined small space station and small spacecraft authorization processes entirely if we adopt the proposed processing rules in the NPRM. Specifically, because the rules we propose aim to optimize all application processing and would only require larger systems to post a surety bond, as discussed below, would these changes effectively negate the need for a process specific to small satellite systems? We do not propose to address any regulatory fee issues in the NPRM but seek comment on any alternatives the Commission should consider as far as designating certain systems as “small satellite systems.”
86. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should continue to distinguish a small satellite system from an NGSO satellite system. Could we revise the definition to be any NGSO satellite system of ten or fewer satellites under a certain mass limit? Would it then make sense to retain the shorter six-year license term? Should we change the current mass requirement by increasing it? We seek comment on this proposal and how to define “small satellite” or “small satellite system” if we retain these categories. Is there any benefit to having this specific carve out and definition? What benefits, if any, would a small satellite system get given our proposed streamlined approach to application processing and the proposed changes to the surety bond requirement for applicants and licensees? Is this proposed definition too restrictive or not restrictive enough? We seek comment on these questions and proposals generally.
87. We propose to streamline the earth station application requirements by shifting to a predominately Nationwide, Non-Site License approach, and modularize the application so that applicants only provide information that is necessary for the license sought. We believe that this will be more efficient than the current approach, where the Commission requires certain information that it typically does not review. We propose to require additional specific information be submitted based upon the type of application. For instance, rather than applying radiofrequency exposure requirements to all applicants, we propose to only require the information for user terminal and Earth Stations in
88. Our current rules regarding earth station application requirements are overly burdensome and outdated. Experience indicates our earth station rules often confuse applicants. Much of what the Commission currently requires an applicant to provide is information that is redundant or unnecessary to the Commission's review. In addition, we generally require separate applications for earth stations with the same operating or technical parameters, requiring multiple and redundant reviews. The current approach by the Commission to reviewing earth station applications requires applicants and the Commission to engage in time-consuming submissions and tedious reviews. In addition, the current rules do not take into account advances in technology since the rules were written. To modernize our process, similarly to how we propose reviewing space station applications, we propose to shift to a certification-based approach for earth station applications. Under this approach, applicants who do not operate in accordance with the certifications that they make in the application will assume the risk of an enforcement action for falsely certifying, including the possibility of forfeitures and revocation. So, while the proposed approach may increase speed and efficiency for applicants, it comes with more responsibility on the applicants to ensure they are meeting the Commission's requirements. We seek comment on our proposals. We note that some of the proposals may impact earth stations that operate in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS). We do not propose any substantive changes to the UMFUS regulations in this proceeding and do not seek comment on changes to the UMFUS rules here, instead leaving any such substantive discussion to other proceedings.
89. In addition, we also seek comment on a number of specific questions that may inform the Commission on how our proposed approach will impact industry and the public. Specifically, if an applicant provides all of the certifications in the application, is that sufficient, or does the Commission need to require additional information or review before placing an application on public notice? What additional information, if any, should an applicant be required to provide? For instance, we propose to require applicants to provide their power levels, out-of-band emissions (OOBE), and other power information and also to certify that they are operating within the rules we have established. Is this redundant? Should we instead only require the certification? If we should require both the technical data and the certifications, what is the benefit to doing so? What should the Commission do if an applicant does not certify that they have completed coordination but states they are in the coordination process? Should this be deemed an incomplete application? For operations in shared bands, should we request different or additional information? We tentatively conclude that an applicant, for operations other than those for Immovable earth station Nationwide, Non-Site License, will likely have coordinated applicable operations before submitting an application with the Commission and that such coordination would be reflected in the coordination report. We seek comment on this conclusion. Instead of requiring applicants to provide their coordination reports, should we require licensees to certify that they will complete coordination prior to operation but have available at the request of the Commission evidence of having completed that coordination? Would a coordination report be appropriate evidence or something else? Is there any particular benefit to having a coordination report in a license file instead of simply requiring licensees to produce evidence of coordination at the request of the Commission? Should applicants provide a description of their operations? Is that information relevant for Commission review and licensing? For instance, if an applicant applies for a user terminal authorization, should they be required to tell us what the intended use is, or should they be allowed to use the devices as they see fit so long as they do not violate the Commission's rules? For an applicant who fails to certify in the affirmative or who requests a waiver of the Commission's rules, what information should we require from them? Should we be more specific as to what showings (
90. We propose to shift our earth station licensing from the current, burdensome site-by-site approach to a predominately Nationwide, Non-Site Licensing approach. While the site-by-site approach will still be available, the dramatic increase in the number of earth stations required by the space industry necessitates a much more streamlined approach that can scale licensing earth stations. We envision a framework involving two steps: first, obtaining a Nationwide, Non-Site License; and second registering earth station sites and completing coordination before operations. Under this two-step process, an operator would only need to go through a full licensing process once but could then register earth station sites as needed. Under this proposal, either at the time of registration or after registration but prior to operation the licensee would certify and/or demonstrate compliance with any location- or frequency-specific rules that might apply. Our intention is for the proposed two-step framework to apply to all frequency bands. However, given that there are specific rules related to different frequency band usage and that we do not propose to change them here, we see this approach as setting the framework for licensing and registering earth stations so we progressively make registration more efficient in various bands. While initially some bands or locations may vary in how registration takes place, it is our goal to progressively move toward simpler, data-based enabled registration of earth stations under this Nationwide, Non-Site Licensing model. For example, similar to what the Commission has adopted for the 70/80/90 GHz band, such an approach could be applied to other frequency bands used for earth station operations.
91. We propose to adopt a new class of earth station, the Immovable earth station. We propose to define “Immovable earth station” as, “[a]n earth station licensed under either a Nationwide, Non-Site License or a single location authorization that is located at a single fixed location that must be registered and coordinated before operating.” We propose this definition to distinguish from the
92. We do not wish to allow licensees to circumvent coordination or other requirements that are meant to protect against harmful interference. We therefore propose that applications requiring a waiver or an exception, other than for federal coordination, will be required to file a site-specific license application for the earth station that requires the exception or waiver. In addition, while we propose allowing applicants to register their sites instead of needing to go through a full licensing approach, we still will require proof that coordination has occurred prior to the earth station operating at the newly registered site. In this case, we propose to require applicants to file a certification prior to beginning operations affirming that all required frequency and site-specific coordination has been completed. To be clear, what we propose is a two-step process. An applicant can first be licensed for the use of a specific frequency without the need to coordinate but would then have to coordinate with all required commercial and federal entities prior to operating at a site registered under the Nationwide, Non-Site License. What we propose still requires that coordination occurs between operators prior to operations—although registration may occur prior to certifying to meeting coordination. We envision this approach to be used in all frequency bands. We tentatively believe that our coordination before operation but after registration proposal would ensure protection and that the criteria of any frequency specific rules, such as those for the UMFUS bands, are met. Although we propose to allow an applicant to receive a license, this proposal does not allow a licensee to begin operations prior to both registering their sites and certifying that coordination has been completed at those sites and completing all coordination requirements. We believe this two-step approach—licensing first then site specific registration and coordination prior to operations—would allow for a streamlined licensing regime wherein operators would only need to come to the Commission for a license once and then register sites pursuant to the Nationwide, Non-Site License and begin operations after certifying to completing all required coordination without having to seek additional Commission approval.
93. Alternatively, rather than requiring filed coordination reports prior to operations, would self-coordination amongst operators as the default approach in all frequency bands achieve the same objectives? Specifically, should we allow earth station operators to assess the risk of harmful interference to incumbent users prior to operation and require them to take steps to proactively prevent harmful interference to earlier-in-time users? Would this approach better allow for licensee's to begin their operations quickly while still ensuring that other users are protected? Are there any drawbacks to this approach? What benefits are there to this approach over what we propose above? Alternatively, is there a way to combine the two approaches that would still allow for quickly deploying and operating while ensuring there is no harmful interference to incumbent operations? We note that the proposal above does allow for licensees to register sites prior to coordination, but must coordinate and certify to meeting all coordination requirements before operating. Would instead allowing operations on an unprotected/non-interference basis while coordination is occurring but still require a coordination report or certification be filed upon completion of coordination be a suitable alternative to what we propose? Should we instead adopt this self-certification approach for certain bands and exclude others? Alternatively, would allowing licensees at the time of registration to certify that they will complete coordination prior to beginning operations but rather than file a coordination report only require that they be able to provide evidence of completed coordination at the request of the Commission achieve the same goals with a reduced administrative burden?
94. We are cognizant, however, that a one size fits all approach for every frequency band is unlikely to be possible in the immediate future. Many bands have certain restrictions or limitations that likely need to be addressed in separate rulemakings. However, we tentatively believe that the new predominately nationwide, non-site licensing approach we propose here can be applied broadly nonetheless. We invite comment on whether there are any spectrum bands today that are suitable for a lighter approach than what is proposed. For instance, are there any where we can require only to supplement their license file with the locations at which they seek to operate rather than officially registering the sites? Are there any other approaches that should be considered for certain frequency bands that do not have coordination concerns or use limitations?
95. While we tentatively conclude that adopting a nationwide, non-site licensing approach would best serve the dual needs of ensuring growth in the industry while protecting other spectrum users, we recognize that there are issues that may still need to be addressed. Accordingly, we seek comment on specific questions and proposals. First, as part of this approach, should we establish any sort of first in time right? For instance, if two licensees want to register at the same location, should the one that files first have protection over the one that files second? Should it be based on who begins operations first? Are such rules even necessary, or does the coordination process coupled with the requirements to only operate within the Commission's rules without the need for waiver or exceptions resolve most of these issues? We note that under our current rules, coordination is only required for operational sites. Does that address these issues? In that same regard, how should site-specific licenses be treated when determining priority? Should there be different operational limits for different frequency bands or do the proposed operational limits in Appendix A sufficiently protect other spectrum users? Similarly, are there bands that should be excluded from our proposed Nationwide, Non-Site License with registration approach? Is there a benefit to allowing for registration prior to certifying to coordination if it means that the earth station cannot operate until the certifications are also filed?
96. Further, should the Commission establish a database for registering the sites? We note that no database currently exists, but licensees are currently able to file supplements in their license files in ICFS. Does the filing of supplements achieve the same purpose as a database? If so, how would the public be made aware that the registration has been filed without causing unnecessary burdens on Commission resources? We also ask whether we should have different registration systems generally for different frequency bands or if they should all be uniform? For instance, UMFUS bands have specific requirements that must be met before a licensee can begin operating, but S- and X-band frequencies do not have those same requirements. Does this warrant establishing different registration systems or rules for registration for specific frequency bands? Could establishing a database similar to what the Commission has established for the 70/80/90 GHz bands be a solution that would allow for a single database? Should the Commission instead delegate to the Space Bureau responsibility to find the best approach for registering sites at a later date? Should the Commission establish a new database that is more easily searchable and tailored specifically to just these proposed registrations?
97. In addition to the questions above, we seek comment on general questions related to this approach. Specifically, what possible issues exist with adopting a Nationwide, Non-Site License approach? Are there specific bands where this proposal would not work, and if so, why not? How would this impact coordination between operators or with the federal government? Is there a benefit to this approach, or will applicants primarily only seek site specific licenses? Should we permit applicants that seek a waiver of certain rules, such as the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, to utilize the Nationwide, Non-Site License approach? Are there any drawbacks or benefits to allowing an applicant who requests a waiver to utilize the Nationwide, Non-Site License approach?
98. We propose to revise the Commission's rules guiding how a filed application will be processed prior to a final action by the Commission. The proposed rules in this portion of subpart B would establish certain processing timelines, a standard of completeness, public comment processes and guidelines for information requests to applicants. As part of the licensing assembly line, application processing is designed to gather and organize all the information needed in preparation for the Commission to consider the application. We believe that these proposed rules will increase processing speed and reduce burden on applicants and the Commission. Our proposed rules would function as follows:
• Within 30 days of filing and confirmation of fee payment, the Commission must either place an application on public notice or, if the application is incomplete, ask for all information needed to establish completeness.
• Once an incomplete application is supplemented and deemed complete, the application will be placed on public notice as soon as practicable.
• If an application is complete, and the applicant certifies in the affirmative to meeting all the bright-line criteria for their system, does not request a waiver, and is not subject to any “exceptions” to expedited processing, the application will be placed on seven-day public notice (
• Applications not eligible for expedited processing will be placed on 15-day public notice.
• Applications subject to section 309(b) of the Act will be placed on 30-day public notice.
• If no action is taken on the space station application within 60 days following the end of the public notice period, the Commission will inform the applicant of the reasons preventing a license grant with specific reference to any exceptions.
We seek comment on the specific revisions to the application processing phase detailed below and in Appendix A.
99. Before an application is placed on public notice, the Commission must determine that the application is complete. It is longstanding Commission precedent that applications must be “substantially complete” before they are accepted for filing, meaning that “applications must be complete in substance, and must provide all the information required in the application form.” The substantially complete standard does not refer to a determination on the merits of the application, nor does it imply that the Commission does not have further questions for an applicant after an application is placed on public notice. Rather, it is designed to ensure that an application includes all of the information required by the Commission's rules and helps to deter against the filing of speculative applications.
100. The Commission's rules state that an application will be unacceptable for filing and returned to the applicant if “the application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informal showings, internal inconsistencies, execution, or other matters of a formal character.” Further, § 25.112 of the Commission's rules states, in part, that an application will be unacceptable for filing and returned to the applicant if the application does not substantially comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for additional information, or other requirements. In adopting this rule, the Commission clarified that “[w]hile in some instances it is efficient for staff to help parties address discrepancies in their pending applications, we require all applications under part 25 to be substantially complete when they are filed.” The current requirements for space station applications additionally require that an applicant provide a “comprehensive proposal.” The Commission has previously noted that a “comprehensive proposal” must describe “in detail all pertinent technical, operational and ownership aspects of the system and its ability to proceed expeditiously with construction and launch.”
101. Our experience is that these overlapping and subjective standards have not served to promote expediency in placing applications on public notice or in making applicants aware of what comprises a complete application. We believe that establishing a clearer standard for what determines “completeness” as a precursor to the application review process will be an important and beneficial addition to the rules if we adopt our proposal to determine whether an application qualifies for expedited processing prior to the public notice period. This proposed rule section would codify the existing process for determining whether an application is complete and the process by which an applicant will be notified of any deficiencies in the application. To provide applicants with clarity and a more predictable standard, we propose to clearly articulate the
102. We propose to overhaul our current public notice procedures for all applications not subject to section 309(b) and (c) of the Act. For most applications that are determined to be acceptable for filing, we propose a shortened public notice period of either seven or fifteen days. Applications that do not have any enumerated exceptions would be subject to expedited processing and placed on a seven-day public notice period. All other applications would be placed on a 15-day public notice period. Applications subject to section 309(b) and (c) of the Act would continue to be placed on public notice for a 30-day comment period.
103. We propose that oppositions to applications, including petitions to deny and other pleadings (collectively “oppositions”), would need to be received by the Commission within seven days after public notice for applications. Any replies responding to oppositions must be filed within five days after the expiration of the time for filing oppositions, consistent with the current rules. We note that the Commission currently accepts informal objections filed outside of the established public notice window or outside of conformance with § 25.154(a). To encourage timely filings, we propose to include in part 100 the requirement that any commenter, petitioner, or filer request a waiver of the rules when filing outside of a designated filing window. Finally, we propose allowing the Commission to shorten or extend a public notice period on its own motion.
104. We seek comment on these proposals. It is our goal to provide certainty to process applications quickly while still guaranteeing opportunity for public comment. Do these comment periods provide enough time for the public to understand and comment on applications, particularly given our proposed revisions to the application requirements so the request may be more quickly understood? Is the rule language sufficiently clear to inform applicants of the relevant public notice period? Does this proposed rule section include all pleadings that are subject to public notice requirements, or should additional classes of pleadings be added? The proposed rules only allow reply comments to be filed by the party that filed a petition to deny. Would a more robust record result if that constraint were eliminated and the public at large allowed to participate at this stage of the proceeding? Would expanding the process in such a manner complicate the proceeding or cause delay in resolution? We seek comment on the full range of options available for expediting public notice procedures, consistent with the goals of this proceeding.
105. We propose to adopt timelines for space station application processing in order to achieve our goals of speed and predictability. We propose that if no action is taken on a space station application within 60 days following the end of the public notice period, Commission staff will inform the applicant and public of the reasons preventing a license grant with particular note to any exceptions. We believe this approach will foster accountability and transparency which in turn will facilitate resolution of outstanding issues as the applicant will be better able to understand the Commission's view on its license request. We seek comment on these proposals. Are these timelines appropriate? In what manner should the Commission notify the applicant of any issues or deficiencies? Would a letter filed in ICFS (or successor system) be sufficient?
106. We also propose to adopt processing timelines for earth stations that mirror those for space stations. Under our current policies, earth station license applications are placed on public notice within 30 days of filing. However, the Commission has not generally adopted strict timelines for taking action on an earth station application, other than in the case of renewals. While this approach has drastically increased the speed of earth station application processing, it leaves applicants with a lack of clarity on status once the public notice period ends. Accordingly, we propose to adopt rules that specify for applicants how their applications will be processed. We seek comment on our proposals.
107. As a general matter, we acknowledge that while earth station processing has seen dramatic increases in speed over the last year, there is still plenty of opportunity for improvement to the process. With that in mind, we propose to overhaul the processing of earth station applications to be more streamlined so that applicants can start providing services faster. Under our current rules, when staff processes applications, no differentiation is made between applications that conform to the Commission's rules and those that seek waivers. This results in all of the applications being processed in the order in which they are received rather than creating a way for those applications that comply with Commission rules to move through the process faster. Accordingly, we propose to create two separate processes for earth station applications. Specifically, we propose a process where applications that conform to the Commission's rules can begin temporary pre-grant operations on a non-interference, unprotected basis once the application is placed on public notice,
108. While we are cognizant of concerns of harmful interference when allowing operations to begin before the completion of a public notice period, we note that what we propose allowing is similar to what the Commission currently allows via STA, only without the extra step of submitting another application. Specifically, earth station operators often file for STA operations while their underlying applications are being processed so that they may begin operations, even if it is on a non-interference and unprotected basis. We seek comment on whether our proposal of permitting operations to commence prior to grant without requiring the submission of another application would be consistent with statutory requirements.
109. In addition, we seek comment on whether the industry has matured to a point where users in shared frequency bands or adjacent bands are able to coordinate amongst themselves to prevent interference such that allowing operations while an application is on public notice would cause little to no harm. Should there be restrictions on specific bands or operations? For instance, should this approach be limited to non-Federal bands only? If so, why? And if not, is it because the coordination and interference protection is band agnostic? Do there need to be any other restrictions? Given that we only propose to allow the operations beginning at public notice in specific circumstances, do the proposed rules offer sufficient protection and afford operators a sense of predictability? Does the differentiation even matter, or should the Commission allow operations for all applicants, regardless of whether they require any waivers or exceptions? What are the benefits or drawbacks to this approach? Should we allow operations while an application is on public notice when the applicant requests waiver of certain rules? Are there common waivers the Commission grants regularly that we should consider as part of this approach such as waivers of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations or location restrictions?
110. Applicants need predictability, whether in terms of launch timing, regulatory requirements, or the kind of questions that can be expected during the licensing process. At the same time, it is critical that the Commission receive clear, complete, and factually accurate applications. Accordingly, we propose specifying the scope of information the Commission may request from applicants. We propose that information requests must be targeted at obtaining information directly material to a determination of whether the requested authorization is in the public interest, or to resolve inconsistencies, technical issues, or other matters of concern that have a direct bearing on the decision. We believe that by requiring the Commission to identify all issues with an application in the initial information request and explain why the information is necessary, we will not only increase the level of predictability for applicants, but also increase the speed at which applications can be processed. We seek comment on our proposal generally.
111. We propose that the Commission may request information from applicants to: (1) determine completeness of the application; (2) understand the facts of informational showings, inconsistencies, execution, or other technical matters when the factual issue is directly material to the review; (3) determine if an exception applies to the application; (4) resolve matters of concern raised in pleadings, objections, or comments in response to an application; (5) evaluate compliance with the Commission's rules, regulations or other requirements; and (6) consider issues that are directly material and necessary for the Commission to evaluate the merits of the application under the Commission's rules. Our objective is to limit information requests to only those showings that are directly material to the Commission's review of the application under our rules and regulations. Do these categories sufficiently cover such areas? Are there any ways in which the information requests allowed should be narrowed to prevent unnecessary or tangential inquiry?
112. To be clear, we do not propose to limit the Commission's ability to speak with applicants to discuss the status of an application or as part of
113. We propose to apply a standardized decision framework to determine whether grant of a space or earth station application would be in the public interest. We propose rules that would standardize the Commission's review process by using the information received in the application materials and through public comment. Our proposal seeks to focus review of the application primarily on areas where the Commission needs to consider an issue that is not presumed to be in the public interest. If there are no issues, then the application will receive expedited processing. If there is one or more identified “exception” to expedited processing, then the Commission will consider the issue(s) triggering the exception in light of the record. We detail our proposals and seek comment on each below.
114.
115.
116. To operationalize this framework, we propose to adopt rules that clearly identify the instances when an application would be removed from expedited processing. We propose to refer to these instances as “exceptions” to the expedited processing timeline. We believe that by including a specified list of scenarios that would qualify an application for an exception to expedited processing and how the Commission will process and review such applications, applicants will be provided more regulatory predictability.
117. We describe the proposed exceptions to expedited processing below, and seek comment on each:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
118. Our goal is to provide applicants with a high degree of predictability as to whether an exception to expedited processing would apply to an application. Relying on our proposed design of the application materials and required certifications, we believe the Negative Certification exception can be clearly identified. We also believe it will generally be clear to applicants whether the Waiver Request, Foreign Ownership, Federal Coordination, and Market Access exceptions will apply. Under our proposal for processing rounds, we also believe clarity can be provided as to whether a processing round exception would apply. We expect the most ambiguous exception may be Spectral Constraints, and we seek comment on how we might provide clarity as to when such an exception would apply. What criteria could be elaborated upon to make it clear when such an exception is likely to be applicable? Is there a need for delegation to the Space Bureau to provide continuing clarity around the Spectral Constraint exception or any other exceptions? We also seek comment on each of the exceptions and whether they could be applied in a straightforward and predictable manner.
119. As part of reviewing exceptions related to an application, we expect there will be situations where information is needed beyond what is required by the application sections. For instance, under the Spectral Constraint exception there may be a need for interference analyses from the applicant so that the Commission can determine whether it is technically feasible for a system to operate in certain frequency bands in accordance with our rules while protecting other operators. Under our proposed application design, we have sought to limit such showings and technical narratives for
120. Do these exceptions from expedited processing sufficiently encompass all instances where the Commission may need to conduct a more thorough review of an application to determine if it is both in conformance with the rules and in the public interest? As discussed above, we propose to place applications
121. We also seek comment on the factors the Commission should consider when determining whether a request is in the public interest if an application includes one of the listed exceptions. We seek comment on how we may better operationalize application of these rules during the review and decision-making periods. In particular, we seek comment on how decisions around Negative Certifications, Waiver Requests, Foreign Ownership, and Spectral Constraints should be made. Given that we expect many applications for new and novel operations would have one or more negative certifications or waiver requests, how or should we provide additional guidance on any additional information that applicants should provide? How can we make sure triggering an exception would not result in longer review timelines? Given our
122. Both applicants and the Commission often have struggled to figure out how a new technology or innovative proposal fits into the Commission's rules. Since we seek to provide predictability and flexibility, we seek comment as to how our proposed licensing approach can address and anticipate new technologies in the Commission's rules. Our expectation is that the exceptions framework will route the novel portions of an application for focused review. Within that focused review, an expectation of grant in situations where the net benefits are positive can greatly facilitate approval for proposals that fall outside the bounds of the presumed acceptable framework. In this way, applicants can have some predictability in seeking a potential license grant. Is this a workable way to provide for innovation and technological development over time? We seek comment on this approach and alternatives that will assist the Commission in making sure the Commission's space licensing rules are able to continuously accommodate in a structured and predictable way new innovations which cannot necessarily be foreseen.
123. In addition, we seek comment on the proposed timelines and the requirements on the Commission to communicate to applicants why no action has been taken on an application. Specifically, is the fact that the Commission must either act on an application within 60 days or notify applicants and the public of the reasons for not processing an application sufficient? We seek comment on what impact, if any, that might have on the proposed process. Regarding applications for shared Federal bands, would it assist the process if the Commission were to provide a point of contact at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) as part of the notice to an applicant if the reason the application has not been acted upon is due to federal coordination? Alternatively, in shared terrestrial bands where an applicant is unable to coordinate with a terrestrial operator and that is preventing action on the application, should we require the terrestrial operator to justify why they cannot complete coordination with the applicant? Ultimately these are issues that may be primarily outside the Commission's control but that can still prevent action on an application. How can the Commission ensure transparency for these or other instances that are outside the Commission's control? We seek comment on these questions and welcome comment on other situations or proposals for how the Commission can achieve its goals.
124. To further guide decisions on applications, we propose a section articulating the standards under which requests will be judged. A portion of this section is similar to § 25.156(a) and explains circumstances generally under which a request “will be granted.” However, we further propose to make clear in our rules that any request which demonstrates compliance with the Commission's rules, regulations, and policies is in the public interest. We believe these clear statements will provide greater predictability to applicants as they seek to understand how a request will be reviewed. Furthermore, such a public interest presumption reinforces our desire to take a permissive posture toward innovation by allowing flexibility within the rules the Commission has adopted.
125. We propose to add an option for a conditional grant of authority for certain types of applications. We believe that the option for a conditional grant will help alleviate delays in the application grant process caused by one or more specific requests in an applicant's proposal that might prevent the applicant from beginning operations in other frequency bands or with certain satellites that are not affected by the issue. Specifically, we propose to allow conditional grants by rule in the scenarios discussed below.
126.
127. Should conditional grants be allowed for expedited processing even if comments or petitions to deny or other filings are made on the underlying application? Would the requirement that all operations be on a non-interference, unprotected basis be sufficient to protect other operators? Would the rule that all operations are at the applicant's own risk—and therefore the Commission could deny the application and the applicant would be forced to immediately cease operations—be sufficient to ensure applicants are operating within our rules? Are there other guardrails that we should put in place to ensure that no harmful interference results from
128.
129.
130. In addition, we seek comment on specific questions related to conditional grants. Specifically, should there be a maximum timeline for how long a conditional grant can last? Should the Commission update a conditional grant to reflect that the condition has been met or should the licensee's notification suffice? Further, we propose to allow operators to launch while subject to a conditional grant, but only with an express launch authorization from the Commission. Should the Commission allow operators to launch new satellites under only a conditional grant? Or should the conditional grant only be allowed for modifications or for operators who must satisfy the condition before launching? What ramifications should there be if an applicant launches without approval from the Commission while only conditionally licensed? Similarly, how should the Commission address instances where the Commission approves launching the satellite while it is conditionally licensed, but subsequently the licensee does not meet the condition of the license? We expect that the commercial coordination conditional grant will be particularly beneficial for earth station operators and especially those that request multiple frequency bands because it will allow them to begin operations in bands without coordination issues while addressing necessary coordination for the other bands.
131.
132.
133. We propose to revise the processing round framework for NGSO FSS applications, both in terms of the general structure of processing rounds and of which applications would be included in a processing round. Considering the significant evolution in NGSO system technology and increase in applications in recent years, we seek comment on whether the traditional processing round framework still provides both applicants and the Commission with the same functionality or advantages as originally intended. When an application is designated as a lead application and a processing round is opened, interested entities have a limited window of time to prepare and file these competing applications before the cut-off date. As a result, competing applications often lack significant technical, operational, or other fundamental system details to demonstrate a proposal for a viable system, consequently leading to extended review timelines and leaving other applicants in the same processing round unable to fully assess and plan for their own operations and coordination obligations. Furthermore, the decision to open a processing round is discretionary based on designation of a lead application and therefore there is little predictability as to whether an application will initiate a processing round. As part of our modernization efforts, we aim to revise the NGSO processing framework to limit regulatory obstacles and provide a clearer and more reliable path to authorization and operation.
134. Instead of the existing approach, we propose that the Commission would pre-determine specific frequency bands (“processing round-eligible bands”) and applications for authorization in those bands would accordingly be processed in a processing round. For each of these designated frequency bands, by rule, a processing round would
135. Under this proposal, applicants would file applications for inclusion in a processing round at any time, with priority status based on the date of grant, rather than the date of filing. Applications granted during the same band-specific processing round in a given year would have the same priority status. For example, applications granted for a specific band between January 1, 2027, and October 31, 2027, would be part of the 2027 processing round. We note that the NPRM does not propose any changes to the spectrum sharing procedures in part 25 and we propose to incorporate the relevant rule sections into proposed part 100. With this approach, we intend to allow applicants enough time to prepare comprehensive applications and request authorization for realistic NGSO systems, rather than provide applicants and industry with a limited window of time and opportunity to prepare an application for a system that may or may not be viable for operation. This would also negate the need to designate a lead application as the requisite first step in the framework, allowing applicants to plan and prepare for a processing round to open annually for specific frequency bands, rather than file in response to the Commission's determination of a lead application. Further, the pre-designated annual processing round window would provide applicants with a significant amount of time to prepare applications with the necessary level of detail to be considered “complete” under our proposed completeness standard. Additionally, since processing rounds are band-specific, if a request to operate in one frequency band could be granted more quickly than a request for a different frequency band in the same application, then the earlier-granted band would hold an earlier year priority in one processing round than a band granted in the following year. We intend that this revised timeline for review would benefit all applicants by creating the necessary structure to both encourage complete applications and provide predictability in timing and spectrum availability. Overall, we see this proposal as a way to process applications for certain bands in a way that retains the benefits and intent of processing rounds while mitigating the delays that result from the current processing round framework.
136. We seek comment on this proposed processing round structure for NGSO systems and ask for industry input as to which bands the Commission should designate for processing rounds and how the Commission should make these determinations. For example, the Commission envisions this structure being useful for frequency bands that are optimal for NGSO FSS operations, including the Ka-, Ku-, V-, and Q-bands. Should the Commission delegate to the Space Bureau to announce which frequency bands are subject to a processing round for the following year, prior to the January 1 opening date or should this determination be made by the Commission? Should this announcement be made by a certain date in the prior year to allow possible applicants enough time to plan? For example, if the Commission were to adopt a cut-off date of October 31 for the annual processing round, should the announcement of the following year's frequency band be made by then as well, to give applicants several months to plan applications? Should the yearly processing round be established with reference to the fiscal year running from October 1 to September 30, rather than the calendar year, to align with the period for assessment of regulatory fees? Should the Commission seek comment on which bands it should open for a processing round for the following year, or should the Commission make this decision without seeking comment? How should the Commission inform potential applicants as to which bands are subject to the processing rounds? Does the shift from a 30-day filing window to a full calendar year processing window provide applicants with the intended benefits of increased predictability and flexibility? Should the Commission consider an alternative or additional process to open a
137. Specific to eligibility for inclusion in a processing round, we propose that an NGSO application would be placed by rule into a processing round if the application meets two criteria: (1) the application proposes operations in one or more frequency band(s) that the Commission has pre-designated as a processing round-eligible band; and (2) the applicant's system proposed for operation includes 200 or more satellites. We note that under the revised proposals to the surety bond rules discussed below, an NGSO satellite system seeking authorization for 200 or more satellites would be required to post a surety bond to the U.S. Treasury in the event of a default, in accordance with the surety bond requirements and calculation proposed in the NPRM. Our logic behind such a proposal is that applicants seeking priority in a processing round should be held to a bonding requirement. We seek comment on these proposals. Do the proposed criteria justify inclusion in a processing round? Are there other factors or alternative methods the Commission should consider in determining whether and how an application should be included in a processing round? We additionally ask for input on whether a system with 200 or more satellites would be an effective benchmark for determining that an application should be considered in a processing round and therefore required to post a surety bond.
138. We also, however, propose that applicants who do not meet the surety bond criteria (
139. Under the proposed annual processing round framework, NGSO system applicants that request to operate in multiple frequency bands would be placed in the corresponding processing round for each frequency band and the remainder of the frequency bands requested (
140.
141. The Commission currently applies a default spectrum-splitting procedure for systems approved in the same processing round, absent a coordination agreement, and requires later round-systems to either coordinate with or otherwise demonstrate they will protect earlier-round systems, subject to the sunsetting provision. NGSO FSS systems authorized in the same processing round share spectrum on an equal basis under a ΔT/T > 6% spectrum-splitting rule, and this equal treatment is also extended to later-round NGSO FSS systems following a 10-year sunset period. We propose to incorporate these procedures as is into the new proposed part 100 and do not intend to consider any substantive revisions to the NGSO FSS sharing requirements, including the 10-year sunset period, currently in § 25.261 as part of this rulemaking. Considering the
142. What are the benefits and costs of each processing round approach? How does a processing round framework help or harm innovation for NGSO operators? Do processing rounds place a burden on operators who are able to launch, deploy, and operate systems quickly while simultaneously encouraging hastily submitted applications for systems that may not be viable? Does our proposed approach address these problems? Alternatively, should we instead maintain the existing processing round approach and address these issues in a separate proceeding? What other changes might we consider to improve the processing round framework?
143.
144.
145.
146.
147. In addition to the proposed processes discussed above, we also propose rules to improve the efficiency of the licensing process. We expect these proposals to further enhance the proposed licensing process by alleviating burdens on the licensing system and aligning parties' incentives to act in more efficient ways. For example, in addition to allowing greater freedom for entities to operate and upgrade their systems, some of our proposals for modifications will mean that fewer requests will need to be processed. We also seek comment on how the Commission can reduce the complexity of requirements and the cost of licensing in the United States.
148. § 25.112 of the Commission's rules details the procedures for dismissal and return of applications. To better harmonize the proposed rules, and in consideration of the proposed completeness standard discussed above, we propose to clarify the § 25.112 requirements in part 100. The Commission proposes that, unless otherwise specified, dismissal or return of an application would be without prejudice. An application would be deemed unacceptable for filing and may be dismissed with a brief statement if the application is determined not to meet the standard for complete applications under proposed § 100.131. Additionally, an application would be dismissed if an application requests authority for a specific type of system that does not align with the proposed operations. Applications would also be subject to dismissal if the application does not comply with relevant application requirements, is duplicative of a pending application on file with the Commission, or if there is clear indication that the application contains materially false information. We also propose to include a new section clarifying that application fees are due upon filing and that applications filed without the corresponding application fee will be dismissed by the Commission. We believe that a deviation from the existing part 1 rule,
149. We also seek comment on how the Commission should address applications where the applicant does not sufficiently address any additional questions asked by staff in their review of the application. Should the Commission establish a default standard of how to address applications where the applicant does not sufficiently answer additional information requests? Should the Commission immediately dismiss those applications? Should we only allow for a single follow-up request for the same questions? We invite comment on these proposals and any other commenters may have.
150. We propose to adopt new procedures for the filing and processing of amendments to applications and expand the scope of the term “major amendment,” as a means of preventing abuses of the amendment system while also streamlining the process. Under the current rules, a pending application generally may be amended until the Commission adopts a final order on the application. An amendment is deemed to be a “major amendment” if it increases the potential for interference or changes the proposed frequencies or orbital locations to be used, or the amendment, or its effect, is determined to be substantial under section 309 of the Act. Major amendments are also subject to the public notice requirements under § 25.151 of the Commission's rules.
151. We propose to adjust the scope of requests or changes to an application that would qualify an amendment as a major amendment. We propose that if an amendment would result in the application falling within one of the proposed exceptions to expedited processing, it would be categorized as a major amendment. Additionally, we propose that an amendment would be deemed a major amendment if the amendment: would result in the application qualifying under an exception to expedited processing; adds frequencies to the proposed operations; proposes to increase power, power density, or OOBE beyond what is permitted in the Commission's rules; modifies the antenna pattern(s) or antenna gain characteristics; requests operations outside of already coordinated ranges or would require re-coordination with federal agencies; would cause an increased risk of radiofrequency exposure to humans; or would otherwise be determined substantial under section 309 of the Act. For non-blanket licensed earth stations, an amendment would be classified as a major amendment if the amendment proposes a change of more than 10 seconds from the location requested in the application. We seek comment on the proposed list of major amendments. Is this list sufficient, or is it too broad or not broad enough? Are there other circumstances that the Commission should consider in categorizing major amendments?
152. We propose to continue considering major amendments as newly filed applications, regardless of the type of service in which the applicant requests to operate. Consistent with the current rules, we propose to place major amendments on public notice after a determination of completeness. In addition, we tentatively conclude that it is in the public interest to limit when an applicant can file a major amendment to prevent applicants from filing speculative applications and then strategically waiting months or years to amend that application. Specifically, we propose that major amendments may not be filed more than 45 days after the date of filing of an initial application, unless as otherwise directed by the Commission. Given the Commission's goal of rapidly increasing application processing speed, allowing applicants to file major amendments too late in the review process risks delay. It could also help the Commission to avoid directing resources to review of an application that is later significantly amended. In addition, we propose to automatically dismiss major amendments filed after the 45-day window. We seek comment on this proposal. Does a 45-day window give applicants sufficient time to file any major amendments? Should we limit the permissible timeframe for the filing of major amendments to the period before an application is placed on public notice?
153. Currently, if an applicant wants to make a change to its systems or operations, the applicant typically must file either an application for modification or a notice of modification with the Commission. While the Commission previously revised the modification rules in part 25 based on the record we had before us, we believe that the structural overhauls proposed in this rulemaking present an opportune time to propose larger changes to what types of modifications require notice or application.
154. Under the current rules as recently amended, any modification not specifically categorized as a “minor modification” must be treated as major modification. While the recent changes the Commission made are an improvement, an operator must still file an application and wait for Commission approval to begin operations even for modifications that would have little to no risk of harm to people or the radio frequency environment. In turn, licensees often seek STA to operate under a revised set of parameters while modification applications are pending, or in lieu of seeking a modification at all. We believe that by allowing applicants to make a broader range of changes to their systems without needing to notify the Commission or seek prior approval, we can alleviate the need for STAs and allow staff to prioritize reviewing license applications while ensuring no harmful interference and that the public interest is served. We also hope to give licensees the flexibility to test and modify systems as needed to determine the most effective and efficient system equipment or operational parameters as quickly as reasonably possible.
155. Once a license has been granted, the licensee can make changes through modifications. As a general principle, our proposal would permissively allow operators to make changes to their authorized system and operations if the change(s) do not explicitly fall into the categories of a major or minor modification. We propose to clarify that unless a modification is considered a major or minor modification as defined in the proposed rules, a licensee could freely make changes to their system and operations without notifying or seeking approval from the Commission. We propose to divide modifications into three classes: (1) modifications not requiring notice to the Commission; (2) minor modifications, that is, those that an applicant can make subject to notifying the Commission either before or after the modifying event occurs; and (3) major modifications, meaning any modification that requires express prior Commission approval to modify the license authorization.
156. We recognize that there are modifications that risk creating harmful interference to other licensed operations and warrant public review and comment. Therefore, what we are
157. We seek comment on the proposed categories of major and minor modifications in part 100 and the types of operations included in each. Are these categories sufficiently clear in outlining which types of activities would require approval rather than notification, or no notice at all? We also seek comment on other potential changes or operations the Commission should consider in categorizing the types of modifications and any corresponding needs for notice or approval by the Commission. For example, we generally want operators to be able to increase transmission capacity and improve spectral efficiency with minimal regulatory barriers. Do the proposed rules herein provide enough leeway for licensees to make such improvements with minimal burden or delay? Are there ways we can make clearer the type of changes that are permissible without approval? Additionally, although the Commission recently modified the part 25 rules to make adding a point of communication or changing certain satellite equipment minor modifications (requiring only prior notification to the Commission), we did so based on the record before us in that proceeding. We seek comment on whether we should instead change those minor modification requirements so that the Commission may be notified after the change is made. Are there any benefits to this?
158. As licensees deploy and operate their systems, we generally want to permit them to simplify the number of licenses that must be maintained. Could this be accomplished through modifications that only require notification? For instance, should we allow for modifications to merge call signs or combine multiple licenses? Will licensees wish to combine licenses in such a way as to align license terms, and could this be accomplished with modifications? We seek comment on these questions.
159. We also seek comment on whether a licensee's decision to host other space stations could be accommodated through a license modification. If a satellite is already licensed and would like to host a space station that is separately licensed, should this be allowed without the need for a modification? Or should we require a notification, and if so, from which licensee? Should the notification requirements differ if the space station is U.S.-licensed or non-U.S.-licensed? How should we handle situations where the hosted space station and the host satellite are licensed by different administrations? If a hosted space station is licensed by the U.S., should that licensee be required to file for a license modification to attach to a satellite?
160. Finally, could we use modifications to handle situations where one spacecraft transfers a hosted space station to another spacecraft? Anticipating such requests in the future, is a modification the most straightforward approach to handling such requests? For example, should the Commission review requests to transfer a hosted space station that would remove the hosted space station from one license and add it to another license via modification? In that situation, could the “offloading” modification be a notification while the “onloading” modification would require a major modification if adding a space station to a separate system? If multiple spacecraft are joining, should licenses be modified? Should we add to the rules a specific type of modification to handle such situations or can it be handled by our proposed modification framework? What are the orbital debris and radiofrequency implications involved? We broadly seek comment on what type of activities and scenarios this may involve and how the proposed modification framework could accommodate these situations in a flexible and predictable way with minimal burden on operators and the Commission.
161. We propose to significantly overhaul and limit the way in which STAs may be used in part because we believe that the changes proposed in the NPRM for license modifications and conditional grants will greatly alleviate the need for STAs. Specifically, we propose to only allow for two types of STAs—60 day and 180 day—and limit requests for extension without public notice. In addition, we propose to deem granted earth station STA requests for 60 days or fewer upon the filing and payment of fees. We seek comment on these proposals more fully below. As the Commission recently recognized, the current STA process is “generally in need of reexamination.” The current STA application process for space and earth stations has created administrative burdens and a loophole for applicants and operators to secure prolonged temporary authorizations as a substitute for the proper licensing or to initiate prolonged temporary operations before the conclusion of a public notice period. This is neither the principle behind nor the intended effect of the STA process.
162. We recognize that there are instances where an STA is necessary in lieu of a permanent license authorization. For instance, during natural disasters, emergencies, or other anomalies, STAs are vital to quickly ensure continued operations. Thus, we are not proposing to eliminate STAs. Rather, we propose to limit the types of STAs available to licensees, shorten the processing timelines, and incentivize applications for STAs only when necessary, rather than when convenient. In addition, with the proposed conditional grants and the proposed overhauls regarding license modifications without Commission approval, we believe operators will have less need for STAs beyond actual short-term use or emergency situations, as directed and intended by the Act.
163. We seek comment on whether our proposal to create conditional grants would eliminate the need for an applicant to seek STA to commence operations prior to the grant of their license. Further, we seek comment on whether the two proposed terms for STAs, 180 days and 60 days, are enough time for true emergency and short-term uses. Should these terms be extended or reduced? Are there any limits placed on the Commission by the Act on how we can change our rules for STAs? Should we put STAs on public notice? The Space Bureau has previously announced that STAs for services not covered by section 309(b) of the Act will not be placed on public notice. We also seek comment on our proposal to deem granted earth station STAs for a term of up to 60 days upon the filing and payment of fees. Should our deemed granted approach for earth station STAs only be permitted in certain frequency bands or in specific situations? We note that all STAs are granted on an unprotected, non-interference basis. Does that alleviate the coordination and interference concerns given that the STA holder is responsible for ceasing operations in the event of any interference? Considering the proposals to the license modification process discussed above, do the proposed changes and limitations on STAs sufficiently address and resolve
164. We propose to largely maintain the text of current § 25.119, which sets forth the requirements for assignment and transfer of control of space and earth station licenses and receive-only earth station registrations, although we propose a reorganization of the rule provisions to more logically group relevant requirements together and propose textual changes to more clearly state existing requirements. We also propose to incorporate into this section the requirements for assignments and transfers of control in the context of non-U.S.-licensed space stations granted U.S. market access. We seek comment on the proposed regulatory language and its structure. We note that, as discussed above, we propose that applicants include with the FCC Form 312—Main Form a diagram depicting ownership and control and, for assignments and transfers of control, we propose that the diagram include both the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership of the authorization holder. We seek comment on these proposals and any alternatives.
165. Before the Commission submits a filing to the ITU for a satellite system on behalf of an applicant, the Commission has required an applicant to first file the space station application describing the overall system, operational parameters, type of service, and the service area(s). This requirement was intended to prevent speculative filings with the ITU and ensure that the filings submitted to the ITU are consistent with the associated application. This, however, may have led some operators to submit ITU filings through other regulatory regimes that vary in the requirements and processes for submitting applicants' filings to the ITU. Considering the proposals to the licensing structure in the NPRM and the ITU cost recovery fees associated with ITU filings, we propose to allow prospective applicants greater flexibility to submit ITU filings to the Commission without requiring an underlying space station application. We seek comment on this proposed change. Should we limit this proposal so that a prospective applicant can only submit one ITU filing to the Commission without an underlying application? Given that applicants are already required to pay the ITU cost recovery fees for each filing submitted to the ITU, is there any need to limit the number of ITU filings? How would this affect a first-come, first-served application process? Are there any additional safeguards needed alongside such a new rule to prevent potentially harmful, speculative filings with the ITU? We also seek comment on other measures the Commission can take to facilitate ITU filings from prospective applicants and operators.
166. If the Commission allows prospective applicants to submit ITU filings to the Commission without having filed an underlying application, how long should the Commission maintain these filing(s) without an underlying application before suppressing them? Is four years a reasonable timeline? If no application is filed, could the entity lose the ability to use the ITU filing but the Commission allow another entity to do use that filing? Are there other considerations that we should take into account?
167. Regarding space station experimental applications filed under part 5 of the Commission's rules, the Commission will typically submit the ITU filing after the application has been granted. This allows for complete coordination with U.S. government operators before submitting the ITU filing, specifically in frequency bands that are shared on an equal basis with federal operators, given the quick turnaround time for a part 5 grant. We seek comment on the Commission submission of part 5 satellite ITU filings while an FCC experimental license application is pending for bands that are not primarily allocated to federal operations. For bands that are co-shared on an equal basis with federal and non-federal users, we seek comment on the Commission submission of ITU filing for these bands while the application is pending provided the applicant is able to obtain a letter from NTIA agreeing to the ITU submission. Are there other considerations that we should take into account?
168. We seek to simplify and reduce the costs associated with bonds and milestones while making sure resources are used efficiently. We seek comment on our proposals detailed below.
169.
170. We propose to eliminate the milestone requirement for GSO space station licensees. Considering the proposed license terms for GSO space station licensees in the NPRM, we believe that the five-year milestone benchmark for a 20-year license term would not be necessary to ensure that GSO system operators launch the authorized satellite(s) and position and operate the satellite(s) in the orbital location by the end of the license term. We seek comment on this proposal to remove the milestone requirements for GSO systems. In the alternative, should the Commission retain a milestone requirement for GSO licensees, or alternatively revise the GSO system milestones to more closely align with the ITU requirements for GSO systems? If so, should the Commission continue to require the five-year deployment milestone for GSO licensees, or should the Commission shorten or extend this milestone to more effectively ensure that GSO satellites are timely launched and operational? Similar to the NGSO milestone proposals discussed below, should the Commission similarly require an initial “bringing-into-use” (BIU) benchmark to align with the ITU requirements for GSO licensees? If the Commission took that approach, should we further align to only require a BIU benchmark for GSO licensees rather than a milestone deadline, or require both a BIU and milestone deadline? We seek comment on alternative milestone proposals and the benefits to any such proposals on a revised GSO milestone benchmark framework. Are there other approaches or benchmarks the
171. As such, we propose that recipients of an initial authorization for an NGSO satellite system, other than a Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) system, would be required to deploy at least one satellite in the authorized system no later than seven years after the date of the license grant, consistent with the ITU's BIU period. Licensees would be considered to have met the requirement upon notification to the Commission that a satellite has been deployed and operating for a continuous period of 90 days consistent with a system's authorization. If a licensee fails to meet this requirement, the license would be automatically terminated and declared null and void. After this point, NGSO system licensees would be required to deploy 10% of the authorized satellites no later than nine years after the date of grant, 50% of the authorized satellites within twelve years after the date of grant, and the remainder of the authorized satellites within fourteen years after the date of grant. A licensee that does not meet these milestones will lose its authorization to launch additional space stations beyond those that they have already launched. We note that this would retain the general requirement for NGSO licensees to comply with interim and final milestone requirements but would add an initial milestone requiring that the licensee launch, deploy, and operate 10% of the maximum number of satellites authorized for service. As required by the current rules, NGSO system licensees subject to milestones must either demonstrate compliance with the applicable milestone or otherwise notify the Commission in writing that the requirement was not met within 15 days after the specified deadline. We seek comment on whether aligning the Commission's milestones with the ITU milestones would benefit U.S. NGSO system licensees and applicants, compared to our current interim and final milestones.
172. We do not propose to implement milestone requirements for recipients of a VTSS license. We believe that VTSS licensees do not need the same milestones as NGSO licensees because VTSS will often involve shorter duration missions due to the satellites moving around in and between orbits. Additionally, we believe that VTSS licenses will typically involve smaller satellite systems that will likely not raise spectrum warehousing concerns which the main issue milestones are meant to address. We therefore seek comment on these proposed revisions to the milestone structure. Are there alternative milestone frameworks or requirements that the Commission should consider adopting for all services or for specific services? Conversely, does this proposed increase in the number of milestone requirements align with the goals of this proceeding? Are there other methods by which licensees can effectively notify the Commission of compliance with a milestone deadline? Should we implement milestones for VTSS authorizations?
173. Further, we seek comment on alternatives to our proposal regarding the milestone deployment benchmarks as applicable to NGSO licensees authorized within a processing round. Specifically, we ask whether systems authorized in a processing rounds should be subject to milestones other than the ITU-aligned milestones we propose to apply to all NGSO systems. In particular, should the Commission retain the existing six- and nine-year milestones only for NGSO licensees authorized in a processing round, rather than apply the proposed revised milestones? What would be the benefits and drawbacks to this approach? Would the proposed milestones in the NPRM cause undue difficulty for future licensees seeking authorization via processing round, and if so, how? Would there be benefits to having milestones which fall well within the ten-year sunset window for a processing round? Would this allow licensees to coordinate more effectively? Regarding compliance with the milestone benchmarks for NGSO licensees authorized in a processing round, we seek comment on more effective or reformed approaches to deployment timelines within the processing round framework. If the Commission were to retain the existing milestones for NGSOs authorized within a processing round and a licensee fails to meet a required milestone deadline, should that licensee's remaining undeployed space stations be moved to a subsequent processing round? In that scenario, should those undeployed space stations be treated as a new system within that next or subsequent processing round, or still as part of the originally authorized system? What other methods could the Commission employ to ensure that NGSO licensees in a processing round are both on track in reaching the required milestone obligations while fulfilling the spectrum sharing and coordination obligations with other systems authorized within a processing round? We seek comment on this approach and any alternative methods or suggestions to best support NGSO systems deployment within a processing round framework as proposed in the NPRM.
174. With respect to licensees authorized to operate different types of satellites in the same system under a MOSS authorization, we propose to revise § 25.164(g), which requires that licensees must meet the applicable milestone deployment deadlines for its satellites, to reflect whatever milestone is ultimately established in the final order. We seek comment on this proposal. We also propose to carry over the current requirement that, in cases where the Commission grants more than one space station authorization for the same system in different stages, the earliest of the milestone schedules will be applied to the entire system. Effectively, the first authorization for a satellite system establishes the milestone deployment timeliness and applies to any subsequent authorizations for that system. Retaining this provision would provide necessary clarity to NGSO operators, especially considering the revised milestone schedule and modernized licensing framework proposed herein, in establishing that all space stations authorized within one licensed system are subject to the same milestone deployment timelines. We seek comment on this rule part and any revisions the Commission should
175.
176. For NGSO space stations, the Commission proposes to limit the requirement of a surety bond to licensees with 200 or more authorized satellites in one system, excluding replacements. We believe that satellite systems with 200 satellites or more raise spectrum warehousing concerns and require more intense spectrum use and therefore should be subject to the surety bond requirement. In contrast, GSO space stations, NGSO space stations of fewer than 200 satellites that do not seek inclusion in a processing round, and VTSS licensees will generally raise a lesser concern about spectrum warehousing leading us to propose to eliminate the surety bond requirement for those space stations. We seek comment on our proposals to limit the types of space station licensees required to post a surety bond. What are the costs and benefits of removing the requirements as proposed such that the changes are warranted? We also seek comment on whether the proposed threshold of 200 satellites in an NGSO system is reasonable. Should the threshold be more, or less? Alternatively, in contrast to our proposal, should the Commission continue to require surety bonds for all licensed systems or for some additional classifications or types of systems or operators? Additionally, given that a threshold such as this creates incentives for licensees to “structure” licenses to avoid the bond, should we establish requirements to prevent circumventing the purpose of the surety bond, and what would they be?
177. We further propose that any NGSO space station licensee authorized to operate fewer than 200 satellites but licensed within a processing round would also be required to post a surety bond. We tentatively conclude that the current surety bond requirement for all NGSO and GSO licensees to discourage spectrum warehousing and encourage efficient construction is no longer necessary to impose on all such licensees, considering the Commission's revisions to the regulatory fee requirements for space station authorizations. In addition, under our proposal licensees granted access to bands outside a processing round would be operating on a compatible basis with other systems and would not be required to post a surety bond. We see little benefit to adding the cost of a bond to systems for which no particular priority is provided and for which there is likely to be no material preclusion of other systems in terms of resources. We also believe that by dramatically reducing the number of situations in which a bond is required, we will better encourage U.S. companies to license with the Commission rather than overseas, and even with a potential increase in non-priority applications due to the removal of the bond requirement, we do not anticipate harmful interference risks that would justify the cost burden. We seek comment on whether this assessment is correct.
178. The Commission proposes to revise the surety bond formula to calculate the surety bond that a licensee must maintain on file and the amount required for payment in the event of a default. We propose two significant changes to the Commission's approach to the surety bond requirement. First, we propose to shift the approach to the surety bond formula from an escalating bond to a deescalating bond calculation. Second, we propose to apply two different calculations—one applicable to NGSO space station licensees with two hundred or more authorized satellites and one applicable to NGSO space stations with fewer than two hundred satellites but that are authorized within a processing round. For NGSO space stations with 200 or more authorized satellites, we propose the following calculation, rounded to the nearest dollar: B = $10,000 * ((0.9*A)−D), where B is the bond amount, D is the number of satellites deployed, and A is the number of satellites authorized. For NGSO space stations authorized in a processing round but with fewer than 200 authorized satellites, we propose using the following calculation, rounded to the nearest non-negative dollar amount: B = $1,800,000 * (1−(D/(0.9 * A))). Since licensees authorized in a processing round are granted a priority status, we believe it is reasonable to set a minimum surety bond amount to disincentivize applications for speculative systems and promote more intensive use of spectrum resources. The proposed formula for NGSO systems with fewer than 200 authorized satellites maintains consistency across small systems, avoids discontinuities in regulatory treatment at the 200-satellite threshold, and ensures that the cost of entry remains sufficiently high to preserve the functional separation between priority and non-priority licensing. We seek comment on these formulae and ask whether there are alternative approaches?
179. We believe that these proposed calculations, where the total amount of the surety bond would decrease based on the number of satellites deployed in an authorized system, would provide a more effective incentive structure to support satellite operators in reaching full deployment, rather than requiring payment of the surety bond based on compliance with deployment milestones. Also, for systems with 200 or more satellites, the formula varies the initial bond amount based on the size of the system which we see as preferable to our current approach, which applies the same initial bond amount to all licensees.
180. Alternatively, we seek comment on other approaches to revising the surety bond calculation and the resulting required commitments for licensees. Should the Commission adopt an alternative formula or methodology from the proposed calculations? What other formula might better incent deployment in a timely manner? Are there better ways to reduce the number of systems which are licensed but never deployed while not preventing operators from licensing in the United States? What other factors, such as system altitudes or beam sizes, might be incorporated either directly or indirectly into a bond formula so that the Commission's objectives in having a bond are met? Should the Commission
181. We also propose to revise the point at which a licensee is relieved of its surety bond obligation. We propose to shifting from upon a finding of compliance with the deployment milestone obligations to the point when the licensee has deployed the total number of satellites such that the bond formula equals zero dollars or less and has notified the Commission of its deployment status. Each proposed formula declines such that the required bond would reach $0 when 90% of the authorized satellites have been deployed. At that point, the licensee could be relieved of the bond while having the flexibility to deploy up to 10% fewer satellites without defaulting on its bond obligation, if necessary. However, the licensee would still be subject to the final deployment milestone requirement, and failure to meet the final deployment milestone which would cap the system authorization at the number of satellites deployed by the milestone date. We also propose to carry over the existing requirement that a licensee will be considered to be in default with respect to the surety bond filed if it surrenders the license, but in alignment with the proposals herein, default would occur if the license is surrendered prior to surety bond amount deescalating to zero, rather than prior to meeting a milestone requirement. Licensees with a surety bond on file would be permitted to notify the Commission on the number of satellites deployed in the authorized system to decrease the total payment that would be required in the event of a default using the applicable formula.
182. We seek input from stakeholders on the proposed approach to surety bonds and milestone compliance and on the revised surety bond formulas. Would these formulas adjusting the amount of the surety bond proportionate to the percentage of deployed authorized satellites effectively incentivize satellite operators while continuing to deter spectrum or resource warehousing? Do each of the proposed formulas support these goals equally, or are there specific considerations or concerns with either of the two formulas? Should the Commission include an inflation adjustment to the bond formula so that the bond amount retains its purpose? If so, what measure of inflation should the Commission rely upon and how frequently should the Commission perform this adjustment? Are there other methodologies or proposals for alternative surety bond formulas or calculations that the Commission should consider in modernizing the surety bond requirement? How should licensees be permitted to notify the Commission of its deployment progress to reduce the total amount of the bond?
183. We additionally inquire as to when and how any revised milestone and bond requirements should come into effect if the proposed revised milestone deployment benchmarks and surety bond requirements and calculations are adopted. When the Commission revised the surety bond requirements in 2016, the Commission permitted space station licensees and market access grantees with existing grants at the time the new rules came into effect to submit a letter requesting to replace its current milestone schedule and bond obligation with the new schedule and obligation. These operators were also permitted to submit a new or modified bond and were relieved of their previous obligations, or retained the option to continue under the milestone and bond conditions established in their grants. We seek comment on whether the Commission should take a similar approach to any revisions to the milestone or bond requirements, allowing applicants the option to either keep their existing obligations and bond amount or replace them with the new rule requirements. In the case that the Commission adopts its proposals to require surety bonds for only those systems authorized to operate 200 or more satellites or for NGSO systems with fewer than 200 satellites authorized within a processing round, or an alternative proposed methodology, we propose that current licensees holding authorizations pursuant to §§ 25.122 and 25.123 of the Commission's rules would be relieved of their bond obligations under § 25.165(a) upon the effective date of any adopted rules. Are there other approaches or considerations the Commission should consider in transitioning to this revised surety bond framework? Should the Commission consider different approaches to the implementation of any revised milestone and surety bond requirements specific to licensees authorized within a processing round? How should the Commission address licensees with surety bonds on file with upcoming milestone deployment deadlines?
184.
185. We propose extending the license term for most space stations and earth stations to 20 years. We note that we routinely receive applications to extend the license term beyond fifteen years for GSO satellites, and that we have generally found extensions of five years to be in the public interest. As such, there is efficiency in not requiring licensees to file (and the Commission to review) modification applications to seek authority for five-year license extensions for GSO satellites and to extend by rule the license term of GSO satellites from fifteen years to twenty years. Is there any danger that the proposed extension of the license term may limit the ability for newer technology to be licensed, given the scarcity of resources? We seek comment on this proposal and alternatives. Licenses for Direct Broadcast Satellite
186. For NGSO and VTSS satellites, we also propose a 20-year license term. We recognize that most NGSO satellites may have a shorter useful life than 20 years, but that replacement space stations may be used during the license term when needed. Our current regulations allow for both GSO and NGSO systems to replace satellites. We propose to add a definition of “replacement space station” that largely mirrors the language in § 25.165(e). Specifically, we propose to define “replacement space station” as “a space station that is authorized to operate in the same frequency bands and with the same coverage area as the space station to be replaced, at an orbital location within 0.15° of the assigned location of a GSO space station to be replaced or in the authorized orbit of an existing NGSO space station to be replaced, and that is scheduled to be launched so that it will be brought into use at approximately the same time as, but no later than, the existing space station is retired.” We seek comment on this proposed definition and if it provides sufficient clarity to applicants and licensees. Current rules allow for NGSO systems to replace satellites with “technically identical” satellites with 30 days advance notification to the Commission and certification that the additional space stations(s) will not increase the number of space stations providing service above the maximum number specified in the license. “Technically identical,” however, is not a defined term in the part 25 rules. We propose to retain the ability for NGSO licensees to replace satellites, up to the number of authorized satellites but without notification to the Commission, provided that any changes to the authorized satellites would not require the filing of a modification application, as enumerated in our major modifications proposed rules discussed above, or a condition on its authorization.
187. We believe that permitting NGSO licensees to replace satellites in their authorized constellation, except for those that would trigger a major modification or a change to its underlying authorization, allows for upgrades of the overall satellite system to take place during the license term without the need for additional Commission involvement, which further provides flexibility, ensures no harmful interference, and lessens administrative burden on Commission staff. We seek comment on this proposals, which we believe provide more clarity and flexibility for NGSO operators than the current requirements of §§ 25.165(e) and 25.113(i). We also propose removing the requirements for replacement space stations from their current placement in the surety bond rule and placing them in an expanded section of our new rules regarding license terms, replacements, and renewals since they are more logically related to these provisions than to surety bonds. We seek comment on NGSO and VTSS license terms and definitions and conditions for replacement space and earth stations generally.
188. As was noted when the Commission extended the license term for space stations from 10 years to 15 years, the goal is to reduce the number of times licensees will be required to renew their licenses and reduce administrative burdens. We think aligning the satellite license terms is even more important now when we receive applications for systems that contain both GSO and NGSO satellites. Our existing rules do not contain a set license term for earth stations and Commission practice has been to align the term of the earth station with the term of the satellite with which it is communicating. We believe that having a set license term for earth station licenses will support faster disposition of applications by the Commission staff, since a decision on license term will no longer need to be made on a case-by-case basis and it will instead be standardized. This proposed change should also provide predictability for operators, who may operate earth stations which communicate with multiple satellites with license terms ending on different dates. Finally, we note that we currently do not generally establish a term for market access grantees, instead frequently conditioning the grant of U.S. market access on continued authorization by the non-U.S. administration. We propose establishing a definitive market access term length, whether established at 15 or 20 years, or an alternative term, on market access grantees to establish consistent rules for these operators and domestic satellite licensees, which would be consistent with our requirements under the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, since this term length would establish parity of treatment and non-discrimination between U.S. and foreign licensed satellites, including those from WTO member countries. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on whether and how to implement this change for existing market access grantees in light of any expectations at the time of grant.
189. The Commission retains discretion to establish shorter license terms if in its judgement the public interest will be served, and we propose maintaining that discretion as well as the ability for applicants to seek a shorter license term. Applicants may at the outset of the application process seek a shorter license term, which is currently done through notation in the application narrative. We propose continuing to allow applicants to request a shorter license term than the applicable standard license term at the time they apply for a license and seek comment on this approach. Should there be a question on the general application of Schedule O or Schedule F for applicants to choose the standard license term for a particular license or to specify a request for a shorter term? Would formalizing this option serve the interest of freeing spectrum and orbital resources sooner than otherwise? Do the recent changes to the satellite and earth station regulatory fees make this change unnecessary since licensees will have a financial interest in surrendering their licenses promptly? Licensees currently may surrender a license should they complete operations before the license term ends, and we propose maintaining that option.
190. We further propose revising the license term rules to state that license or market access grant terms for space stations and earth stations will begin on the date that the license is granted, with a potential exception for receive-only earth stations. While this is a change from our current rules, under which a license term generally begins when the operator notifies the Commission the satellite has been placed into orbit with operations in conformance with the authorization or license “terms and conditions,” in practice this process has sometimes proven difficult to track as operators may forget to notify the Commission and the end date of the license then may be unclear. There also may be ambiguity regarding when to notify the Commission that the space station is operating in conformance with the “terms and conditions” of the license. Considering the proposed extension of the license terms for GSO and NGSO space stations to 20 years, we tentatively conclude that commencing the license term on the date when the Commission issues the license or market access grant will provide licensees with clarity and predictability while ensuring that licensees are ensured sufficient time to recoup their investment. We seek comment on this proposal. Should the license term for both space stations and earth stations, excepting receive-only earth stations, begin on the date of grant, or are there service-specific considerations to justify commencing the license term after the date of grant? Furthermore, we seek comment below on whether to continue registration of receive-only earth stations. If we do continue to register these earth stations, we propose a 20-year term that would begin on the date that the application was filed since these stations do not ultimately receive a license. We seek comment on our proposals on license terms, including their lengths, time of commencement, approaches for replacement space stations, and alternatives. We also seek comment on whether these changes should be applied retroactively to existing licensees and market access grantees and, if so, how that change should be made.
191.
192. We therefore seek comment on whether to establish guidance on renewal expectancy and whether to establish such an expectancy for all types of space stations and for earth stations. Is such a renewal relevant in the GSO context given our proposal for license extensions, consistent with past processes? For renewal expectancy more generally, as a baseline standard, should we require that the renewal application include a certification that the station or system has not operated in a manner which would cause automatic termination pursuant to our proposed automatic termination rules? The criteria triggering automatic termination include, among others, that an earth station has not been operational for more than ninety days and that an NGSO operator has failed to maintain fifty percent of the maximum number of NGSO satellites authorized for service following the nine-year milestone period as functional satellites in authorized orbits. Would requiring certification that the automatic termination criteria have not been triggered be an effective way to ensure that renewal applications are only filed by operators who have been making significant use of resources for which they have been authorized? Should additional guidelines be considered? The Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry in 2013 that examined factors for FSS operations that could be considered where there are allegations of spectrum warehousing, including gaps in service, older “replacement” satellites, license extensions, and underutilized space stations. Are any of these criteria relevant to license renewal, and if so, how should they be incorporated into the Commission's review? Should a minimum level of operations or service to customers be required beyond what is defined in the automatic termination rules? For example, for NGSO satellites, should a certification be required that at least 50% of authorized satellites provide ongoing service to customers? If so, how should those terms be defined? How would changes in ownership or control or developments affecting a licensee's qualifications be factored into a renewal expectancy framework? We seek comment on whether additional guidance on renewals should be delineated in our rules, and if so, what criteria should be used for evaluating space stations and earth stations. Our current and proposed rules do not require license renewals to be placed on public notice, but the discretionary authority under proposed § 100.132(v) could be used to place renewal applications of particular importance on public notice. Is this process sufficient or should explicit public notice requirements be added to our rules for certain renewal types? We seek comment on the appropriate public notice for renewal applications.
193.
194.
195.
196. We invite comment on this proposal generally and welcome additional comment on how to effectuate the change over from part 25 to part 100. Are there any best practices that the Commission should rely on from any previous rule part transitions? Are there any specific areas of our proposal that may be difficult to transition to part 100 given the number of current licenses or pending applications such as those for earth stations or for space station modifications?
197.
198. Accordingly, we propose to apply all procedural aspects of part 100 prospectively to every licensee, regardless of whether the authorization was issued under part 25 or part 100, subject to a few exceptions. For example, if a system is licensed under part 25, and subsequent system changes would have required prior approval under part 25 but not part 100, we anticipate that such changes will be governed under the part 100 procedures and timelines ultimately adopted by the Commission.
199. At the same time, we intend to maintain certain substantive obligations included in existing license authorizations to protect other operators and respect certain reasonable reliance expectations even after the transition. Specifically, we propose maintaining the license terms, bonds, milestones, processing round status, and trackability attached to individual licenses and grants of market access at the time of authorization. We also propose to preserve license-specific conditions imposed prior to part 100's effective date. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there other proposed rule changes that should not apply to existing licensees and recipients of market access grants after the effective date?
200. We appreciate that some situations may present complexity between these two rule parts. For example, while we expect to apply part 100's modification procedures to part 25 licenses, a major modification may alter a license's processing round status under part 25. In certain circumstances, we propose to grandfather a license's processing round status under part 25 because of the complexity of those rules and the effect changes to priority may have on other systems in a processing round. Comments should state with specificity which rules should be exempted from applicability for current authorizations or whether any of the rules we propose to exempt should not be included. What considerations should we be mindful of to ensure this process is the most equitable and efficient process it can be while still ensuring that all legal requirements are met? We seek comment on these questions and proposals.
201.
202. Are there alternative approaches that should be considered? Commenters should address how to operationalize any proposal and consider the resources needed to effectuate this transition. For example, in addition to reissuing licenses on an individual basis at certain triggering events (renewals, major modifications, extensions, transfers of control or assignments), could the Commission issue an appendix as part of a future Report and Order that lists each part 25 rule and its corresponding rule in part 100 with a statement that any part 25 rules that attached to a license will now be mapped to the new rule part in part 100? Should a rule be added to part 100 that articulates that the part 100 rules will apply to licenses and market access grants issued under part 25, subject to any exceptions established in the final order?
203.
204. The Commission proposes to restructure the rules governing the technical standards and operations for space station and earth station licensees. Specifically, the Commission proposes to create a new “Subpart C—Operational Requirements” in the proposed part 100 that includes the rules that licensees must follow. We propose to further subdivide this subpart C to create clear sections that outline: (1) general rules applicable to space and earth stations; (2) general space station rules; (3) NGSO frequency specific rules; (4) GSO frequency specific rules; (5) coordination requirements and rules; (6) satellite digital audio radio service rules; (7) general earth station rules; (8) general earth station coordination and performance requirements; (9) frequency specific earth station rules; and (10) miscellaneous rules. We believe that organizing the rules in this manner will make it easier for licensees to understand their obligations and the rules with which they must comply based on their individual licenses. Additionally, we believe it will make it easier for the Commission to update rules in the future while keeping rules that pertain to the same subject together. We seek comment on this organizational approach.
205. The Commission proposes and seeks comment on certain rule sections specific to the technical operations of space stations licensed under part 25. We propose to largely incorporate the rules currently located in subparts C through J of part 25 in this new subpart C in part 100, while making improvements for clarity and ease of use. Although some notable proposed changes are discussed below, we seek comment on the entirety of our proposed subpart C.
206. Furthermore, we recognize that many portions of our proposed subpart C which are carried over from part 25 may be outdated and worth removing or revising. While we have begun to remove some such rules, we have chosen to not completely overhaul such rules at this time so that this proceeding may initially focus on modernizing the overall framework we apply to space station and earth station licensing and regulation. We expect that through further notice and additional proceedings we will further modernize the rules proposed for subpart C in part 100. Therefore, we seek comment on possible revisions, with the expectation that we may make such changes if supported by the record or we may seek further comment.
207. Regarding all of the proposed operational and technical requirements, we particularly seek comment as to whether the rules afford flexibility and predictability for licensees. As we seek to modernize our operational and technical rules in this proceeding and in others, we aim to apply the presumed acceptable framework widely by setting standards according to outcomes rather than prescribing specific designs. To give a few examples, we propose requiring in subpart C of part 100 that systems be able to cease emissions, operate according to ITU filings, and respond to collision risk warnings, but we propose allowing operators considerable freedom as to how they meet these standards. However, we also recognize some of the proposed part 100 technical rules transferred from part 25 may not follow this framework. Therefore, in addition to seeking comment on the substance of such operational and technical rules, we also seek comment on how the rules might be revised to follow a presumed acceptable framework which yields more flexibility and predictability. In particular we seek comment on how new technologies (
208. We propose to begin subpart C with general rules applicable to all licensees under proposed part 100. Specifically, we propose to begin with rules that outline permissions and obligations that apply to all licensees, including license terms and renewals.
209.
210. We propose to modify several existing rules that outline permissible actions for space station operators. We seek comment on the proposed revisions to the Commission's rules below.
211.
212.
213.
214. As we propose to modernize our approach to regulating operations, we seek to limit reporting requirements as much as possible to only those which will support a more efficient, safe, and flexible space operating environment. We see these requirements as being part of a transition from the Commission's static, backward-looking approach to regulating licensees to a dynamic, forward-looking model where operators have greater freedom to operate within prescribed parameters designed to protect against harmful interference, allowing operators to simply inform others how and where they are operating instead of seeking permission for each change in operations. Therefore, we see these proposals as deregulatory in the long run and facilitating more intensive and efficient use of space for the delivery of communications services.
215.
216.
217. Satellite operators have more precise and timely information about the location and trajectory of their spacecraft than SSA service providers do from object tracking alone. While operators know of their planned satellite maneuvers and account for them in their satellite's predicted ephemeris, the orbit propagated by an SSA service provider from tracking alone will not capture any planned trajectory changes due to maneuvering and therefore will leave unreported any satellite conjunctions that could arise from the modified trajectory. Even for non-maneuverable satellites, operators generally have a better understanding of the spacecraft's construction and non-conservative force parameters, such as the ballistic coefficient and solar radiation pressure coefficient. Thus, a satellite operator's prediction of its satellite's future position, captured in predictive ephemeris data, is often reliable and valuable adjoining data to the future position information calculated from a space catalog entry.
218. The Commission's rules currently require NGSO space station license applicants to disclose whether they plan to share information regarding initial deployment, ephemeris, and/or planned maneuvers with the 18th Space Control Squadron or successor entity, other entities that engage in space situational awareness or space traffic management functions, and/or other operators. Applicants must also certify that upon receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, the operator will take all possible steps to assess and mitigate the collision risk, including by contacting operators of active spacecraft involved in the warning and sharing ephemeris data. NGSO FSS satellite operators specifically must ensure that ephemeris data for their constellations are available to all operators of authorized, in-orbit, co-frequency satellite systems in a manner that is mutually acceptable. Non-voice, non-geostationary (NVNG) MSS licensees are also required to obtain ephemeris information necessary to comply with restrictions around certain protection zones.
219. In 2020, the Commission adopted the requirement that NGSO satellite applicants disclose any plans they have for sharing ephemeris data with an SSA
220. As we seek to provide greater flexibility for space operations, we recognize the need for orderly activities by spacecraft with licensed space stations. Predictable commercial operations allow GSOs and NGSOs to plan their missions in advance, operate more efficiently, and give VTSS licensees more flexibility in conducting their missions. To the extent feasible, we want licensees to be able to operate freely but to also inform operators, the Commission, and the public of their location by contributing accurate ephemeris data to an SSA system. We see this as the long-term path to replacing the need for many notifications or license requests. Given that SSA technology and the ecosystem is still evolving, our proposal is for a flexible framework for how licensees may comply with this requirement.
221. Accordingly, we propose to require that all space station operators file their ephemeris data via space-track or with the 18th Space Control Squadron or with one or more SSA service providers that would be identified by the Space Bureau through a public notice (after notice and comment if the Space Bureau deems required or advisable). We also propose to ensure that this data be made available to all authorized operators of co-frequency systems. We seek comment on this proposal and ask for specific information as to the frequency of reporting, the method of reporting, any other associated reporting requirements or notifications the Commission should require along with the ephemeris data, or alternative approaches. For example, should we also require that ephemeris data specifically be made available to all other satellite operators at shared altitudes, in addition to shared frequency bands, through an appropriate SSA? If so, how should we define shared altitudes and ensure that such a requirement is not unduly burdensome, particularly on smaller operators? Do we need any additional requirements regarding initial launch phase or post-service mission operations? Should we specifically require operators to immediately notify an SSA provider of any temporary, ongoing, planned, or unplanned spacecraft system outages that would prevent collision avoidance maneuvers? Additionally, we seek comment on how the Commission and the Space Bureau should identify appropriate SSA provider. What criteria should the Space Bureau look for in an appropriate SSA provider? Should we require reporting of the data with a specific frequency? If so, what frequency would be appropriate? Would a frequency of submission of ephemeris data and covariance of no less than every eight hours for spacecraft operating at or below 750 km altitude and every 24 hours for spacecraft operating above 750 km altitude be appropriate? Should we specify that space station operators must register with an SSA provider at least 30 days before initial launch of a spacecraft and must submit ephemeris data and covariance within eight hours of launch or initial insertion for all spacecraft in their authorized system? Is space-track the best place for requiring the reporting? Are there standard data formats that should be required so the data can be widely used? Should the Commission adopt a rule that gives the Commission the ability to update the required reporting method via public notice? Should the Commission define accuracy standards for the ephemeris data submitted to an SSA provider and if so, what should those standards be?
222.
223. The Commission proposes to incorporate the current orbital debris requirements into the proposed part 100 though with important changes to align with our modernized approach of applying bright-line criteria. Specifically, as part of the application submission we propose to require applicants to submit certifications as to whether their satellite systems will comply with specific orbital debris criteria, including: satellites will be identifiable; satellites will fall below a certain threshold for small debris collision risk, large object collision risk, and human casualty risk; stored energy will be vented at the end of operational lifetime; and others. These elements are part of the application process and will be reviewed at that time. In addition to the certifications that we propose to include in the application requirements section, we also propose to create a section in subpart C that includes orbital debris rules that all licensees must follow. These are in line with the Commission's current rules but we believe including them in subpart C provides better organization and clarity. Specifically, we propose to include a rule that details certain operational requirements and end-of-life disposal. Additionally, we propose to create a rule detailing certain space safety rules for NGSO satellite systems. We see these as common sense approaches that have been developed through fulsome Commission proceedings and which will help ensure the ongoing ability of systems to deliver communications services.
224.
225. We also propose to turn two other current information requirements found in part 25 into affirmative obligations that all space station licensees must follow. Specifically, we propose to require that all NGSO satellites be trackable, with the presumption that each satellite larger than 10 cm in the smallest dimension is trackable. We also propose to require that, upon receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, all operators must review and take all possible steps to assess and mitigate the collision risk. This is similar to the current certification required by § 25.114(d)(14)(iv)(A)(5), but relieves the operator of the obligation to certify to this specific requirement and instead imposes an affirmative obligation on all space station operators to assess and mitigate collision risk. We believe that incorporating these requirements, currently found in a similar manner in part 25, into the new part 100, and making them affirmative obligations will make it easier for space station applicants and operators to understand their obligations and will promote space safety. We seek comment on these proposals. Are there additional orbital debris information requirements that the Commission could turn into affirmative obligations?
226.
227.
228.
229.
230. We do not propose to make significant changes to the specific technical criteria for operations of earth stations. We conclude that much of that work is better suited for other proceedings that are more focused on the technical issues. However, as it may relate to application requirements and processing and removing redundant or unnecessary materials from the operational requirements, we do propose to make a number of changes that are reflected in our proposed rules. With this in mind, the Commission has endeavored to structure the new rules in a manner that better groups like services or requirements together. Generally, we seek comment on how we propose to structure the rules and welcome alternative proposals and justifications.
231. Furthermore, we propose removing the enumerated list of available frequency bands because it is redundant of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations. We seek comment on this proposal. We tentatively conclude that the inclusion of this list can cause confusion among applicants and can result in misstatements or misinterpretation by the Commission or applicants. We seek comment on this conclusion. Should the Commission keep the enumerated list? If so, what are the benefits of doing so? What are the drawbacks and benefits of removing the list from the rules? Is all of the information contained in the current § 25.202 found in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, and if not, how should this be handled? In order to achieve our goal of allowing satellite operators to apply for any spectrum where there is an allocation for them, do we need to provide a specific rule? Or is the fact that the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations identifies the bands where satellite operations are permitted sufficient? Should there be any carve-outs for any specific bands?
232.
233.
234.
235. In addition, we seek comment on whether the streamlined approach we propose here would be sufficient to protect current and future systems. Does it sufficiently account for all types of missions including FSS, MSS, and VTSS? If not, what should be changed to better accommodate all service and system types while still giving maximum flexibility for the types of antennas operators choose to use?
236.
237.
238.
239.
240.
241.
242. We understand that in some instances, coordination may be used as a tool to prevent new entrants from being able to receive a license. Do the proposed rules provide sufficient guidance and guardrails to prevent this from happening? If they do not, we ask commenters to provide proposals of ways in which the proposed rules can be revised to better protect against gamesmanship in the coordination process.
243. We find that the rules we propose today, if adopted, will promote efficiency in the Commission's licensing process, provide more predictability and flexibility for licensees, as well as meet our statutory responsibilities and international obligations. We expect that our proposals would significantly reduce regulatory compliance costs, resulting in annual cost savings of at least $165,000. These cost savings are in addition to other benefits that are more difficult to quantify, but nevertheless important, such as reduced harmful interference, increased spectrum efficiency, and space safety. We estimate that the costs resulting from the changes that we propose will be approximately $90,000. We therefore conclude that the cost savings alone will fully offset the associated costs, such that the proposed rules are in the public interest. We seek comment on these findings.
244. We estimate that the deregulatory steps we take today will result in annual cost savings of approximately $165,000. This reduction will accrue primarily from limiting the cases in which operators are required to submit modification filings and STA requests. Based on conservative assumptions, we expect the proposed changes will reduce such filings by at least 15%. We expect this reduction to result from measures such as eliminating the requirement for waiver requests for contemporaneous supplements or exhibits, allowing applicants to certify that no information has changed from a previously filed FCC Form 312—Main Form, eliminating certain milestone requirements, and allowing prospective applicants to submit ITU filings without the need for prior filings with the Commission. We seek comment on our estimate of cost savings. We also ask commenters to identify additional potential cost savings that we have not considered in our estimate.
245. In addition to these quantified savings, we anticipate significant potential cost savings from eliminating the surety bond requirements for GSO space stations and certain NGSO systems. These savings include monthly fees that licensees would otherwise pay to third parties for posting a surety bond, as well as the opportunity cost of capital that operators forgo by having to set aside financial resources for surety bonds. While we do not quantify these savings here, we believe that they will represent a meaningful reduction in regulatory burden for affected operators. We seek comment on this view.
246. We estimate that the total cost associated with the proposals will be approximately $90,000. This estimate is primarily driven by the cost of preparing semi-annual space system safety reports, which require information on the number of conjunction events identified for satellites in the NGSO system during the reporting period, the number of satellites removed from operation or screened from further deployment, and the number of satellites that re-entered the atmosphere. Since we assume that all NGSO operators already collect the relevant information as part of their routine operations, this estimate only accounts for the costs associated with preparing and submitting the report. We also assume that costs associated with all other proposed reporting requirements will be negligible. Specifically, the costs of sharing ephemeris and covariance data is expected to be minimal, as operators already generate and maintain this information for their own operational purposes. Sharing it with a designated SSA service provider would primarily involve integrating with an existing SSA Application Processing Interface, which should require minimal additional effort. Additionally, we expect that eliminating the annual point of contact requirement will result in cost savings rather than impose new costs, although we do not quantify those savings here. We seek comment on our estimate as well as on the assumptions underlying our estimate.
247. Overall, we anticipate that cost savings will fully offset the total estimated costs associated with this item. Moreover, our analysis does not account for the additional benefits expected to accrue from these changes, including improvements in spectrum efficiency, space safety, and reduced regulatory burden. We seek comment on the potential benefits of our proposed rules. Commenters are encouraged to submit quantifications of all claimed benefits and costs.
248. As we seek to shift to a more efficient application review process, we recognize there will be a need to ensure compliance with the proposed framework requirements. To that end, our proposal would provide the Commission with a range of tools, in addition to traditional enforcement mechanisms, to address instances of noncompliance. A cornerstone of the Commission's new application and licensing approach relies on ensuring compliance with the Commission's rules after a license is granted, given the greater reliance on certifications to improve processing efficiency. While we expect applicants to operate in compliance with the Commission's rules and in accordance with license authorizations, it is important that the Commission can effectively and nimbly address violations of its rules. Accordingly, we propose additional non-monetary enforcement remedies to ensure and address compliance with the Commission's rules and clearly express in our rules the requirements of operators beyond the operational requirements.
249. Section 25.161 of the Commission's rules provides that a station will be automatically terminated, in whole or in part, if the station is not operational or the license term expires, for failure to meet applicable milestone deadlines. We propose to retain the Commission's existing rule outlining the circumstances when a station authorization will be automatically terminated, in whole or in part, with certain proposed additional circumstances to reflect the proposed rules in the NPRM. We propose that earth station licenses would be subject to automatic termination for failure to comply with the proposed certification requirements for Immovable earth station authorizations. Earth station licenses would also be automatically terminated for failure to meet any of the operational, coordination, or frequency-specific rules. The Commission further proposes to modify the compliance provisions specific to milestone deployments to align with the proposed deployment timelines for satellites.
250. In addition to admonishments and forfeitures, we propose that the Commission could address non-compliance through a variety of other means, including by revoking or terminating a license, requiring cessation of transmissions, placing an entity in an “authorization freeze” status (
251. Further, if an operator has a history of anomalous events, or other noncompliance with our rules, such as unlicensed operations, should the application no longer be presumed to be in the public interest, and, if so, should the burden of proof shift to the applicant to show that the application is in the public interest? Do the proposed remedies sufficiently dissuade operators from engaging in bad acts or harmful behavior? Are they too stringent or lenient? In either case, what alternatives should the Commission consider to more effectively address and discourage bad actors? We seek comment on these questions and input for other proposals to encourage responsible behavior by all applicants, licensees, and market access grantees.
252. We believe that these approaches are not prohibited by the Act nor do they run afoul of recent judicial precedents.
253. This proceeding incorporates the results of the Commission's comprehensive deregulatory review initiated in the
254. We also invite comment on SiriusXM's suggestion to delete the SDARS provisions requiring use of interoperable radios, requiring terrestrial repeaters to retransmit the complete programming transmitted by the SDARS licensee's satellite(s), and requiring terrestrial repeaters not to retransmit different transmissions from a satellite to different regions within that satellite's coverage area. Are these rules, which affect a limited number of licensees, still in the public interest, or should they be modified or removed? Is this something that we should address here, or is it better suited for a separate proceeding? Further, are there any other rule parts that we should consider deleting either because they are redundant of rule parts found in other parts of the Commission's rules, or because they are outdated and unnecessary, or overly burdensome? We seek comment on this generally.
255. Some of the proposals outlined herein and proposed in Appendix A may overlap with other open Commission proceedings. Specifically, certain proposals here overlap with the Commission's recent
256. For the
257. For the Commission's orbital debris proceeding, we clarify that other than where clearly identified above, we do not seek comment on any of the proposals outlined in the most recent
258. Similarly, we do not here re-open or invite any comment on any of the inquiries in the ongoing
259. We propose to align our final rules in this proceeding with the final rules established in the
260. Finally, we also propose that for any other pending or subsequent FCC proceedings that propose or adopt changes to the part 25 rules, we will incorporate any final rules in part 100, if adopted.
261.
262.
263. We propose to delete several definitions from current part 25 that are duplicative of definitions in part 2 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, we propose to delete the following definitions: Coordination distance, Earth station, Feeder link, Inter-Satellite Service, Ku-band, Land earth station, Land Mobile Earth Station, mobile earth station, Radiodetermination Satellite Service, Satellite system, Selected assignment, Space radiocommunication, Terrestrial radiocommunication, and Terrestrial station. We seek comment on this proposal.
264. In addition, and as discussed more fully above, we propose to establish a definition for expedited processing to make clear what that category of processing an application means. Further, and as discussed above, we propose to create a definition for Variable Trajectory Spacecraft Systems as a category of licensable systems distinct from existing NGSO and GSO categories of licenses.
265. We propose to add a definition of “Replacement satellite.” Specifically, we propose to define replacement satellite as “[a] satellite that is authorized to operate in the same frequency bands and with the same coverage area as the satellite to be replaced, at an orbital location within 0.15° of the assigned location of a GSO satellite to be replaced or in the authorized orbit of an existing NGSO satellite to be replaced, and that is scheduled to be launched so that it will be brought into use at approximately the same time as, but no later than, the existing satellite is retired.” We seek comment on these proposed definitions and if they provide sufficient clarity to applicants and licensees on the scope and applicability of these terms.
266.
267.
268.
269.
270. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM assessing the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission requests written public comments on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA
271. In the NPRM, the Commission initiates this rulemaking proceeding seeking comment on its proposals to update part 25 of the Commission's rules to improve the application process for space and earth station applicants and licensees, and remove certain rules and references that are no longer relevant or no longer provide the intended benefit to the Commission. The Commission continues its efforts to modernize and update the regulatory framework to promote investment, innovation, and competition in the space economy proposing to replace part 25 with the new proposed part 100 to implement the proposed revised application framework designed to process review of applications with increased speed and efficiency, while providing applicants with a higher degree of predictability during the licensing process. The Commission also proposes to streamline the information required from space station and earth station applicants and proposes to update the ways in which applications are processed and granted for authorization. We seek comment on these proposals along with a number of other potential changes to the licensing process, operational requirements, reporting and information requirements, and compliance mechanisms.
272. The primary objectives of the proposals in the NPRM are: (1) to increase license processing speed, (2) to provide more predictability to applicants and licensees, (3) to provide more flexibility for innovation and for licensees' operations, and (4) to faithfully meet our statutory responsibilities and international obligations in order to create a space and earth station licensing process that can promote the wide availability and proliferation of communications and new technologies for the public, and efficiently scale with the space economy as it continues to grow. To that end, the cornerstone of the proposed licensing process is whether granting a license will serve the “public convenience, interest, or necessity” based on the assessment of harmful interference, spectrum efficiency, space safety, and foreign ownership which could undermine the continued growth of the space economy and hinder the public's access to advanced communications services and emerging technologies if not evaluated. The Commission anticipates the modernization of its space and earth station licensing rules and processes to meet the current needs of the space industry, and allow for future expansion and growth of the space economy will facilitate better access and opportunity for companies to enter and compete in the space industry.
273. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i), 7(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 332.
274. 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 SBA. A “small business concern” is one in 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. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so.
275. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small business represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant in their 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, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than fifty thousand. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.
276. The rules proposed in the NPRM will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the industries identified below.
277. The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
278. The NPRM proposes a number of rule changes that will affect the application and licensing process and requirements for space and earth station operators. The NPRM proposes to add an additional milestone deployment requirement, increasing the number of milestone requirements for NGSO systems from two to three, each requiring notice to the Commission of meeting the respective milestone. However, the Commission proposes to remove the milestone requirement for GSO system operators.
279.
280. The NPRM proposes that certain written explanation filings will be replaced with certifications requirements, which will reduce the burdens of administrative preparation and filings. For example, the Commission proposes to align its certification requirements in this proceeding with a May 2025 rulemaking proposing foreign adversary ownership certification and information collection requirements for all entities holding Commission licenses or authorizations. Applicants would still need to include ownership charts and plans for managing orbital debris under this proposal. The Commission also proposes the requirement that all applications must be filed electronically. This new approach is expected to reduce administrative work requirements and delays, making the licensing process more predictable and easier for companies to plan around. It is also designed to be scalable to grow with the industry which will benefit small entities. Cost savings for small entities will result from removing repetitive paperwork, simplifying forms, reducing the need for STA and waiver requests, and allow for future automation. Further, because the proposed process is less cumbersome and more straightforward, it is likely that small applicants will not need to hire lawyers or engineers for routine filings, although more complex cases may still require professional assistance.
281.
282.
283. To address space system safety and ensure that licensees are monitoring the safety and efficacy of licensed and operating systems, the NPRM proposes a reporting requirement that would require licensed operators of NGSO systems to report on the safety of their operating systems on a biannual basis. The semi-annual reports would cover a preceding six-month period on space system safety, the number of conjunction events, the number of satellites removed from operation or screened from further deployment, and the number of satellites that re-entered the atmosphere. The proposed rules in the NPRM also update requirements for orbital debris mitigation and end-of-life reporting. These measures are expected to promote safer and more efficient operations while reducing long-term costs by helping to prevent collisions and avoid regulatory delays. Small entities are likely to experience additional cost savings from streamlined antenna and radiation hazard rules, as well as the elimination of outdated technical standards and redundant reporting.
284. Next we turn to our discussion to the compliance costs for the reporting, recordkeeping and other proposals in the NPRM. The Commission estimates the total cost for an operator to implement the earth and space station licensing process modernization rules will be $90,000. This estimate is primarily driven by the cost of preparing semi-annual space system safety reports, which require information on the number of conjunction events identified for satellites in the NGSO system during the reporting period, the number of satellites removed from operation or screened from further deployment, and the number of satellites that re-entered the atmosphere. However, overall, we expect that our proposals would significantly reduce regulatory compliance costs, resulting in annual cost savings of at least $165,000 each for small and other operators. We attribute these potential savings to limits on the cases in which operators are required to submit modification filings and STA requests, elimination of the need for applicants to request certain waivers and provide associated showings, elimination of the need for operators to meet certain milestone requirements, elimination of the need for applicants to resubmit an FCC Form 312—Main Form in certain circumstances, ability for applicants to submit an ITU filing without the need for prior filings with the Commission, and elimination of the bond requirement for certain space station operators. Small entities may need to hire professionals to comply with the proposals in the NPRM if adopted however, the degree to which the services of such professionals are required should be reduced in light of the aforementioned elimination of filings, showings and other regulatory requirements. These cost savings are in addition to other benefits that are more difficult to quantify, but nevertheless important, such as reduced harmful interference, increased spectrum efficiency, and space safety.
285. The Commission seeks comment on costs associated with the modernization process we discuss in the NPRM, including but not limited to our estimates, assumptions, calculations, and any costs or other burdens we did not consider and/or include that are relevant to the costs for small and other entities to comply with the proposals in this proceeding.
286. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any significant impact on small entities. The discussion is required to include alternatives such as: “(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 and 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.”
287. The NPRM proposes to reorganize the current part 25 rules and both modify and simplify the existing requirements to provide an updated framework for space and earth station applicants under a new proposed part 100 of the Commission's rules. All of these proposals could lessen the burdens of the licensing process and operational requirements for space and earth station operators. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to replace a number of the current information requirements included on space and earth station applications with certifications, intended to significantly cut down on the time required to prepare and complete applications and the related costs to applicants. Additionally, the
288. To assist with the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact on small entities that may result from the actions and alternatives that have been discussed in this proceeding, the NPRM seeks alternative proposals, and requests information on the potential costs of such alternatives to small and other licensees. The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in response to the NPRM, including costs and benefits information. Alternative proposals and approaches from commenters could also help the Commission further minimize the economic impact on small entities. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this proceeding will shape the final conclusions it reaches, the final alternatives it considers, and the actions it ultimately takes in this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities from the final rules that are ultimately adopted.
289. The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns that they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM.
290. None.
291.
292.
Administrative practice and procedure, Satellites.
For the reasons discussed, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend title 47 of the Code of Federal
47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
The rules and regulations in this part are in addition to and supplement the rules and regulations contained in or to be added to, other parts of this chapter currently in force, or which may subsequently be promulgated, and which are applicable to matters relating to communications by space stations and earth stations.
No person shall use or operate apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by space or earth stations except under, and in
(a) Multiple earth stations in the FSS or MSS, or for SDARS terrestrial repeaters, that may be operated anywhere within a geographic area authorized in the license; or
(b) Multiple space stations in non-geostationary-orbit.
The equivalent power flux density, in dB(W/m
(1) CONUS;
(2) Alaska;
(3) Hawaii;
(4) American Samoa;
(5) Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands; and
(6) Guam/Northern Mariana Islands.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the FCC and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
(b) European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), 650 Route des Lucioles, 06921 Sophia-Antipolis Cedex, France;
(1) ETSI TS 103 129 V1.1.2 (2014-03), “Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Framing structure, channel coding and modulation of a carrier identification system (DVB-CID) for satellite transmission,” Version 1.1.2, March 2014. Incorporation by reference approved for § 25.281(b).
(c) International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland;
(1) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 1: Articles, Article 21, “Terrestrial and space services sharing frequency bands above 1 GHz,” Section V, “Limits of power flux-density from space stations,” Edition of 2024, copyright 2024,
(2) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 1: Articles, Article 22, “Space services,” Section II, “Control of interference to geostationary-satellite systems,” Edition of 2024, copyright 2024,
(3) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix 30, “Provisions for all services and associated Plans and List for the broadcasting-satellite service in the frequency bands 11.7-12.2 GHz (in Region 3), 11.7-12.5 GHz (in Region 1) and 12.2-12.7 GHz (in Region 2),” Edition of 2012,
(4) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix 30A, “Provisions and associated Plans and List for feeder links for the broadcasting-satellite service (11.7-12.5 GHz in Region 1, 12.2-12.7 GHz in Region 2 and 11.7-12.2 GHz in Region 3) in the frequency bands 14.5-14.8 GHz and 17.3-18.1 GHz in Regions 1 and 3, and 17.3-17.8 GHz in Region 2,” Edition of 2012,
(5) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 2: Appendices, Appendix 30B, “Provisions and associated Plan for the fixed-satellite service in the frequency bands 4 500-4 800 MHz, 6 725-7 025 MHz, 10.70-10.95 GHz, 11.2-11.45 GHz and 12.75-13.25 GHz,” Edition of 2012,
(6) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 3: Resolutions and Recommendations, Resolution 76 (Rev.WRC-15), “Protection of geostationary fixed-satellite service and geostationary broadcasting-satellite service networks from the maximum aggregate equivalent power flux-density produced by multiple non-geostationary fixed-satellite service systems in frequency bands where equivalent power flux-density limits have been adopted,” Edition of 2024, copyright 2024,
(7) ITU Radio Regulations, Volume 3: Resolutions and Recommendations, Resolution 85 (WRC-03), “Application of Article 22 of the Radio Regulations to the protection of geostationary fixed-
(8) Recommendation ITU-R M.1186 “Technical Considerations for the Coordination Between Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) Networks Utilizing Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and Other Spread Spectrum Techniques in the 1-3 GHz Band” (1995). Incorporation by reference approved for § 100.284.
(d) Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM). 2200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 102-109, Arlington, VA 22201; email:
(1) RTCM 12800.0, “Satellite Emergency Notification Devices (SENDs),” dated August 1, 2011. Incorporation by reference approved for § 100.2901.
(a) Space and SCS earth stations providing SCS are subject to technical rules in parts 2, 22, 24, and 27 of this chapter where applicable.
(b) Space and earth stations in the Experimental Radio Service may be subject to licensing under part 5 of this chapter.
(c) Space and earth stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band may be subject to transition rules in part 27 of this chapter.
(d) Ship earth stations in the Maritime Mobile-Satellite Service transmitting in the 1626.5-1646.5 MHz band are subject to licensing under part 80 of this chapter.
(e) Earth stations in the Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite (Route) Service are subject to licensing under part 87 of this chapter.
(f) Space and earth stations in the Amateur Satellite Service are licensed under part 97 of this chapter.
(a) Any state or local zoning, land-use, building, or similar regulation that materially limits transmission or reception by satellite earth station antennas or imposes more than minimal costs on users of such antennas, is preempted unless the promulgating authority can demonstrate that such regulation is reasonable, except that nonfederal regulation of radio frequency emissions is not preempted by this section. For purposes of this paragraph (a), reasonable means that the local regulation:
(1) Has a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective that is stated in the text of the regulation itself; and
(2) Furthers the stated health, safety or aesthetic objective without unnecessarily burdening the federal interests in ensuring access to satellite services and in promoting fair and effective competition among competing communications service providers.
(b)
(1) Any state or local zoning, land-use, building, or similar regulation that affects the installation, maintenance, or use of a satellite earth station antenna that is two meters or less in diameter and is located or proposed to be located in any area where commercial or industrial uses are generally permitted by non-federal land-use regulation shall be presumed unreasonable and is therefore preempted subject to paragraph (b)(2) of this section. No civil, criminal, administrative, or other legal action of any kind shall be taken to enforce any regulation covered by this presumption unless the promulgating authority has obtained a waiver from the Commission pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, or a final declaration from the Commission or a court of competent jurisdiction that the presumption has been rebutted pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(2) Any presumption arising from paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be rebutted upon a showing that the regulation in question:
(i) Is necessary to accomplish a clearly defined health or safety objective that is stated in the text of the regulation itself;
(ii) Is no more burdensome to satellite users than is necessary to achieve the health or safety objective; and
(iii) Is specifically applicable on its face to antennas of the class described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(c) Any person aggrieved by the application or potential application of a state or local zoning or other regulation in violation of paragraph (a) of this section may, after exhausting all nonfederal administrative remedies, file a petition with the Commission requesting a declaration that the state or local regulation in question is preempted by this section. Nonfederal administrative remedies, which do not include judicial appeals of administrative determinations, shall be deemed exhausted when:
(1) The petitioner's application for a permit or other authorization required by the state or local authority has been denied and any administrative appeal and variance procedure has been exhausted;
(2) The petitioner's application for a permit or other authorization required by the state or local authority has been on file for ninety days without final action;
(3) The petitioner has received a permit or other authorization required by the state or local authority that is conditioned upon the petitioner's expenditure of a sum of money, including costs required to screen, pole-mount, or otherwise specially install the antenna, greater than the aggregate purchase or total lease cost of the equipment as normally installed; or
(4) A state or local authority has notified the petitioner of impending civil or criminal action in a court of law and there are no more nonfederal administrative steps to be taken.
(d) Procedures regarding filing petitions requesting declaratory rulings and other related pleadings will be set forth in subsequent Public Notices. All allegations of fact contained in petitions and related pleadings must be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof.
(e) Any state or local authority that wishes to maintain and enforce zoning or other regulations inconsistent with this section may apply to the Commission for a full or partial waiver of this section. Such waivers may be granted by the Commission in its sole discretion, upon a showing by the applicant that local concerns of a highly specialized or unusual nature create a necessity for regulation inconsistent with this section. No application for waiver shall be considered unless it specifically sets forth the particular regulation for which waiver is sought. Waivers granted in accordance with this section shall not apply to later-enacted or amended regulations by the local authority unless the Commission expressly orders otherwise.
(f) A satellite earth station antenna that is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite services, that is one meter or less in diameter or is located in Alaska is covered by the regulations in § 1.4000 of this chapter.
(a) For purposes of this section, applications include all filings by an entity related to any application or authorization under this part including space and earth station applications, requests for market access, amendments, modifications, and requests for special
(b) All applications must be filed electronically and submitted via the International Communications Filing System (ICFS), or any successor system designated by the Space Bureau.
(c) The Commission delegates to the Space Bureau the authority to issue public notices directing changes in the form and format for filing all space station and earth station applications and other filings under this part. Filing in the specified form and format is a requirement of the application.
(d) All applicants must submit FCC Form 312—Main Form.
(e) Space station applicants must submit the information required in §§ 100.110, 100.111, and 100.112 on FCC Form 312—Main Form, Schedule O, and Schedule F.
(f) An application for a multi-orbit or multi-service system must provide the required information for each of the proposed orbits and services that are described in § 100.110.
(g) Earth station applicants must submit the general information required in § 100.120 and the information required by §§ 100.120 and 100.121 on FCC Form 312—Main Form and Schedule B.
(h) Applications for Commission consent to the assignment of a license or the transfer of control of a licensee, and notifications of assignment or transfer of control when permitted under this part, must be filed on FCC Form 312—Main Form and Schedule A.
(i) Requests for U.S. market access must include all additional information required by § 100.114.
(j) Applicants may submit required or additional information as a supplement or exhibit to the application filed contemporaneously with the FCC Form 312—Main Form, or any other required schedule or form, in the case of technical limitations with the designated forms.
(k) Application fees must be paid at the time of filing your application in ICFS. A schedule of application fees applicable to this part can be found at § 1.1107 in this chapter. If an application is dismissed, the applicant will generally not be entitled to a refund of the filing fee.
(l) Applicants must respond completely and accurately to all questions and certifications.
(m) Each applicant is responsible for the continuing accuracy and completeness of information furnished in a pending application consistent with the requirements of § 1.65 of this chapter.
(a) Applicants filing the FCC Form 312—Main Form must include the following information:
(1)
(i) The name, email, and phone number of the applicant and a designated contact, if different from the applicant; and
(ii) The name, mailing address, email, and telephone number of the person(s), including counsel, to whom inquiries or correspondence should be directed.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(3)
(i) A certification waiving any claim to the use or ownership of any particular frequency or of the electromagnetic spectrum as against the regulatory power of the United States because of the previous use of the same, whether by license or otherwise as required by 47 U.S.C. 304.
(ii) A certification that neither the applicant nor any party to the application is subject to a denial of federal benefits that includes FCC benefits pursuant to the Anti-Drug Act of 1988, 21 U.S.C. 862, because of a conviction for possession or distribution of a controlled substance.
(iii) An attestation under penalty of perjury that all information submitted on or associated with any FCC Form 312—Main Form, or that will be associated with FCC Form 312—Main Form, has been verified for accuracy and believed to be complete and accurate at the time of submission.
(b) A single FCC Form 312—Main Form may be associated with multiple applications filed by the same applicant or licensee. If an applicant or licensee already has a current FCC Form 312—Main Form on file when it files an additional authorization request, it may certify that it has a current FCC Form 312—Main Form on file that is complete and accurate.
(a) Applicants for space station licenses must submit the following information:
(1) Type of authorization requested;
(2) Requested license term in years, if different than the default terms in § 100.149;
(3) Contact information, if different than the contact information listed on the FCC Form 312—Main Form associated with the applicant:
(i) Name, address, email, and telephone number of the applicant;
(ii) Name, address, email, and telephone number of the person(s), including counsel, to whom inquiries or correspondence should be directed;
(iii) Name, address, email, and telephone number of the person(s) or entity with the authority and capability to cease transmissions of any service for which the application seeks authorization and who must be available 24/7 365 days a year and located within the United States;
(4) A comprehensive statement describing the satellite system, including orbits, any service(s) to be provided, and planned operations (including the service areas); and
(5) A brief description of how the proposed operations would serve the public interest.
(b) An operator may apply for multiple GSO satellites under a single call sign so long as all necessary information is provided for each space station listed in the application.
(c) To the extent that satellites in an NGSO satellite system will be technically identical, the applicant may submit an application for a blanket license for those satellites that are technically identical. If the satellites and space stations in the NGSO satellite system will not be technically identical, the applicant must provide the information required for each distinct type.
(a)
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) For operations on the U.S. Arc, the operator will comply with the 2-degree spacing requirements; and
(ii) The space station(s) will comply with the orbital debris rules in § 100.260.
(3)
(4)
(c)
(1)
(i) The number of satellites in the constellation,
(ii) The number of in-orbit spares if any,
(iii) The orbital planes and the number of satellites in each plane,
(iv) The inclination of the orbital plane(s),
(v) The orbital period,
(vi) The apogee,
(vii) The perigee,
(viii) The argument(s) of perigee,
(ix) Active service arc(s),
(x) Right ascension of the ascending node(s),
(xi) The initial phase angle at the reference time for each satellite in each orbital plane,
(xii) The tolerances with which the orbital parameters will be maintained, including apogee, perigee, inclination, and the right ascension of the ascending node(s), and
(xiii) Estimated operational lifetime of each satellite in the constellation.
(2)
(i) The space station(s) will operate only in non-geostationary orbit;
(ii) The space station(s) will be identifiable by a unique signal-based telemetry marker distinguishing it from other space stations or space objects;
(iii) The satellite(s) will be 10 cm or larger in the smallest dimension;
(iv) The operator will take appropriate steps to assess and mitigate collision risk upon receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, including, but not limited to: contacting the operator of any active spacecraft involved in such a warning, sharing ephemeris data and other appropriate operational information with any such operator, and modifying satellite attitude and/or operations.
(v) The probability that any individual satellite will become a source of debris by collision with small debris or meteoroids that would cause loss of control and prevent disposal is 0.01 (1 in 100) or less, as calculated using the most current at the time of filing NASA Debris Assessment Software or a higher fidelity assessment tool;
(vi) The probability of collision between each satellite and any large object (10 centimeters or larger) during the orbital lifetime of the space station, including any de-orbit phases is 0.001 (1 in 1,000) or less, as calculated using the most current at the time of filing NASA Debris Assessment Software or higher fidelity tool. The collision risk may be assumed zero for a satellite during any period in which the satellite will be maneuvered effectively to avoid colliding with large objects;
(vii) The probability of human casualty from portions of the spacecraft surviving re-entry and reaching the surface of the Earth with a kinetic energy in excess of 15 joules is 0.0001 (1 in 10,000) or less, as calculated using the most current at the time of filing NASA Debris Assessment Software or higher fidelity tool;
(viii) The stored energy will be removed at the end of life for each satellite, by depleting residual fuel and leaving all fuel line valves open, venting any pressurized system, leaving all batteries in a permanent discharge state, and removing any remaining source of stored energy, or through other equivalent procedures;
(ix) The space station(s) will be disposed of via atmospheric re-entry;
(x) The space station(s) will de-orbit no later than five years after the end of the mission; and
(xi) The system will maintain a probability of success of disposal of 0.9 or greater for any individual space station.
(3)
(4)
(i) Whether the applicant is requesting an authorization conditioned on a deferred orbital debris showing under § 100.139(a)(2).
(ii) If at any time during the space station(s)' mission or de-orbit phase the space station(s) will transit through any orbits used by any inhabitable spacecraft, a description of the design and operational strategies, if any, that will be used to minimize the risk of collision and avoid posing any operational constraints to the inhabitable spacecraft.
(iii) A description of the design, operation, capability and reliability of maneuverability and deorbit systems, if any, including the quantity of fuel that will be reserved for disposal maneuvers, as well as the anticipated evolution over time of the orbit of the proposed satellite(s).
(iv) If the space station(s) will not terminate operations in an orbit in or passing through the low-Earth orbit region below 2000 km altitude, the operator must submit a statement indicating whether disposal will involve use of a storage orbit or long-term atmospheric re-entry. If disposal will involve the use of a storage orbit, provide a plot of the long-term (100 years or more) stability of the orbit reflecting the orbit variations over time.
(d)
(1)
(i) The number of spacecraft and the maximum number of spacecraft operating at any one time if the number of operational spacecraft will vary during the course of the license period;
(ii) The range of altitudes (or orbital shell(s)) in which the space station(s) will operate;
(iii) The initial deployment apogee, perigee, and inclination, and
(iv) The planned amount of time expected to be spent in any particular phase of the operations, including earth's orbit, transiting to the moon, lunar orbit, lunar surface, transiting beyond the moon, and/or operating on another celestial body, as applicable to the individual application.
(2)
(i) The space station(s) will be identifiable by a unique signal-based telemetry marker distinguishing it from other space stations or space objects.
(ii) The spacecraft will be 10 cm or larger in the smallest dimension.
(iii) The operator will take appropriate steps to assess and mitigate collision risk upon receipt of a space situational awareness conjunction warning, including, but not limited to: contacting the operator of any active spacecraft involved in such a warning, sharing ephemeris data and other appropriate operational information with any such operator, and modifying spacecraft attitude and/or operations.
(iv) Prior to, and during, any planned maneuvers or rendezvous and proximity operations, the operator will share and update propagated ephemeris and covariance data according to § 100.200(c).
(v) If the spacecraft will terminate its mission beyond the geosynchronous orbit, the spacecraft will be disposed of beyond Earth's orbit.
(vi) For all related space stations under paragraph (d)(5)(iv)(A), operations will be conducted only with the consent of the operator of the related station, and with certification from the other operator to be submitted when consent is finalized.
(vii) For all related space stations under paragraph (d)(5)(iv)(A), the applicant is or will consult with other relevant federal agencies, including but not limited to the State Department and the Commerce Department, as necessary.
(viii) Operations that will terminate in low-earth orbit will comply with § 100.260(e).
(ix) Operations that will terminate at or near the GSO arc will comply with § 100.260(b).
(3)
(i) A completed agreement with one or more relevant government entities, (
(ii) Affirmative certifications to all required certifications for an NGSO satellite system in paragraph (c)(2) of this section or a GSO satellite system in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, depending on the applicant's proposed operations. The applicant must also provide the required orbital debris mitigation plan pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) or (c)(3) of this section.
(4)
(5)
(i) Whether the applicant is requesting a grant conditional on a deferred orbital debris showing under § 100.139(a)(2).
(ii) If at any time during the space station(s)' mission or de-orbit phase the space station(s) will transit through any orbits used by any inhabitable spacecraft, a description of the design and operational strategies, if any, that will be used to minimize the risk of collision and avoid posing any operational constraints to the inhabitable spacecraft.
(iii) Applicants planning to travel beyond the geosynchronous orbit must provide the following information, if known at the time of filing. In the case where such information is not known at the time of filing, the applicant must affirmatively certify that this information will be provided to the Commission as soon as practicable once the information is known, and prior to beginning any such operations.
(A) A description of any instruments or rovers onboard the spacecraft that will engage in radiofrequency communications with the spacecraft while in transit or on the surface of the moon or any other celestial body.
(B) A description of completed or planned coordination with relevant government entities such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO), or other similar groups regarding radio astronomy or space research considerations that may be impacted by any instruments or experiments to be conducted on board or other mitigation of contamination of the lunar environment or other celestial bodies.
(iv) Applicants planning to engage in servicing or otherwise planning to interact with additional spacecraft on-orbit must provide the following information, if known at the time of filing. In the case where such information is not known at the time of filing, the applicant must affirmatively certify that this information will be provided to the Commission as soon as practicable once the information is known, and prior to beginning any such operations.
(A) All FCC file numbers or call signs for any applications or Commission grants related to the proposed operations (
(B) A list of the International Telecommunications Union filings and United Nations Registration information, or the expected State of United Nations Registry, for any space stations or spacecraft not licensed or granted market access by the United States that are related to the proposed operations, including client space stations or spacecraft, spacecraft that have become debris the applicant seeks to remediate, and other space stations or spacecraft the applicant plans to interact with or collaborate with as part of its operations.
(C) A statement disclosing planned proximity operations and addressing debris generation that will or may result from the proposed operations, including any planned release of debris, the risk of accidental explosions, the risk of accidental collision, and measures taken to mitigate those risks.
(a)
(b)
(1) The frequencies that the satellite proposes to both transmit and receive on and the polarization and channelization plan (with carrier
(2) An explanation of how uplink frequency bands would be connected to downlink frequency bands.
(3) Identification of any requested bands for which there are Federal allocations. Applicants shall provide sufficient information to evaluate electromagnetic compatibility with the federal government use of the spectrum, and any additional information requested by the Commission. As part of the coordination process, applicants shall show that they will not cause harmful interference to authorized federal government users, based upon existing system information provided by the federal government.
(4) For each space station, the maximum EIRP, maximum EIRP density and emission bandwidth for each transmitting beam. If the satellite uses shapeable antenna beams, specify instead the maximum possible EIRP, maximum possible EIRP density and emission bandwidth within each shapeable beam's proposed coverage area. Provide this information for each frequency band in which the transmitting antenna would operate. For bands below 15 GHz, specify EIRP density in dBW/4 kHz; for bands at and above 15 GHz, specify EIRP density in dBW/MHz. If the EIRP density varies, specify the maximum possible EIRP density.
(5) For each space station, the receive antenna gain and the gain-to-temperature ratio at beam peak for each receiving beam. For receiving beams fed into transponders, also specify the minimum and maximum saturation flux density at beam peak. If the satellite uses shapeable beams, specify the minimum and maximum gain-to-temperature ratio and the corresponding receive antenna gains within each shapeable beam's proposed coverage area. For shapeable receiving beams fed into transponders, specify the minimum and maximum saturation power flux density within the 0 dB relative antenna gain isoline. Provide this information for each frequency band in which the receiving beam can operate.
(6) For GSO space stations, the predicted antenna gain contour(s) for each transmit and receive antenna beam. The contours should be plotted on an area map with the beam depicted on the surface of the earth with the space station's peak antenna gain pointed at nadir to a latitude and longitude within the proposed service area. The contour(s) should be plotted at 2 dB intervals down to 10 dB below the peak gain and at 5 dB intervals between 10 dB and 20 dB below the peak gain. The plots should be presented in a Graphical Interference Management System (GIMS)-readable format. For intersatellite links, applicants must specify the peak antenna gain and 3 dB beamwidth.
(7) For requests involving NGSO satellites, the predicted antenna gain contour(s) plotted on an area map with the beam depicted on the surface of the earth for each transmit and each receive antenna beam for one space station for each orbital plane if all space stations in the orbital plane are identical. If individual space stations in the NGSO constellation have different antenna beam configurations, specify the predicted antenna gain contours for each transmit and each receive beam for each space station type in each orbital plane requested. The contour(s) should be plotted on an area map with the beam depicted on the surface of the earth with the space stations' peak antenna gain pointed at nadir to a latitude and longitude within the proposed service area. The contour(s) should be plotted at 2 dB intervals down to 10 dB below the peak gain and at 5 dB intervals between 10 dB and 20 dB below the peak gain. The plots should be presented in a Graphical Interference Management System (GIMS)-readable format. For intersatellite links, applicants must specify the peak antenna gain and 3 dB beamwidth.
(8) For space stations with shapable antenna beams, the antenna gain contours, as specified in (6) or (7) of this section, as applicable, for the transmitting beam configuration that results in the highest EIRP density, and the receiving beam configuration with the smallest gain-to-temperature ratio and the highest saturation power flux density for the beams listed in (5) of this section. If the beams are also steerable, include the contours, plotted on an area map, of the 0 dB and −3 dB relative antenna gain isolines that that would result from moving the beam peak around the limit of the effective beam peak area. The proposed maximum coverage area must be clearly specified.
(9) For space stations with steerable antenna beams that are not shapeable, in addition to (6) or (7) of this section, the contours, plotted on an area map, of the 0 dB and −3 dB relative antenna gain isolines that would result from moving the beam peak around the limit of the effective beam peak area. The proposed maximum coverage area must be clearly specified.
(10) In addition to (6) through (9) of this section, area maps showing all of the transmit beams, and all of the receive beams, depicted on the surface of the Earth.
(11) Transmitter and receiver characteristics (transmit power, transmit antenna gain, EIRP density, emission bandwidth, receive antenna gain, receiver noise temperature and receiver bandwidth) and link budget for each of the different links.
(12) For each space station emission (space-to-Earth), the power flux-density at the Earth's surface for the various angles of arrival (0-5°, 5-25°, 25-90°) above the horizontal plane under free-space propagation conditions.
(13) A description how the requested spectrum can be shared with both current and future operators, (
(14) Whether the space station will operate on a common carrier basis.
(c)
(1) The space station(s) will comply with and operate within the applicable service and frequency requirements and technical and operational parameters outlined in the Commission's rules;
(2) The space station(s) will operate under ITU coordination procedures and agreements; and
(3) The space station(s) can be commanded to immediately cease transmissions and the licensee will have the capability to eliminate harmful interference when required under the terms of the license or other applicable regulations.
(d)
(1) Applications for SCS must also provide the information required in § 100.113.
(2) In the Direct Broadcast Satellite service, applicants and licensees shall also provide the Commission with all information it requires in order to modify the plans for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS) in Appendix 30 of the ITU Radio Regulations (RR) and associated feeder-link plans in Appendix 30A of the ITU RR, if the system has technical characteristics differing from those specified in the Appendix 30 BSS Plans, the Appendix 30A feeder link Plans, Annex 5 to Appendix 30, or Annex 3 to Appendix 30A. For such systems, no protection from interference caused by radio
(3) Space station license applications must also include any additional information required by applicable provisions in subpart C of this part:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(a)
(b)
(1) The application must certify that:
(i) A lease notification(s) or application(s), pursuant to § 1.9047 of this chapter, where a single terrestrial wireless licensee holds or multiple co-channel licensees collectively hold all co-channel licenses within the relevant Geographically Independent Area (GIA) in the bands identified in § 2.106(d)(33)(i) of this chapter, or as it pertains to FirstNet, an agreement, is on file with the Commission;
(ii) The current space station licensee under this part or grantee of market access for NGSO or GSO satellite operation under this part seeks modification of authority to provide SCS in the same geographic areas covered in the relevant GIA, or the applicant for a space station license under this part or grant of market access for NGSO or GSO satellite operation under this part seeks to provide SCS in the same geographic areas covered in the relevant GIA; and
(iii) SCS earth stations will qualify as “licensed by rule” earth stations under § 100.120(e).
(2) The application must include a proposal for the prospective SCS system and the certifications described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) The application must include a list of the file and identification numbers associated with the relevant leasing notifications under part 1 of this chapter, application(s), and FCC Form 601(s).
(4) The application must provide a description of the coverage areas that will be served both domestically and internationally, as applicable.
(5) If the licensee is seeking to provide SCS in a foreign administration with a foreign terrestrial partner then the licensee must submit a request for authorization via ICFS to operate in a foreign country which must include a letter from the communications authority approving the SCS operations as well as a letter from the mobile operator certifying that there is a lease agreement between them and the licensee. This request must include the frequencies of operation and a certification that cross-border interference has been assessed and the operations proposed will not cause harmful interference to stations in other countries.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Grant of:
(i) A modification application under this part or request for modification of a grant of market access; or
(ii) An application to launch and operate or for market access;
(2) Approval of a leasing arrangement(s) or agreement(s) under part 1 of this chapter; and
(3) Grant of a valid SCS earth station equipment certification under part 2 of this chapter.
(a) Petitioners for a grant of U.S. market access must provide all the applicable information for the type of system for which they are requesting market access as described in §§ 100.110 through 100.113 and the application requirements general to all applications described in §§ 100.100 and 100.101.
(b) Entities filing a petition for declaratory ruling seeking to access the United States market using a non-U.S.-licensed space station must provide an exhibit demonstrating:
(1) That U.S.-licensed space stations have effective competitive opportunities to provide analogous services in the country in which the non-U.S. licensed space station is licensed; and
(2) For requests to operate using a space station that is not licensed by, or seeking a license from, a member nation of the World Trade Organization for services covered under the WTO BTA, that U.S.-licensed space stations have effective competitive opportunities to provide analogous services in all countries in which communications
(c) Entities filing a petition for declaratory ruling seeking to access the United States must demonstrate that the system, at the time of filing:
(1) Is in orbit and operational;
(2) Has a license from another administration; or
(3) Has been submitted for coordination to the ITU and has been published as “as received.”
(d) Entities filing a petition for declaratory ruling to access the United States market must certify that the non-U.S. licensed space station has complied with all applicable Commission requirements, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Milestones.
(2) Reporting requirements.
(3) Any other applicable service rules.
(4) The surety bond requirement pursuant to § 100.148, for non-U.S.-licensed space stations that are not in orbit and operating.
(5) Entities that have one market access request on file with the Commission for NGSO satellite system operations in a particular frequency band will not be permitted to request access to the U.S. market for another NGSO satellite system in that frequency band in the same processing round subject to §§ 100.141 and 100.241.
(e) Non-U.S. licensed space station operators may file initial petitions for U.S. market access, amendments to petitions, petitions for modification of U.S. market access, petitions for special temporary market access, and other requests for Commission action using the same procedures as space station license applicants, provided they comply with all relevant application and operational requirements, and unless otherwise provided in this part.
(f) A non-U.S. licensed space station operator with a grant of market access may seek special temporary access for operations under the procedures set forth in § 100.144.
(a)
(1) All applicants must provide the name, address, email, and telephone number of the person(s) or entity with the authority and capability to cease transmissions of any service for which the application seeks authority. This person or entity must be available 24/7, 365 days a year and be located within the United States.
(2) Earth station applicants must certify whether the applicant will operate the earth station at the lowest power level to close the link as required by § 100.201.
(3) A certification whether the application complies with all the Commission's rules or if a waiver is requested of any Commission rule.
(4) Earth station applicants must provide the following technical information:
(i) Whether the request is for a blanket license;
(ii) The frequencies that the earth station(s) propose(s) to use;
(iii) If requesting a location area other than nationwide blanket authorization, the applicant must provide the geographic coordinates and operating radius of the earth station(s);
(iv) The proposed relevant power, out of band emission, off axis limits, and power density limits as described in §§ 100.270-100.280;
(v) The antenna type;
(vi) The number of antennas or devices if not requesting an unlimited number;
(vii) If the applicant is not seeking 360 degree coordination, the maximum and minimum elevation and azimuth angles for intended operations for the antenna; and
(viii) Any additional information necessary to complete coordination with federal entities.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(i) Applicants must certify whether the following criteria will or will not be met for all Immovable Earth Stations to be operated under the license:
(A) For non-Nationwide, Non-Site Licenses, that the applicant has completed all required location and frequency specific coordination.
(B) For Nationwide, Non-Site Licenses, that the applicant will register all site locations in ICFS or a successor system and will complete all required location and frequency specific coordination for the registered sites prior to operation.
(C) That the proposed operations meet the relevant power, out of band emission, off axis limits, and power density limits as described in §§ 100.270-100.280.
(ii) Applicants must also provide the geographic coordinates of the proposed Immovable Earth Station for those applications that do not affirmatively certify to all application requirements, or that request a waiver of the Commission's rules, or are subject to an exception outlined in § 100.140 other than federal coordination, or that are not seeking Nationwide, Non-Site License.
(3)
(i) That the proposed operations meet the relevant power, out of band emission, off axis limits, and power density limits as described in § 100.282.
(ii) The radiofrequency exposure meets the requirements of § 100.270.
(iii) The applicant has completed all required location and frequency specific coordination.
(4)
(i) The proposed operations meet the relevant power, out of band emission, off axis limits, and power density limits as described in §§ 100.270-100.280 and 100.283.
(ii) The radiofrequency exposure meets the requirements of § 100.270.
(c)
(d)
(1) An applicant seeking to use SCS earth stations to provide Supplemental Coverage from Space must comply with § 100.113.
(2) A satellite operator licensed under § 100.113 to provide SCS is permitted to communicate with all terrestrial wireless licensee(s)-associated SCS earth stations that have been approved for such use under part 2 of this chapter.
(i) Such earth stations must show compliance with this part and at least one of either part 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter to provide SCS within the technical parameters and provisions associated with the device certification.
(ii) The device certification must show compliance with the licensed parameters of the terrestrial wireless
(3) An earth station may be used for the provision of SCS when:
(i) The satellite operator licensed under § 100.113 is a party to a valid and approved spectrum leasing arrangement or agreement pursuant to § 1.9047 of this chapter with at least one terrestrial wireless licensee(s) licensed under one of either part 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter; and
(ii) That terrestrial wireless licensee(s) has met and operates within all conditions associated with the relevant terrestrial wireless license(s).
(4) A satellite operator authorized to provide SCS under § 100.113 is authorized under this section to communicate with SCS earth stations for any period during which each of the following apply:
(i) The service is provided during the valid duration of any spectrum leasing arrangement or agreement pursuant to § 1.9047 of this chapter between the terrestrial wireless licensee(s) and satellite operator;
(ii) The devices to which service is provided are certified under part 2 of this chapter; and
(iii) The terrestrial wireless licensee(s) is a valid licensee(s) under part 22, 24, or 27 of this chapter.
(5) A satellite operator with SCS authorization via a grant of market access can avail itself of the provisions of this paragraph but, in addition to the parameters established in this section, must also comply with any additional parameters included in the satellite operator's space station market access grant.
(6) A space station licensee operating in conformance with the parameters established in this part does not need a separate earth station authorization for the provision of SCS under this part.
(e)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(a) For applications for which there are no exceptions to expedited processing pursuant to § 100.140:
(1) The application will be placed on public notice pursuant to § 100.132(2)(i);
(2) When an application is placed on public notice pursuant to this subsection, the applicant may begin operating pursuant to the parameters requested in the underlying application that have already been coordinated, if coordination is required as reflected in the filed coordination report. These operations must be on a non-interference, unprotected basis until further action is taken by the Commission on the application.
(b) For applications that are subject to one of the exceptions in § 100.140:
(1) The application will be placed on public notice pursuant to § 100.132(2)(ii).
(2) An application placed on public notice pursuant to this subsection may not begin operations until authorized to do so by the Commission.
(3) An applicant for an immovable earth station that affirmatively certifies to all application requirements in § 100.120 may apply for a Nationwide, Non-Site License. Applicants who seek to operate in frequency bands subject to federal coordination may apply for a blanket authorization or a Nationwide, Non-Site License pursuant to the limits and requirements established in §§ 100.139 and 100.140.
(c) A licensee with a Nationwide, Non-Site License for Immovable Earth Stations must register earth station sites in accordance with the Commission's guidance and certify that any necessary location and frequency specific coordination has been completed prior to operations within the period described in § 100.275.
Applications received by the Commission are given a file number and a unique station identifier for administrative convenience. Neither the assignment of a file number and/or other identifier nor the listing of the application on public notice as received for filing indicates that the application has been found acceptable for filing or precludes subsequent return or dismissal of the application if it is found to be defective or not in accordance with the Commission's rules.
(a) An application will be considered complete if, under the relevant rule section(s), all required information, forms, certifications, exhibits, and showings are included in the application.
(b) Applications with negative certifications and without the appropriate waiver requests or additional information are incomplete and may be dismissed.
(c) If an application is determined to be complete, the Commission will place the application on public notice pursuant to § 100.132.
(d) If an application is determined to be incomplete, the Commission will provide notice within 30 days of filing to the applicant identifying deficiencies related to the completeness of the application. An applicant receiving such notice must either amend or supplement the filed application within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice or the application will be dismissed subject to § 100.135.
(a)
(1) At regular intervals, the Commission will issue public notices listing:
(i) The receipt of applications for new space station licenses that have been accepted for filing;
(ii) The receipt of applications for major amendments to pending applications;
(iii) The receipt of applications for major modifications to space station authorizations;
(iv) Applications for special temporary authority filed pursuant to § 100.144(d);
(v) Significant Commission actions regarding applications; or
(vi) Information that the Commission in its discretion believes to be of public significance.
(2) The following public notice periods will apply to applications that are accepted for filing:
(i) Applications not subject to any identified exceptions under § 100.140 or paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section and STAs filed pursuant to § 100.144(d)(2) will be placed on public notice for a period of seven days.
(ii) Applications subject to an identified exception under § 100.140 and major amendments under 100.143(c) will be placed on public notice for a period of 15 days.
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)(2)(i)-(ii) of this section, applications for stations in the broadcasting or common carrier services, or stations listed in § 309(b)(2)(A)-(E), subject to Section 309 of the Communications Act will be placed on public notice
(b)
(1) At regular intervals, the Commission will issue public notices listing:
(i) The receipt of new earth station applications that have been accepted for filing;
(ii) The receipt of applications for major amendments to pending applications;
(iii) The receipt of applications for major modifications to earth station authorizations;
(iv) Applications for special temporary authority filed pursuant to § 100.144(d); and
(v) Information that the Commission in its discretion believes to be of public significance or where speed is of the essence and efficiency of Commission process will be served thereby.
(2) The following public notice periods will apply to applications that are accepted for filing:
(i) Applications will be subject to the operation procedures described in § 100.121.
(ii) Applications eligible for expedited processing and STAs filed pursuant to §§ 100.144(b)(2)(iv) and (d)(2) or of this chapter will be placed on public notice for a period of seven days.
(iii) Applications that that are not eligible for expedited processing under § 100.140 and major amendments under § 100.143(c) will be placed on public notice for a period of 15 days.
(iv) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b)(2)(i)-(iii) of this section, applications for stations in the broadcasting or common carrier services, or stations listed in § 309(b)(2)(A)-(E), subject to Section 309 of the Communications Act will be placed on public notice following the procedures described in section 309 of the Communications Act for a period of at least 30 days.
(c)
(a) Oppositions, including petitions to deny, petitions for other forms of relief, and other objections must:
(1) Identify the application(s) (including applicant's name, station location, Commission file numbers, and radio service and frequencies involved) with which it is concerned;
(2) Contain the specific allegations of fact to support the relief requested, which shall be supported by affidavit of a person or persons with personal knowledge thereof, and which shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner (or respondent) is a party in interest and that a grant of, or other Commission action regarding, the application would be inconsistent with any of the rules in this chapter or the Communications Act, or otherwise inconsistent with the public interest;
(3) Be timely filed within the designated public notice period, unless designated otherwise by the Commission;
(4) Be filed in accordance with the pleading limitations, periods, and other applicable provisions of §§ 1.41 through 1.52 of this chapter, except that such pleadings or filings must be filed electronically through ICFS; and
(5) Contain a certificate of service showing that it has been served on the applicant in accordance with § 1.47 of this chapter no later than the date the pleading is filed with the Commission.
(b) Reply comments by the party who filed the original pleading must be filed within five days after the expiration of the time for filing oppositions.
(c) Pleadings, oppositions, and comments filed pursuant to this section must address the merits and/or public interest considerations of the application(s) with which they are concerned. Pleadings, oppositions, and comments outside the scope of the application or applications will not be considered.
(1) Pleadings, oppositions, and comments may only be filed during the public notice period. Pleadings, oppositions, and comments filed outside of the public notice period will not be considered without a petition requesting the Commission for leave to file.
(2) An applicant may reply to any pleadings, oppositions, or comments filed against their application within five days of a filing filed pursuant to this section even if the public notice period has closed and need not file a request for leave to file.
(d) The Commission may, in its sole discretion upon request by a petitioner, commenter, or applicant, extend or shorten the filing periods outlined herein, except that the Commission may not shorten the 30-day notice period for applications subject to the requirements of section 309(b) of the Communications Act.
(a) The Commission may request additional information from applicants and licensees to:
(1) Determine completeness of an application;
(2) Understand the facts of informational showings, inconsistencies, execution, or other technical matters, if the factual issue is directly material to the review;
(3) Determine whether an exception in § 100.140 applies to an application;
(4) Resolve matters of concern raised in pleadings, objections, or comments;
(5) Evaluate compliance with the Commission's rules, the Communications Act, or other requirements; or
(6) Consider issues which are directly material and necessary for the Commission to evaluate the merits of an application, including evaluating exceptions in § 100.140, under the Commission's rules.
(b) Following any filing period pursuant to §§ 100.132 and 100.133, the Commission will identify all deficiencies requiring additional information or clarification and notify the applicant as follows:
(1) The Commission must clearly identify any deficiencies with an application as soon as practicable;
(2) The Commission must raise all known or identified deficiencies in an initial request for information;
(3) Applicants must respond completely to all deficiencies raised in a request for additional information within the prescribed time frame and in the manner required by the information request;
(4) If an applicant's response raises additional issues outside the scope of an initial information request the Commission may request additional information from the applicant; and
(5) Nothing in this rule part prevents the Commission from issuing subsequent information requests if the applicant fails to fully respond to the initial information request except that the Commission must adhere to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(4) of this section when issuing any subsequent information requests.
(a) Unless otherwise specified, dismissal or return of an application is without prejudice.
(b) An application will be deemed unacceptable for filing and may be dismissed with a brief statement identifying the reason if:
(1) The application is determined incomplete pursuant to § 100.131 and
(2) The application does not contain all necessary forms, unless the applicant is filing the FCC Form 312—Main Form without any associated schedules pursuant to § 100.101;
(3) The application fails to propose a Licensable System as defined in § 100.3;
(4) The application is filed for a specific type of authority (
(5) The application or any associated waiver requests do not comply with the relevant application requirements as described §§ 100.100 through 100.121;
(6) The application is duplicative of a pending application on file with the Commission; or
(7) The application contains, or clearly appears to contain, materially false information.
(c) Applications for space station licenses found defective under paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be accepted for filing if:
(1) The application is accompanied by a request which sets forth the reasons in support of a waiver of (or exception to), in whole or in part, any specific rule, regulation, or requirement with which the application is in conflict; or
(2) The Commission, upon its own motion, waives (or allows an exception to), in whole or in part, any rule, regulation, or requirement.
(d) The Commission will dismiss an application for failure to prosecute or failure to respond substantially within a specified time period to official correspondence or requests for additional information.
(e) An application that is not accompanied by the appropriate application fee in accordance with part 1, subpart G of this chapter will be dismissed by the Commission.
(f) An applicant may request that an application be dismissed or returned without action at any time prior to final action by the Commission but will not be entitled to a refund of filing fees.
(g) Applicants may withdraw an application at any time prior to final action by the Commission. Withdrawal will be without prejudice.
(a) Applications for a new space station or earth station authorization, or for modification or renewal of an existing station authorization, will be reviewed under the presumption that any requested authorization is in the public interest if the application demonstrates compliance with the Commission's rules, regulations, and policies.
(b) An application will be granted if, upon examination of the application, any pleadings or objections filed, and upon consideration of such other matters as it may officially notice, the Commission finds that the applicant is legally, technically, and otherwise qualified, that the proposed facilities and operations comply with all applicable rules, regulations, and policies, and that grant of the application will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
(a)
(b)
(1) It would result in an exception under § 100.140;
(2) It requests a waiver of the Commission's rules;
(3) It would increase power, power density, or increase in the out-of-band emissions beyond what is permitted in the Commission's rules;
(4) It would result in modification of the antenna pattern(s) or antenna gain characteristics beyond what is permitted in the Commission's rules;
(5) It would require operations outside of already coordinated ranges or require re-coordination with federal agencies;
(6) It seeks to add frequencies;
(7) It would cause an increased risk of radiofrequency exposure to humans beyond what is permitted pursuant to § 100.270;
(8) For non-blanket licensed earth stations, it proposes a change of more than 10 seconds from the initially requested location; or
(9) If the amendment, or the cumulative effect of the amendment, is determined by the Commission otherwise to be substantial pursuant to section 309 of the Communications Act.
(a)
(1) For an application for a space station authorization, no later than 30 days after the application is filed and application fee has been paid as reflected in the FCC's fee filing system, the Commission will place the application on public notice, dismiss the application, or identify for the applicant additional information required to achieve completeness.
(2) The Space Bureau will place an application on public notice as soon as practicable once an application is determined to be complete pursuant to § 100.131.
(3) If full action (
(b)
(1) For an earth station application filed pursuant to § 100.120, no later than 30 days after the application is filed and application fees have been received as reflected in the FCC's fee filing system, the Commission will place the application on Public Notice, dismiss the application, or identify for the applicant additional information required to achieve completeness.
(2) The Bureau will place an application on Public Notice as soon as practicable once an application is determined to be complete.
(3) If full action (
(4) Applications for earth station renewals that affirmatively certify to all certifications described in § 100.120 and do not request a waiver of any of the Commission's rules will be deemed granted 30 days after filing the
(a) The Commission may conditionally grant an application under the circumstances described in this section.
(1)
(2)
(i) Operations authorized by the conditional grant under this section must be on an unprotected, non-interference basis and are limited only to the operations requested and coordinated, if coordination is required, in the underlying application;
(ii) The space station may be launched or integrated into a launch vehicle only with express approval from the Commission;
(iii) Operations under a conditional grant are entirely at the grant holder's own risk and the Commission may revoke the conditional grant at any time. Upon receipt of revocation notice from the Commission, the conditional licensee or grantee must immediately cease all operations, other than those required to maintain control of the apparatus.
(3)
(i) The applicant must provide all information required by §§ 100.110, 100.111, 100.112, and 100.113, as necessary, except the orbital debris plan and related certifications.
(ii) The applicant must certify that the finished and operational satellite system detailed in the application will comply with all the requirements in § 100.260 and § 100.111, including affirmative certifications.
(iii) The applicant must certify that it will submit a complete orbital debris plan that demonstrates compliance with § 100.260 and supports the affirmative orbital debris certifications in § 100.111 at least 6 months prior to integration of any satellites for which authority is sought with a launch vehicle.
(iv) A licensee conditionally authorized under this section that cannot demonstrate compliance with § 100.260 or provide an orbital debris mitigation plan that supports the affirmative orbital debris certifications in § 100.111 at least 6 months prior to integration with a launch vehicle must file a major modification application pursuant to § 100.143 and receive Commission approval prior to beginning operations.
(A) The filing of a major modification under paragraph (a)(3)(iv) of this section will render the conditional grant null and void.
(B) The major modification will be placed on public notice pursuant to § 100.132.
(4)
(5)
(a) For complete applications, exceptions to expedited processing will be identified based on the materials available to the Commission.
(b) Applications for which there are no exceptions identified are presumed eligible for grant in the public interest and generally will be acted upon as soon as practicable while applications with identified exceptions will require additional review to determine if a grant is in the public interest.
(c) Exceptions to expedited processing are as follows:
(1)
(i) If an applicant does not affirmatively certify to all of the certifications required in the application and described in §§ 100.100 through 100.121, that are applicable to the request, the Commission will remove the application from expedited processing.
(ii) The Commission will review materials supplied regarding any negative certifications to determine with respect to that element of the application whether grant is in the public interest.
(2)
(i) If an application is accompanied by a request for waiver of the Commission's rules the Commission will remove the request from expedited processing unless the waiver request is deemed to be for a purely administrative issue;
(ii) The Commission will review materials supplied regarding the waiver request to determine whether grant of the waiver is in the public interest.
(3)
(4)
(i) If the Commission determines that an application or petition for declaratory ruling to access the U.S. market should be subject to processing round procedures, the Commission will place an application into the appropriate processing round pursuant to the procedures described in § 100.141.
(ii) The Commission will place an application into a processing round if it determines:
(A) the application seeks to operate in a frequency band identified by the Commission as a “processing round-eligible” frequency band; and
(B) the applicant is subject to the surety bond requirement pursuant to § 100.148(a); or
(C) If the applicant is not subject to the surety bond requirement but requests inclusion into a processing round for a processing-round eligible frequency band.
(iii) If the Commission grants an authorization for an NGSO satellite system outside of a processing round, then the operations of the NGSO satellite system must be compatible with existing operations in the authorized frequency band(s) and must not materially constrain future space station entrants from using the authorized frequency band(s).
(5)
(6)
(7)
(d) The Commission will determine whether a request for authorization is in the public interest despite any identified exceptions, after reviewing materials provided by the applicant and any comments received with respect to each element of a request related to the identified exception.
(e) In addition to applying any other applicable Commission rules, statutory requirements, and public interest considerations, the Commission will determine whether an element of a request related to an identified exception is in the public interest based on whether granting the request would result in a net benefit to the United States.
(a) The Commission will annually determine specific frequency bands that will be subject to processing rounds. The Commission will announce the list of frequency bands automatically subject to processing rounds via public notice.
(b) Band-specific processing rounds will open on January 1st at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Time of every year and will close the processing round at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on October 31st of the same year.
(1) All applications that are granted in the same year that meet the criteria of § 100.140(c)(4)(ii) will automatically be considered part of the band-specific processing round for that year.
(2) FSS system licensees authorized in the same processing round must share spectrum in accordance with § 100.241(c).
(3) If two or more non-FSS system licensees are authorized in the same processing round, they will be required to coordinate on an equal basis to share the spectrum among all operators licensed in the same processing round. A licensee authorized in an earlier processing round may not prevent licensees granted in later processing rounds from accessing spectrum.
(4) Applications granted in the same processing round will have equal priority that will sunset ten years after the close of the processing round.
(5) Applications granted in subsequent processing rounds must coordinate with and protect already granted operations for a period of ten years from the date of grant.
(c) If an NGSO satellite system operator is licensed in a frequency band prior to the first processing round for that frequency band, the operator must comply with any sharing requirements later applied to licensees authorized in the first processing round in that band.
Applications processed on a first-come, first-served basis will be placed in a queue and considered in the order in which they are filed. Such applications will be granted only if the proposed operation will not cause harmful interference to any previously authorized operations, and the application otherwise meets the criteria for grant.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Major modification requests will be considered as initial requests for licenses under this paragraph.
(2) A major modification is any modification that would:
(i) Result in an exception under § 100.140;
(ii) Require a waiver of the Commission's rules;
(iii) Increase power, power density, or increase in the out-of-band emissions beyond what is permitted in the Commission's rules or limits placed on a license;
(iv) Modify the antenna pattern(s) or antenna gain characteristics or expand the coverage area beyond what is permitted under the licensee's authorization;
(v) Require operations outside of already coordinated ranges or require re-coordination with federal agencies;
(vi) Add frequencies;
(vii) Increase any orbital debris risk beyond that permitted in the licensee's authorization;
(viii) Cause an increased risk of radiofrequency exposure to humans beyond what is permitted pursuant to § 100.270; or
(ix) Remove or change conditions on a license.
(3) A licensee granted a conditional authorization pursuant to § 100.139(a)(2) that is unable to certify in the affirmative to all orbital debris certification requirements at the time of submitting orbital debris information must file a major modification pursuant to this section.
(4) Major modifications require prior authorization from the Commission before a licensee may begin any operations as proposed in the modification.
(5) Applications for major modifications must comply with the application and processing requirements described in §§ 100.100 through 100.121.
(6) Applications for major modifications will be placed on public notice pursuant to § 100.132.
(d)
(1)
(i) A licensee may move and locate satellites across already authorized orbital shells and altitudes but must submit a notification via ICFS no later than 30 days after the change.
(ii) Satellite operators may commence operations in inclined orbit mode without obtaining prior Commission authorization provided that the Commission is notified no later than 30 days after the last north-south station keeping maneuver. The notification must include:
(A) The operator's name;
(B) The date of commencement of inclined orbit operation;
(C) The initial inclination;
(D) The rate of change in inclination per year; and
(E) The expected end-of-life of the satellite accounting for inclined orbit operation, and the maneuvers specified under § 100.260 of the Commission's rules for end-of-life disposal.
(2)
(i) Space station operators may change an antenna, sensor, or microelectronics upon 30 days prior notification to the Commission, if the changes do not cause a change that would result in a major modification.
(ii) An earth station operator may add a point of communication upon seven days prior notification to the Commission.
(A) An earth station applicant may begin operations with the added point of communication under this rule part after filing the FCC Form 312—Main Form and Schedule B in ICFS in
(1) The operator has permission from the satellite operator to communicate with the satellite system;
(2) The earth station operator has completed frequency coordination with other potentially affected licensees as required by Commission rules;
(3) Adding the point of communication does not result in a change classified as a major modification; and
(4) The added point of communication has either an FCC space station license or U.S. market access.
(B) This notification shall constitute a conditional authorization. The conditional authorization will automatically expire and the operator must terminate operations immediately using the new point of communication if, within 15 days of paying the filing fee, the Commission notifies the earth station operator that the added point of communication does not comply with requirements of this paragraph. If the Commission does not provide the foregoing notice within the prescribed period, the conditional authorization will automatically expire and the license will be modified in ICFS to add the point of communication as of the date of payment of the filing fee. Nothing in this rule part prohibits the Commission from pursuing enforcement action after the lapse of the 15-day period for noncompliant operation, including noncompliant operation occurring during the period of conditional authorization.
(iii) A space station licensee may conduct telemetry, tracking and command functions necessary to relocate a U.S.-licensed GSO space station to, and maintain the space station at, a different orbital location on the geostationary arc, without prior authorization, but must provide seven days prior notice to the Commission. The notice must include the following information:
(A) A notification of the date on which the space station is planned to depart from its current orbital location, the planned duration of the drift and the planned date of arrival at the new location.
(B) A certification that the licensee will limit operations of the space station to tracking, telemetry, and command functions.
(C) A description of the frequencies and radiocommunication services to be provided during and after the space station relocation.
(D) A certification that the space station will be relocated to a position within ±0.15° of an orbital location for which a filing of the administration of the United States of America has been recorded in the Master International Frequency Register of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
(E) A certification that the space station has coordinated all operations at the relocated site location under the ITU filing of the administration of the United States of America at that location.
(F) A certification that that the space station will conduct all operations after the relocation within the technical parameters coordinated under the ITU filing of the administration of the United States of America at that location.
(G) A certification that all operations, including any non-telemetry, tracking and command operations, during and after the relocation will be conducted on an unprotected, non-harmful interference basis and that all operations will be coordinated with any existing geostationary space stations to ensure that no harmful interference results from operations during or after the relocation.
(H) A certification that the licensee will file an application to modify the license of the space station to reflect operations at the new location within 60 days.
(I) A certification that the relocation will not result in a lapse of service for any current customer and provides a list of any frequency bands that will not be in use by the licensee at the current orbital location after the relocation of the space station.
(J) A certification that the space station will not be used to bring into use, or maintain the use of, any ITU filing of an administration other than the United States of America.
(K) A certification that:
(1) The licensee has assessed and limited the probability of the satellite(s) becoming a source of debris as a result of collisions with large debris or other operational satellites during or after the relocation;
(2) The proposed station-keeping volume of the space station(s) following relocation will not overlap a station-keeping volume reasonably expected to be occupied by any other space station, including those authorized by the Commission, applied for and pending before the Commission, or otherwise the subject of an ITU filing and either in orbit or progressing towards launch; and
(3) The relocation will not result in any changes to the previously approved orbital debris mitigation plans for the satellite(s), including the end-of-life disposal plans for the satellite(s) and the quantity of fuel that will be reserved for disposal maneuvers.
(L) A certification that the licensee acknowledges that any action taken or expense incurred as a result of the relocation is solely at the licensee's own risk and is without prejudice to any potential enforcement action by the Commission.
(3) Minor modifications are not subject to the public notice requirements in § 100.132, unless the Commission determines that the minor modification, or effect of the minor modification, would qualify as or amount to a major modification under § 100.143(c)(2).
(a) In circumstances requiring immediate or temporary use of facilities, a request may be made for special temporary authority (STA) to install and/or operate new or modified equipment or for modified operations.
(b) A request for STA must be filed in the manner and meeting the requirements of the applicable license type as described in §§ 100.100 through 100.121. Alternatively, a request for STA may instead reference a pending license application if the requested STA is for identical operations as requested in the license application.
(c) No request for temporary authority will be considered unless it is received by the Commission at least 3 business days prior to the date of proposed operation, pursuant to § 1.4 of this chapter. A request received within less than 3 business days may be accepted only upon due showing of extraordinary reasons for the delay in submitting the request which could not have been reasonably foreseen by the applicant.
(d) Other than for those services expressly enumerated in § 309(b) of the Communications Act, the Commission may grant a temporary authorization pursuant to the following:
(1) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization only if there are extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary operations in the public interest and that delay in the institution of these temporary operations would seriously prejudice the public interest.
(2) If placed on public notice, subject to the 7-day public notice period pursuant to § 100.132, the Commission may grant an STA for up to 180 days that may not be renewed or extended. Temporary authorization holders authorized under this paragraph may file for a new STA for up to another 180
(3) If not placed on public notice, the Commission may grant an STA for a period of up to 60 days.
(4) An STA for an earth station not placed on public notice and not subject to federal coordination requirements will be deemed granted upon filing and paying of the application fee and notice of the grant will appear in the actions taken public notice.
(5) An STA holder authorized pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this section cannot file for subsequent STAs without going on public notice pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(e) For operations expressly enumerated in section 309(b) of the Communications Act, the Commission may grant an STA pursuant to the following:
(1) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization only upon a finding that there are extraordinary circumstances requiring temporary operations in the public interest and that delay in the institution of these temporary operations would seriously prejudice the public interest. Convenience to the applicant, such as marketing considerations or meeting scheduled customer in-service dates, will not be deemed sufficient for this purpose.
(2) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization for a period not to exceed 180 days, with additional periods not exceeding 180 days, if the Commission has placed the STA request on public notice.
(3) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization for a period not to exceed 60 days, if the STA request has not been placed on public notice, and the applicant plans to file a request for regular authority for the service.
(4) The Commission may grant a temporary authorization for a period not to exceed 30 days, if the STA request has not been placed on public notice, and an application for regular authority is not contemplated.
(f) Temporary authorizations granted pursuant to this subsection are not of a continuing nature or subject to § 1.62 of this chapter.
(g) All operations authorized by and pursuant to this rule part are on a non-interference, unprotected basis and cannot be modified.
(h) A special temporary authorization shall automatically terminate upon the expiration date specified therein, or upon failure of the grantee to comply with any terms or conditions in the authorization.
The Commission will coordinate with the National Telecommunications Information Administration regarding the operations of any application for license or market access requesting to operate in a shared government/non-government frequency band. The Commission will use its procedures for liaison with NTIA to reach agreement with respect to achieving compatible operations between federal government users under the jurisdiction of NTIA and commercial applicants of the Commission in shared government/non-government frequency bands through the frequency assignment and coordination practices established by NTIA and the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) or any successor organization.
(a)
(b)
(1) Change the party controlling the affairs, operations, or management of the licensee; or
(2) Effect any change in a controlling interest in the ownership of the licensee, including changes in legal or equitable ownership.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(i) Approval does not require a waiver of, or declaratory ruling pertaining to, any applicable Commission rule; and
(ii) The application includes a certification that the proposed transfer of control or assignment is pro forma and that, together with all previous pro forma transactions, it would not result in a change in the actual controlling party.
(d)
(1) A non-U.S.-licensed satellite operator that acquires control of a non-U.S.-licensed space station that is permitted to serve the United States must notify the Commission within 30 days after consummation of the transaction.
(2) If the transferee or assignee is not licensed by, or seeking a license from a country that is a WTO member for services covered under the WTO BTA, the non-U.S.-licensed satellite operator must provide the showings under the market access application procedures in § 100.114.
(3) A non-U.S.-licensed satellite that is transferred to new owners may continue to provide service in the United States unless and until the Commission determines otherwise.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(a) Recipients of an initial authorization for an NGSO satellite system or grant of U.S. market access, other than a SDARS space station license or VTSS authorization, are required to launch, deploy, and operate at least one satellite in accordance with the space station authorization for a continuous period of ninety (90) days and no later than seven years after the grant of the authorization, unless a different schedule is established by Title 47, Chapter 1 or by the Commission.
(b) For recipients of an initial authorization for an NGSO satellite system meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) of this section, other than a SDARS space station license or VTSS authorization, the following milestone requirements apply:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c) A licensee subject to the milestone requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section must either demonstrate compliance with the applicable milestone or notify the Commission in writing that the milestone was not met, within 15 days of the specified deadline.
(1) Compliance with paragraphs (a) of this section may be demonstrated by certifying that a satellite has been launched, placed in an authorized orbital location or non-geostationary orbit(s), and that in-orbit operation of the satellite has been tested, maintained, and found to be consistent with the terms of the authorization for a continuous period of 90 days.
(2) Compliance with the milestone requirements in paragraph (b) of this section may be demonstrated by certifying that the satellites in question have been launched and placed in the authorized orbital location or non-geostationary orbit(s) and that in-orbit operation of the satellites have been tested and found to be consistent with the terms of the authorization.
(d) A space station authorization shall be automatically terminated in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee if the licensee fails to meet an applicable milestone required by paragraph (a) of this section or any other milestone imposed on a NGSO satellite system license as a condition to the license authorization.
(1) If a licensee fails to meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) of this section, the station authorization shall be automatically terminated in whole.
(2) If at least one authorized satellite is functional in an authorized orbit by the milestone date specified in paragraph (a) of this section or imposed as a condition to the license authorization, but fails to meet the milestone requirements in paragraphs (b) or (c)(2) of this section or by a condition of authorization, the space station authorization shall be terminated in part, resulting in the termination of authority to launch and operate additional satellites beyond those already in operation.
(3) After termination of a space station authorization under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, licensees may continue to launch and operate technically identical replacements, such that the total number of satellites operating at any one time is not greater than the number of functional satellites in an authorized orbit at the time of the applicable milestone in paragraph (b) of this section or as imposed as a condition to the license authorization.
(e) Licensees of multi-orbit systems must meet the applicable requirements of this section for each type of satellite in its system.
(f) In cases where the Commission grants more than one space station authorization for the same system in different stages, the milestone schedule as applied to the first authorization will be applied to the entire satellite system.
(a) For all recipients of a license to operate an NGSO satellite system under §§ 100.110 through 100.113 and authorized to operate 200 or more satellites, excluding replacements, the licensee must post a surety bond within 30 days from the date of the license grant.
(b) An NGSO licensee authorized pursuant to § 100.141 must post a bond in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section within 30 days from the date of the license grant, regardless of the number of authorized satellites.
(c) Failure to post a required bond within 30 days will automatically render the license null and void.
(d) An NGSO licensee subject to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must have on file with the Commission a surety bond requiring payment in the event of a default as defined in paragraph (g) of this section, in an amount, at a minimum, determined by the applicable formula:
(1) An NGSO licensee with 200 or more authorized satellites subject to paragraph (a) of this section must have a surety bond on file in an amount determined by the following formula, with the resulting dollar amount rounded to the nearest dollar: B = $10,000 * ((0.9 * A)−D), where B is the bond amount, D is the number of satellites deployed, and A is the number of satellites authorized, excluding replacements.
(2) An NGSO licensee authorized pursuant to § 100.141 with fewer than 200 satellites subject to paragraph (b) of this section must have a surety bond on file in an amount determined by the following formula, with the resulting dollar amount rounded to the nearest dollar: B = $1,800,000 * (1−D/(0.9 * A)), where B is the bond amount, D is the number of satellites deployed, and A is the number of satellites authorized, excluding replacements.
(e) A licensee may reduce the amount of the surety bond required, as determined by paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2)
(f) A licensee will be relieved of the surety bond obligation under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section once the amount of the surety bond, as calculated under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, is zero dollars.
(g) A licensee will be in default of its surety bond obligation filed pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section if it surrenders the license before the amount of the bond required, as calculated under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, is zero dollars.
(h) The licensee must use a surety company deemed acceptable within the meaning of 31 U.S.C. 9304
(a)
(b)
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(2)
(i) The requested duration of the license or market access extension;
(ii) The estimated total remaining space station lifetime;
(iii) A description of any single points of failure or other malfunctions, defects, or anomalies during the satellite's operation that could affect its ability to conduct end-of-life procedures as planned, and an assessment of the associated risk;
(iv) A certification that remaining fuel reserves are adequate to complete de-orbit as planned; and
(v) A certification that telemetry, tracking, and command links are fully functional.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(1) The call signs of any telemetry, tracking, and command earth station(s) communicating with the space station from any site in the United States.
(2) The location, by city and country, of any telemetry, tracking, and command earth station that communicates with the space station from any point outside the United States.
(3) Alternatively, instead of listing the call signs and/or locations of earth stations currently used for telemetry, tracking, and command, the space station operator may provide 24/7 contact information for a satellite control center and a list of the call signs of any U.S. earth stations, and the locations of any non-U.S. earth stations, that are used or may be used for telemetry, tracking, and command communication with the space station(s) in question.
(4) If call sign or location information provided pursuant to this paragraph becomes invalid due to a change of circumstances, the space station operator must file updated information in ICFS within 30 days, except with respect to changes less than 30 days in duration, for which no update is necessary.
(c)
(1) Space station licensees and market access recipients must submit accurate and timely ephemeris data for all spacecraft in their authorized system(s),
(i) The 18th Space Control Squadron or a successor entity as identified by the Commission; or
(ii) One or more U.S. space situational awareness systems which have been identified by the Commission as satisfying this requirement.
(2) Space station operators are responsible for ensuring the quality of data submitted to space situational awareness systems in accordance with the requirements of such systems.
(d)
(1) The number of conjunction events identified for satellites in the NGSO satellite system during the reporting period, including the number of events that resulted in an action such as maneuver or coordination with another operator;
(2) The number of satellites that were removed from operation or screened from further deployment; and
(3) The number of satellites that re-entered the atmosphere.
Licensees under this part may operate within the boundaries of their authorizations, the rules in this part, and any other relevant provision of this chapter, the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, or other statute, subject to any Commission action and any conditions or constraints placed on the license or licensee in any such grant of authority.
(a)
(1) Transmit to a space station unless the specific transmission is first authorized by the satellite network control center;
(2) Conduct transmissions over a space station unless the operator is authorized to transmit at that time by the space station licensee;
(3) Transmit communications to or from earth stations in the United States unless such communications are authorized under a service contract with the holder of a pertinent FCC earth station license or under a service contract with another party with authority for such operation delegated by such a licensee; or
(4) Transmit in any manner that causes harmful interference to the authorized transmission of another licensee unless that licensee is authorized on an unprotected basis.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Space station licensees are responsible for maintaining complete and accurate technical details of current and planned transmissions over their satellites and shall require that authorized users of transponders on their satellites, whether by tariff or contract, provide any necessary technical information in this regard including that required by § 100.240.
(2) Based on this information, space station licensees shall exchange among themselves general technical information concerning current and planned transmission parameters as needed to identify and promptly resolve any potential cases of harmful interference between their satellite systems.
(3) Space station licensees shall provide upon request by the Commission, and by earth station licensees authorized to transmit on their satellites, relevant information needed to avoid harmful interference to other users, including the polarization angles for proper illumination of a given transponder.
(4) Where the operations of a space station or earth station are suspected of causing harmful interference, the station operator shall take reasonable measures to determine whether its operations are the source of interference, and if they are, shall take all measures necessary to resolve the interference.
(5) A record shall be maintained by the space station licensee and/or earth station licensee of all harmful interference incidents and their resolution. These records shall be made available to the Commission upon request.
(6) All licensees are required to cooperate fully with the Commission in any investigation of interference problems.
(h)
(a) Telemetry, tracking, and command signals may be transmitted in frequencies within the assigned bands that are not at a band edge only if the transmissions cause no greater interference and require no greater protection from harmful interference than the communications traffic on the satellite network or, for GSO space stations, have been coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at orbital locations within six degrees of the assigned orbital location.
(b) Frequencies, polarization, and coding of telemetry, tracking, and command transmissions must be selected to minimize interference into other satellite networks.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(1) Earth station licensees authorized to operate with one or more space stations described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall comply with the earth station antenna performance verification requirements in § 100.279.
(2) Earth station licensees with a gain equivalent or higher than the gain of a 1.2 meter antenna operating in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, authorized to operate with one or more space stations described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section in frequency bands greater than 14.5 GHz shall be required to comply with the antenna input power density requirements set forth in § 100.279.
(3) Mobile earth station licensees authorized to operate with one or more space stations must comply with the requirements in § 100.282. In addition, earth station licensees authorized to operate with one or more space stations in frequency bands shared with terrestrial wireless services shall comply with the requirements in § 100.276.
(e)
A space station authorized to operate under this part is also authorized to transmit in connection with short-term, transitory maneuvers directly related to post-launch, orbit-raising or orbit-lowering maneuvers, provided that the following conditions are met:
(a) Authority is limited to those tracking, telemetry, and control frequencies in which the space station is authorized to operate once it reaches its assigned orbital location;
(b) The space station operator will coordinate in good faith on an operator-to-operator basis with any potentially affected satellite networks; and
(c) The space station licensee is required to accept interference from any lawfully operating satellite network or radio communication system.
(a)
(1) In the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, the FSS (Earth-to-space) is secondary to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service authorized pursuant to part 30 of this chapter, except for FSS operations associated with earth stations authorized pursuant to § 100.281.
(2) Use of the 37.5-40 GHz band by the FSS (space-to-Earth) is limited to individually licensed earth stations. Earth stations in this band must not be ubiquitously deployed and must not be used to serve individual consumers.
(3) The U.S. non-Federal Table of Frequency Allocations, in § 2.106 of this chapter, is applicable between Commission space station licensees relying on a U.S. ITU filing and transmitting to or receiving from anywhere on Earth, including airborne earth stations, in the 17.3-20.2 GHz or 27.5-30.0 GHz bands.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(1) 40 dBµV/m for the 600 MHz, 700 MHz, and 800 MHz bands; and
(2) 47 dBµV/m for the AWS and PCS bands; and
(3) Licensees must comply with all applicable provisions and requirements of treaties and other international agreements between the United States Government and the governments of other countries, including Canada and Mexico. Absent specific international agreements regarding SCS, licensees must comply with the limits provided in this section.
(b)
(1) −144 dB (W/m^2) in 4 kHz for all angles of arrival between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane; −144 dB (W/m^2) + 0.65(δ−5) in 4 kHz for all angles of arrival between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(2) −131 dB (W/m^2) in 4 kHz and for all angles of arrival between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane;
(3) −126 dB (W/m^2) in 1 MHz for all angles of arrival between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane; −126 dB (W/m^2) + 0.65(δ−5) in 1 MHz for all angles of arrival between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal plane; and
(4) −113 dB (W/m^2) in 1 MHz and for all angles of arrival between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(c)
(1) −152 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival between 0 and 5 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(2) −152 + (δ−5)/2 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival δ (in degrees) between 5 and 25 degrees above the horizontal plane.
(3) −142 dB(W/m2) in any 4 kHz band for angles of arrival between 25 and 90 degrees above the horizontal plan.
(4) These limits relate to the power flux density which would be obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions.
(d)
(e)
(1) −150 dB(W/m
(2) −126 dB(W/m
These limits relate to the power flux density, which would be obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions.
(f)
(1) −158 dB(W/m
(2) −158 + 3.33(δ−2) dB(W/m
These limits relate to the power flux density which would be obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions.
(g)
(1) −115 dB (W/m
(2) −115 + 0.5 (δ−5) dB (W/m
(3) −105 dB (W/m
(h)
(1) −115 dB(W/m
(2) −115 + 0.5(−5) dB(W/m
(3) −105 dB(W/m
(4) These limits relate to the power flux-density which would be obtained under assumed free-space propagation conditions.
(i)
(1) This limit relates to the power flux-density which would be obtained under assumed free space conditions (that is, when no allowance is made for propagation impairments such as rain-fade):
(i) −132 dB(W/m
(ii) −132 + 0.75 (δ−5) dB(W/m
(iii) −117 dB(W/m
(2) This limit relates to the maximum power flux-density which would be obtained anywhere on the surface of the Earth during periods when FSS system raises power to compensate for rain-fade conditions at the FSS earth station:
(i) −120 dB(W/m
(ii) −120 + 0.75 (δ−5) dB(W/m
(iii) −105 dB(W/m
The conditions under which satellites may exceed these power flux-density limits for normal free space propagation described in this section to compensate for the effects of rain fading are under study and have therefore not yet been defined. Such conditions and the extent to which these limits can be exceeded will be
(j)
(1) This limit relates to the power flux-density which would be obtained under assumed free space conditions (that is, when no allowance is made for propagation impairments such as rain-fade):
(i) −139 dB(W/m
(ii) −139 + 4/3 (δ−5) dB(W/m
(iii) −119 + 0.4 (δ−20) dB(W/m
(iv) −117 dB(W/m
(2) This limit relates to the maximum power flux-density which would be obtained anywhere on the surface of the Earth during periods when FSS system raises power to compensate for rain-fade conditions at the FSS earth station:
(i) −127 dB(W/m
(ii) −127 + 4/3 (δ−5) dB(W/m
(iii) −107 + 0.4 (δ−20) dB(W/m
(iv) −105 dB(W/m
The conditions under which satellites may exceed the power flux-density limits for normal free space propagation described in this section to compensate for the effects of rain fading are under study and have therefore not yet been defined. Such conditions and the extent to which these limits can be exceeded will be the subject of a further rulemaking by the Commission on the satellite service rules.
(k)
(1) −115 dB(W/m
(2) −115 + 0.5 (δ−5) dB(W/m
(3) −105 dB(W/m
(l)
(1) −115 dB(W/m
(2) −115 + 0.5 (δ−5) dB(W/m
(3) −105 dB(W/m
(m)
(1) −120 dB(W/m
(2) −120 + (δ−5) dB(W/m
(3) −110 + 0.5 (δ−15) dB(W/m
(4) −105 dB(W/m
(a)
(1) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to and including 100 percent of the authorized bandwidth: 25 dB.
(2) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 100 percent up to and including 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: 35 dB.
(3) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: an amount equal to 43 dB plus 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of the transmitter power in watts.
(4) In any event, when an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
(b)
(1) For information received before January 1, 2020: −36 dBW.
(2) For information received on or after January 1, 2020: −46 dBW.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(a)
(1) That a proposed system in the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS frequency bands employs a non-geostationary constellation or constellations of satellites;
(2) That a system proposed to operate using non-geostationary satellites be capable of providing MSS to all locations as far north as 70° North
(3) That a system proposed to operate using non-geostationary satellites be capable of providing MSS on a continuous basis throughout the fifty states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands,
(4) That a system only using geostationary orbit satellites, at a minimum, be capable of providing MSS on a continuous basis throughout the 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, if technically feasible.
(5) That operations will not cause harmful interference to other authorized users of the spectrum.
(b)
(1) Stations operating in the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS and 2 GHz MSS that are voluntarily installed on a U.S. ship or are used to comply with any statute or regulatory equipment carriage requirements may also be subject to the requirements of sections 321(b) and 359 of the Communications Act. Licensees are advised that these provisions give priority to radio communications or signals relating to ships in distress and prohibits a charge for the transmission of maritime distress calls and related traffic.
(2) Licensees offering distress and safety services should coordinate with the appropriate search and rescue organizations responsible for the licensees' service area.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Applicants in the NVNG MSS shall show that their space stations will not exceed the emission limitations of § 100.213, as calculated for a fixed point on the Earth's surface in the plane of the space station's orbit, considering the worst-case frequency tolerance of all frequency determining components, and maximum positive and negative Doppler shift of both the uplink and downlink signals, taking into account the system design.
(ii) Applicants in the NVNG MSS service shall show that no signal received by their space stations from sources outside of their system shall be retransmitted with a power flux density level, in the worst 4 kHz, higher than the level described by the applicants in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
If an NGSO MSS satellite transmitting in the 6700-6875 MHz band causes harmful interference to previously licensed co-frequency Public Safety facilities, the satellite operator has an obligation to remedy the interference.
(a) NGSO FSS system licensees and market access recipients operating in the 10.7-30 GHz frequency range must comply with:
(1) Any applicable power flux-density levels in Article 21, Section V, Table 21-4 of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, § 100.4), except:
(i) In the 19.3-19.4 GHz and 19.6-19.7 GHz bands, applicants must comply with the ITU power flux-density limits governing NGSO FSS systems in the 17.7-19.3 GHz band; and
(ii) In the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, applicants must comply with the ITU power flux-density limits governing NGSO FSS systems in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band.
(2) Any applicable equivalent power flux-density levels in Article 22, Section II, and Resolution 76 of the ITU Radio Regulations (both incorporated by reference, § 100.4), except that for operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, operators must comply with the ITU equivalent power flux-density limits applicable to NGSO FSS system operations in the 17.8-18.4 GHz band.
(b) Prior to the initiation of service, an NGSO FSS operator licensed or holding a market access authorization to operate in the 10.7-30 GHz frequency range must receive a “favorable” or “qualified favorable” finding by the ITU Radiocommunication Bureau, in accordance with Resolution 85 of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, § 100.4), regarding its compliance with applicable ITU EPFD limits. In addition, a market access holder in these bands must:
(1) Communicate the ITU finding to the Commission; and
(2) Submit the input data files used for the ITU validation software.
(a)
(1) An applicant for GSO FSS space station operation involving transmission of analog video signals must certify that the proposed analog video operation has been coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations within six degrees of the requested orbital location.
(2) An applicant for GSO FSS space station operation, including applicants proposing feeder links for space stations operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS, that will be located at an orbital location less than two degrees from the assigned location of an authorized co-frequency GSO space station, must either certify that the proposed operation has been coordinated with the operator of the co-frequency space station or submit an interference analysis demonstrating the compatibility of the proposed system with the co-frequency space station. Such an analysis must include, for each type of radio frequency carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall link performance analysis. (See Appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-Satellite Service, FCC 83-184, and the following public notices, copies of which are available in the Commission's EDOCS database, available at
(3) An applicant for a GSO FSS space station, including applicants proposing feeder links for space stations operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS, must provide the following for operation other than analog video operation:
(i) With respect to proposed operation in the conventional or extended C-bands, a certification that downlink EIRP density will not exceed 3 dBW/4kHz for digital transmissions or 8 dBW/4kHz for analog transmissions and that associated uplink operation will not exceed applicable EIRP density envelopes in § 100.280 unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink operation is coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within six degrees of the orbital location of the proposed space station and except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(ii) With respect to proposed operation in the conventional or extended Ku-bands, a certification that downlink EIRP density will not exceed 13 dBW/4kHz for digital transmissions or 17 dBW/4kHz for analog transmissions and that associated uplink operation will not exceed applicable EIRP density envelopes in § 100.280 unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink operation is coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within six degrees of the orbital location of the proposed space station and except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(iii) With respect to proposed FSS operation in the conventional or extended Ka-bands, a certification that the proposed space station will not generate power flux density at the Earth's surface in excess of the limits in paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, and that associated uplink operation will not exceed applicable EIRP density envelopes in § 25.218(i) unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink operation is coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within six degrees of the orbital location and except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(A) −118 dBW/m
(B) For space-to-Earth FSS transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in the region of the contiguous United States, located west of 100 West Longitude: −121 dBW/m
(iv) With respect to proposed operation in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space), a certification that the proposed uplink operation will not exceed the applicable EIRP density envelopes in § 100.280 and that the associated space station will not generate a power flux density at the Earth's surface in excess of the applicable limits in this part, unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink FSS operation is coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within six degrees of the orbital location and except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(v) With respect to proposed operation in the 4500-4800 MHz (space-to-Earth), 6725-7025 MHz (Earth-to-space), 10.70-10.95 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.20-11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth), and/or 12.75-13.25 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands, a statement that the proposed operation will take into account the applicable requirements of Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, see § 100.4) and a demonstration that it is compatible with other U.S. ITU filings under Appendix 30B.
(vi) With respect to proposed operation in other FSS bands, an interference analysis demonstrating compatibility with any previously authorized co-frequency space station at a location two degrees away or a certification that the proposed operation has been coordinated with the operator(s) of the previously authorized space station(s). If there is no previously authorized space station at a location two degrees away, the applicant must submit an interference analysis demonstrating compatibility with a hypothetical co-frequency space station two degrees away with the same receiving and transmitting characteristics as the proposed space station.
(b)
(1) Each applicant for a license to operate a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must provide the following information:
(2) An applicant for a license to operate a 17/24 GHz BSS space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must certify that the downlink power flux density on the Earth's surface will not exceed the regional power flux density limits listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section:
(i) In the region of the contiguous United States, located south of 38° North Latitude and east of 100° West Longitude: −115 dBW/m
(ii) In the region of the contiguous United States, located north of 38° North Latitude and east of 100° West Longitude: −118 dBW/m
(iii) In the region of the contiguous United States, located west of 100° West Longitude: −121 dBW/m
(iv) For all regions outside of the contiguous United States including Alaska and Hawaii: −115 dBW/m
(3) Except as described in paragraph (b)(5) of this section, the following applicants must either certify that their proposed operations have been coordinated with the adjacent operator of a previously authorized or proposed co-frequency space station, or must provide an interference analysis of the kind described in this section, except that the applicant must demonstrate that its proposed network will not cause more interference to the adjacent space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8
(i) Applicants for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to be located less than four degrees from a previously authorized or proposed co-frequency 17/24 GHz BSS space station;
(ii) Applicants for a FSS space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to be located less than four degrees from a previously authorized or proposed co-frequency 17/24 GHz BSS space station; and
(iii) Applicants for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to be located less than four degrees from a previously authorized or proposed co-frequency FSS space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.
(4) Where an authorized or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS or FSS space station is located within four degrees of a previously authorized or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station, no new third proposed 17/24 GHz BSS or FSS space station may be located within eight degrees of the first authorized or proposed space station in the same direction as the second authorized or proposed space station, unless the applicant for the third space station certifies that its proposed operation has been coordinated with the operator of the first previously authorized or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station, or the applicant for the third proposed space station provides an interference analysis of the kind described in this section, or the applicant for the third proposed space station demonstrates that its proposed network will not cause more interference to the first previously authorized or proposed space station than if the applicant for the third proposed space station were located at an orbital separation of eight degrees from the first previously authorized or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space station.
(5) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)-(4) of this section, the link budget for any satellite transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band (space-to-Earth) must take into account longitudinal station-keeping tolerances. Any applicant for a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that has reached a coordination agreement with an operator of another space station to allow that operator to exceed the PFD levels specified in paragraph (a)(3)(iii) or (b)(2) of this section, must use those higher PFD levels for the purpose of this showing.
(c)
(1) An operator of a GSO FSS space station in the conventional or extended C-bands, conventional or extended Ku-bands, 24.75-25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space), or conventional or extended Ka-bands may notify the Commission of its non-routine transmission levels and be relieved of the obligation to coordinate such levels with later applicants and petitioners.
(2) The letter notification must include the downlink off-axis EIRP density levels or power flux density levels and/or uplink off-axis EIRP density levels, specified per frequency range and space station antenna beam, that exceed the relevant routine limits set forth in paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section and § 100.280.
(3) Non-routine transmissions notified pursuant to this section need not be coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations that filed their complete applications or petitions after the date of filing of the notification with the Commission. Such later applicants and petitioners must accept any additional interference caused by the notified non-routine transmissions.
(4) An operator of a replacement space station, may operate with non-routine transmission levels to the extent permitted under this section for the replaced space station.
(d)
(1) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used to provide video programming directly to consumers in the 48 contiguous United States (CONUS) must provide comparable service to Alaska and Hawaii, unless such service is not technically feasible or not economically reasonable from the authorized orbital location.
(2) Each operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section must design and configure its space station to be capable of providing service to Alaska and Hawaii, that is comparable to the service that such satellites will provide to CONUS subscribers, from any orbital location capable of providing service to either Alaska or Hawaii to which it may be located or relocated in the future.
(3) If an operator of a 17/24 GHz BSS space station that is used to provide video programming directly to consumers in the United States relocates or replaces a 17/24 GHz BSS space station at a location from which service to Alaska and Hawaii had been provided by another 17/24 GHz BSS space station, the operator must use a space station capable of providing at least the same level of service to Alaska and Hawaii as previously provided from that location.
(a) A 17/24 GHz BSS or FSS applicant seeking to transmit in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band may be authorized to operate a space station at levels up to the maximum power flux density limits defined in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section without coordinating its power flux density levels with adjacent licensed or permitted operators, as follows:
(1) For 17/24 GHz BSS applicants, up to the power flux density levels specified in § 100.230 only if there is no licensed space station, or prior-filed application for a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band at a location less than four degrees from the orbital location at which the applicant proposes to operate; and
(2) For FSS space station applicants transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, up to the maximum power flux density levels in § 100.230, only if there is no licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space station, or prior-filed application for a 17/24 GHz BSS space station, at a location less than four degrees from the orbital location at which the FSS applicant proposes to operate, and there is no licensed FSS space station, or prior-filed application for an FSS space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, at a location less than two degrees from the orbital location at which the applicant proposes to operate.
(b) Any U.S. licensee or permittee authorized to transmit in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that does not comply with the applicable power flux-density limits set forth in § 100.230 shall bear the burden of coordinating with any future co-frequency licensees and permittees of a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.
(c) If no good faith agreement can be reached, the operator of the FSS space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that does not comply with § 100.230 or the operator of the 17/24 GHz BSS space station that does not comply with § 100.230 shall reduce its power flux-density levels to be compliant with those specified in § 100.230 as appropriate.
(d) Any U.S. licensee or permittee of a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that is required to provide information in its application pursuant to § 100.230 must accept any increased interference that may result from adjacent space stations
(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, licensees and permittees will be allowed to apply for a license or authorization for a replacement space stations that will be operated at the same power level and interference protection as the satellite to be replaced.
(a) Each applicant or licensee for a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must submit a series of tables or graphs containing predicted off-axis gain data for each antenna that will transmit in any portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, in accordance with the following specifications. Using a Cartesian coordinate system wherein the X axis is tangent to the geostationary orbital arc with the positive direction pointing east,
(1) In the X-Z plane,
(2) In planes rotated from the X-Z plane about the Z axis, over a range of ±60 degrees relative to the equatorial plane, in increments of 10 degrees or less.
(3) In both polarizations.
(4) At a minimum of one measurement frequency at the center of the portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band over which the space station is designed to transmit. Applicants or licensees must provide additional measurement data at 5 MHz above the lower edge of the band and/or at 5 MHz below the upper edge of the band, upon request by the Commission staff.
(5) Over a greater angular measurement range, if necessary, to account for any planned spacecraft orientation bias or change in operating orientation relative to the reference coordinate system. The applicant or licensee must state the reasons for including such additional information.
(b) A space station applicant or licensee transmitting in any portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must submit PFD calculations based on the predicted gain data submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, as follows:
(1) The PFD calculations must be provided at the location of all prior-filed U.S. DBS space stations where the applicant's PFD level exceeds the coordination trigger of −117 dBW/m
(2) The calculations must take into account the aggregate PFD levels at the DBS receiver at each measurement frequency arising from all antenna beams on the space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. They must also take into account the maximum permitted longitudinal station- keeping tolerance, orbital inclination and orbital eccentricity of both the space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and DBS space stations, and must:
(i) Identify each prior-filed U.S. DBS space station at whose location the coordination threshold PFD level of −117 dBW/m
(ii) Indicate the extent to which the calculated PFD of the space station's transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceed the threshold PFD level of −117 dBW/m
(3) If the calculated PFD exceeds the threshold level of −117 dBW/m
(4) The information and any certification required by paragraph (b) of this section must be submitted to the Commission for each license application that is filed for a space station transmitting in any portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band no later than two years after license grant for the space station.
(c) No later than two months prior to launch, each licensee of a space station transmitting in any portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must update the predicted transmitting antenna off-axis gain information provided in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section by submitting measured transmitting antenna off-axis gain information over the angular ranges, measurement frequencies and polarizations specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. The transmitting antenna off-axis gain information should be measured under conditions as close to flight configuration as possible. As an alternative, licensees authorized to operate at locations one degree or greater from a prior-filed DBS space station may submit simulated transmitting antenna off-axis gain data in lieu of measured data, over the same angular ranges, frequencies and polarizations.
(d) No later than two months prior to launch, or when applying for authority to change the location of a space station transmitting in any portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that is already in orbit, each such space station licensee must provide PFD calculations based on the measured off-axis gain data submitted in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, as follows:
(1) The PFD calculations must be provided:
(i) At the location of all prior-filed U.S. DBS space stations as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, where the applicant's PFD level in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceeds the coordination trigger of −117 dBW/m
(ii) At the location of any subsequently filed U.S. DBS space station where the PFD level in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band calculated on the basis of measured gain data exceeds −117 dBW/m
(2) The PFD calculations must take into account the maximum permitted longitudinal station-keeping tolerance, orbital inclination and orbital eccentricity of both the transmitting 17.3-17.8 GHz and DBS space stations, and must:
(i) Identify each prior-filed U.S. DBS space station at whose location the coordination threshold PFD level of −117 dBW/m
(ii) Demonstrate the extent to which the applicant's or licensee's transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band exceed the threshold PFD level of −117 dBW/m
(e) If the aggregate PFD level calculated from the measured data submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section is in excess of the threshold PFD level of −117 dBW/m
(1) At the location of any prior-filed U.S. DBS space station as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, then the operator of the space station transmitting in any portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must either:
(i) Coordinate its operations that are in excess of the threshold PFD level of −117 dBW/m
(ii) Adjust its operating parameters so that at the location of the prior-filed U.S. DBS space station, the PFD level of −117 dBW/m
(2) At the location of any subsequently filed U.S. DBS space station as defined in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, where the aggregate PFD level submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section is also in excess of the PFD level calculated on the basis of the predicted data submitted in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section that were on file with the Commission at the time the DBS space station application was filed, then the operator of the space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must either:
(i) Coordinate with the affected subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station operator all of its operations that are either in excess of the PFD level calculated on the basis of the predicted antenna off-axis gain data, or are in excess of the threshold PFD level of −117 dBW/m
(ii) Adjust its operating parameters so that at the location of the subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station, either the PFD level calculated on the basis of the predicted off-axis transmitting antenna gain data, or the threshold PFD level of −117 dBW/m
(3) No coordination or adjustment of operating parameters is required in cases where there is no overlap in frequencies assigned to the DBS and the space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.
(f) The applicant or licensee for the space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must modify its license, or amend its application, as appropriate, based upon new information:
(1) If the PFD levels submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, are in excess of those submitted in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section at the location of any prior-filed or subsequently-filed U.S. DBS space station as defined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (d)(1) of this section, or
(2) If the operator of the space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band adjusts its operating parameters in accordance with paragraph (e)(1)(ii) or (e)(2)(ii) or this section.
(g) Absent an explicit agreement between operators to permit more closely spaced operations, U.S. authorized 17/24 GHz BSS or FSS space stations transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and U.S. authorized DBS space stations with co-frequency assignments may not be licensed to operate at locations separated by less than 0.2 degrees in orbital longitude.
(h) All operational space stations transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must be maintained in geostationary orbits that:
(1) Do not exceed 0.075° of inclination.
(2) Operate with an apogee less than or equal to 35,806 km above the surface of the Earth, and with a perigee greater than or equal to 35,766 km above the surface of the Earth (
(i) U.S. authorized DBS networks may claim protection from space path interference arising from the reverse-band operations of U.S. authorized space stations transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to the extent that the DBS space station operates within the bounds of inclination and eccentricity listed in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section. When the geostationary orbit of the DBS space station exceeds these bounds on inclination and eccentricity, it may not claim protection from any additional space path interference arising as a result of its inclined or eccentric operations and may only claim protection as if it were operating within the bounds listed in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section:
(1) The DBS space station's orbit does not exceed 0.075° of inclination; and
(2) The DBS space station's orbit maintains an apogee less than or equal to 35,806 km above the surface of the Earth, and a perigee greater than or equal to 35,766 km above the surface of the Earth (
(a)
(b)
(c) All conventional C-band analog video transmissions must contain an energy dispersal signal at all times with a minimum peak-to-peak bandwidth set at whatever value is necessary to meet the power flux density limits specified in § 100.212 and successfully coordinated internationally and accepted by adjacent U.S. satellite operators based on the use of state of the
(d) All initial analog video transmissions shall be preceded by a video test transmission at an uplink e.i.r.p. at least 10 dB below the normal operating level. The earth station operator shall not increase power until receiving notification from the satellite network control center that the frequency and polarization alignment are satisfactory pursuant to the procedures specified in § 100.240. The stationary earth station operator that has successfully transmitted an initial video test signal to a satellite pursuant to this paragraph is not required to make subsequent video test transmissions if subsequent transmissions are conducted using exactly the same parameters as the initial transmission.
(e) An earth station may be routinely licensed for transmission of full-transponder analog video services in the 5925-6425 MHz band or 14.0-14.5 GHz band provided:
(1) The application includes certification, of conformance with the antenna performance standards in § 100.279;
(2) For transmission in the 5925-6425 MHz band, the input power into the antenna will not exceed 26.5 dBW; or
(3) For transmission in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, the input power into the antenna will not exceed 27 dBW.
Licensees operating in inclined-orbit are required to:
(a) Periodically correct the satellite attitude to achieve a stationary spacecraft antenna pattern on the surface of the Earth and centered on the satellite's designated service area;
(b) Control all electrical interference to adjacent satellites, as a result of operating in an inclined orbit, to levels not to exceed that which would be caused by the satellite operating without an inclined orbit;
(c) Not claim protection in excess of the protection that would be received by the satellite network operating without an inclined orbit; and
(d) Continue to maintain the space station at the authorized longitude orbital location in the geostationary satellite arc with the appropriate east-west station-keeping tolerance.
(a)
(1) The GSO satellite network has receive earth stations with earth station antenna maximum isotropic gain greater than or equal to 64 dBi; G/T of 44 dB/K or higher; and emission bandwidth of 250 MHz; and
(2) The EPFD
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Each of n (number of) satellite networks involved that were licensed or granted market access through the same processing round, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, must select 1/n of the assigned spectrum available in each of these frequency bands. The selection order for each satellite network will be determined by the date that the first space station in each satellite system is launched and capable of operating in the frequency band under consideration;
(2) The affected station(s) of the respective satellite systems may operate in only the selected (1/n) spectrum associated with its satellite system while the ΔT/T of six percent threshold is exceeded;
(3) All affected station(s) may resume operations throughout the assigned frequency bands once the threshold is no longer exceeded.
(d)
(1) Compatibility showings must contain the following elements:
(i) A demonstration that the later-round system will cause no more than three percent time-weighted average degraded throughput of the link to the earlier-round system, for links with a baseline link availability of 99.0% or higher at a C/N threshold of 0 dB;
(ii) A demonstration that the later-round system will cause no more than 0.4% absolute change in link availability to the earlier-round system using a C/N threshold value of 0 dB, for links with a baseline link availability of 99.0% link availability or higher; and
(iii) With respect to an earlier-round system that has not yet satisfied its 50% deployment milestone pursuant to § 100.147, the compatibility showing may consider only 50% deployment of the earlier-round system; if the 50% deployment milestone has been satisfied, the showing must consider 100% deployment of the authorized system.
(2) Compatibility showings will be placed on public notice pursuant to § 100.132.
(3) While a compatibility showing remains pending before the Commission, the submitting NGSO FSS licensee or market access recipient may commence operations on an unprotected, non-interference basis with respect to the operations of the system that is the subject of the showing.
(4) A later-round NGSO FSS system will be required to conform its operations to its compatibility showing submitted for the protection of an earlier-round system to the extent necessary to protect the actual number of deployed and operating space stations of the earlier-round system.
(e)
(a) The space stations of a non-voice, non-geostationary Mobile-Satellite Service (NVNG MSS) system time-sharing downlink spectrum in the 137-138 MHz band with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellites shall not transmit signals into the “protection areas” of the NOAA satellites.
(1) With respect to transmission in the 137.333-137.367 MHz, 137.485-137.515 MHz, 137.605-137.635 MHz, and 137.753-137.787 MHz bands, the protection area for a NOAA satellite is the area on the Earth's surface in which the NOAA satellite is in line of sight from the ground at an elevation angle of five degrees or more above the horizon. No NVNG MSS satellite shall transmit in these bands when it is in line of sight at an elevation angle of zero degrees or more from any point on the ground within a NOAA satellite's protected area for that band.
(2) With respect to transmission in the 137.025-137.175 MHz and 137.825-138 MHz bands, the protection area for a NOAA satellite is the area on the Earth's surface in which the NOAA satellite is in line of sight from the ground at any elevation angle above zero degrees. No NVNG MSS satellite shall transmit in these bands when at a line-of-sight elevation angle of zero degrees or more from any point on the ground within a NOAA satellite's protected area for that band. In addition, such an NVNG MSS satellite shall cease transmitting when it is at an elevation angle of less than zero degrees from any such point, if reasonably necessary to protect reception of the NOAA satellite's signal.
(3) An NVNG MSS licensee is responsible for obtaining the ephemeris data necessary for compliance with these restrictions. The ephemeris information must be updated system-wide on at least a weekly basis. For calculation required for compliance with these restrictions an NVNG MSS licensee shall use an orbital propagator algorithm with an accuracy equal to or greater than the NORAD propagator used by NOAA.
(b) An NVNG licensee time sharing spectrum in the 137-138 MHz band must establish a 24-hour per day contact person and telephone number so that claims of harmful interference into NOAA earth stations and other operational issues can be reported and resolved expeditiously. This contact information must be made available to NOAA or its designee. If the NTIA notifies the Commission that NOAA is receiving harmful interference from a NVNG licensee, the Commission will require such NVNG licensee to terminate its interfering operations immediately unless it demonstrates to the Commission's reasonable satisfaction, and that of NTIA, that it is not responsible for causing harmful interference into the worldwide NOAA system. An NVNG licensee assumes the risk of any liability or damage that it and its directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents and subcontractors may incur or suffer in connection with an interruption of its MSS, in whole or in part, arising from or relating to its compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
(c) Each satellite in a NVNG licensee's system time-sharing spectrum with NOAA in the 137-138 MHz band shall automatically turn off and cease satellite transmissions if, after 72 consecutive hours, no reset signal is received from the NVNG licensee's gateway earth station and verified by the satellite. All satellites in such NVNG licensee's system shall be capable of instantaneous shutdown on any sub-band upon command from such NVNG licensee's gateway earth station.
(a) The space stations of a non-voice, non-geostationary Mobile-Satellite Service (NVNG MSS) system time-sharing downlink spectrum in the 400.15-401.0 MHz band with Department of Defense (DoD) satellites shall not transmit signals into the “protection areas” of the DoD satellites.
(1) The protection area for such a DoD satellite is the area on the Earth's surface in which the DoD satellite is in line of sight from the ground at an elevation angle of five degrees or more above the horizon.
(2) An NVNG MSS space station shall not transmit in the 400.15-401 MHz band when at a line-of-sight elevation angle of zero degrees or more from any point on the ground within the protected area of a DoD satellite operating in that band.
(3) An NVNG MSS licensee is responsible for obtaining the ephemeris data necessary for compliance with this restriction. The ephemeris information must be updated system-wide at least once per week. For calculation required for compliance with this restriction an NVNG MSS licensee shall use an orbital propagator algorithm with an accuracy equal to or greater than the NORAD propagator used by DoD.
(b) An NVNG licensee time sharing spectrum in the 400.15-401 MHz band must establish a 24-hour per day contact person and telephone number so that claims of harmful interference into DoD earth stations and other operational issues can be reported and resolved expeditiously. This contact information must be made available to DoD or its designee. If the NTIA notifies the Commission that DoD is receiving harmful interference from a NVNG licensee, the Commission will require such NVNG licensee to terminate its interfering operations immediately unless it demonstrates to the Commission's reasonable satisfaction, and that of NTIA, that it is not responsible for causing harmful interference into the worldwide DoD system. A NVNG licensee assumes the risk of any liability or damage that it and its directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents and subcontractors may incur or suffer in connection with an interruption of its MSS, in whole or in part, arising from or relating to its compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of this paragraph.
(c) Each satellite in a NVNG licensee's system time-sharing spectrum with DoD in the 400.15-401 MHz band shall automatically turn off and cease satellite transmissions if, after 72 consecutive hours, no reset signal is received from the NVNG licensee's gateway earth station and verified by the satellite. All satellites in such NVNG licensee's system shall be capable of instantaneous shutdown on any sub-band upon command from such NVNG licensee's gateway earth station.
(d) Initially, a NVNG licensee time-sharing spectrum with DoD in the 400.15-401 MHz band shall be able to change the frequency on which its system satellites are operating within 125 minutes of receiving notification from a DoD required frequency change in the 400.15-401 MHz band. Thereafter, when an NVNG licensee constructs additional gateway earth stations located outside of North and South America, it shall use its best efforts to decrease to 90 minutes the time required to implement a DoD required frequency change. An NVNG licensee promptly shall notify the Commission and NTIA of any decrease in the time it requires to implement a DoD required frequency change.
(e) Once an NVNG licensee time-sharing spectrum with DoD in the 400.15-401 MHz band demonstrates to DoD that it is capable of implementing a DoD required frequency change within the time required under paragraph (d) of this section; thereafter, such NVNG licensee shall demonstrate its capability to implement a DoD required frequency change only once per year at the instruction of DoD. Such demonstrations shall occur during off-peak hours, as determined by the NVNG licensee, unless otherwise agreed by the NVNG licensee and DoD. Such NVNG licensee will coordinate with DoD in establishing a plan for such a demonstration. In the event that an NVNG licensee fails to demonstrate to DoD that it is capable of implementing a DoD required frequency change in accordance with a demonstration plan established by DoD and the NVNG licensee, upon the Commission's receipt of a written notification from NTIA describing such failure, the Commission shall impose additional conditions or requirements on the NVNG licensee's authorization as may be necessary to protect DoD operations in the 400.15-401 MHz downlink band until the Commission is notified by NTIA that the NVNG licensee has successfully demonstrated its ability to implement a DoD required frequency change. Such additional conditions or requirements may include, but are not limited to, requiring such NVNG licensee immediately to terminate its operations interfering with the DoD system.
(f)
(1) All 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS systems shall be capable of determining the position of the user transceivers accessing the space segment through either internal radiodetermination calculations or external sources such as LORAN-C or the Global Positioning System.
In the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band, within a 160 km radius of the following radio astronomy sites:
(i) In the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band, within a 50 km radius of the following radio astronomy sites:
(ii) Out-of-band emissions of a mobile earth station licensed to operate within the 1610.0-1626.5 MHz band shall be attenuated so that the PFD it produces in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band at any radio astronomy site listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section shall not exceed the emissions of a mobile earth station operating within the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band at the edge of the protection zone applicable for that site. As an alternative, a mobile earth station shall not operate during radio astronomy observations within the 1613.8-1615.8 MHz band within 100 km of the radio astronomy sites listed in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, and within 30 km of the sites listed in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, there being no restriction on a mobile earth station operating within the 1615.8-1626.5 MHz band.
(iii) For airborne mobile earth stations operating in the 1610.0-1626.5 MHz band, the separation distance shall be the larger of the distances specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section, as applicable, or the distance, d, as given by the formula:
(iv) Smaller geographic protection zones may be used in lieu of the areas specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) of this section if agreed to by the MSS licensee and the Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Unit (ESMU), National Science Foundation, Washington, DC upon a showing by the MSS licensee that the operation of a mobile earth station will not cause harmful interference to a radio astronomy observatory during periods of observation.
(v) The ESMU shall notify MSS space station licensees authorized to operate mobile earth stations in the 1610.0-1626.5 MHz band of periods of radio astronomy observations. The MSS systems shall be capable of terminating operations within the frequency bands and protection zones specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, as applicable, after the first position fix of the mobile earth station either prior to transmission or, based upon its location within the protection zone at the time of initial transmission of the mobile earth station. Once the Mobile-Satellite Service system
(vi) A beacon-actuated protection zone may be used in lieu of fixed protection zones in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band if a coordination agreement is reached between a MSS system licensee and the ESMU on the specifics of beacon operations.
(2) Additional radio astronomy sites, not located within 100 miles of the 100 most populous urbanized areas as defined by the United States Census Bureau at the time, may be afforded similar protection one year after notice to the MSS system licensees by issuance of a public notice by the Commission.
(3) MSS space stations transmitting in the 1613.8-1626.5 MHz band shall take whatever steps necessary to avoid causing harmful interference to the radio astronomy facilities listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section during periods of observation.
(4) MSS space stations operating in the 2483.5-2500 MHz frequency band shall limit spurious emission levels in the 4990-5000 MHz band so as not to exceed −241 dB (W/m
(5) The Radioastronomy Service shall avoid scheduling radio astronomy observations during peak MSS/RDSS traffic periods to the greatest extent practicable.
(g) If a MSS space station operator in the 2496-2500 MHz band intends to operate at powers levels that exceed the PFD limits in § 100.212, or if actual operations routinely exceed these PFD limits, the MSS operator must receive approval from each operational BRS system in the affected geographical region.
MSS receivers operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band must accept interference from lawful operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, where such interference is due to:
(a) The in-band power of any operations in 1995-2000 MHz (
(b) The portion of out-of-band emissions contained in 2000-2005 MHz.
(a)
(b)
(1) Demonstrate that its system will, at a minimum, service the 48 contiguous states of the United States (full CONUS); and
(2) Certify that its satellite DARS system includes a receiver that will permit end users to access all licensed satellite DARS systems that are operational or under construction.
(c)
(1) One year: complete contracting for construction of first satellite or begin satellite construction;
(2) Two years: if applied for, complete contracting for construction of second satellite or begin second satellite construction;
(3) Four years: in orbit operation of at least one satellite; and
(4) Six years: full operation of the satellite system.
This section requires SDARS licensees in the 2320-2345 MHz band to share information regarding the location and operation of terrestrial repeaters with WCS licensees in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. § 27.72 of this chapter requires WCS licensees to share information regarding the location and operation of base stations in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands with SDARS licensees in the 2320-2345 MHz band.
(a)
(b)
(1) For purposes of this section, a “potentially affected WCS licensee” is a WCS licensee that:
(i) Is authorized to operate a base station in the 2305-2315 MHz or 2350-2360 MHz bands in the same Major Economic Area (MEA) as that in which the terrestrial repeater is to be located;
(ii) Is authorized to operate base station in the 2315-2320 MHz or 2345-2350 MHz bands in the same Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) as that in which the terrestrial repeater is to be located;
(iii) In addition to the WCS licensees identified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, in cases in which the SDARS licensee plans to deploy or modify a terrestrial repeater within 5 kilometers of the boundary of an MEA or REAG in which the terrestrial repeater is to be located, a potentially affected WCS licensee is one that is authorized to operate a WCS base station in that neighboring MEA or REAG within 5 kilometers of the location of the terrestrial repeater.
(2) For modifications other than changes in location, a licensee may provide notice within 24 hours after the modified operation if the modification does not result in a predicted increase of the PFD at ground level by more than 1 dB since the last advance notice was given. If a demonstration is made by the WCS licensee that such modifications may cause harmful interference to WCS receivers, SDARS licensees will be required to provide notice five business days in advance of additional repeater modifications.
(3) SDARS repeaters operating below 2 watts EIRP are exempt from the notice requirements set forth in this paragraph.
(4) SDARS licensees are encouraged to develop separate coordination agreements with WCS licensees to facilitate efficient deployment of and coexistence between each service. To the extent the provisions of any such
(5) SDARS and WCS licensees may enter into agreements regarding alternative notification procedures.
(c)
(1) Notification must specify relevant technical details, including, at a minimum:
(i) The coordinates of the proposed repeater to an accuracy of no less than ±1 second latitude and longitude;
(ii) The proposed operating power(s), frequency band(s), and emission(s);
(iii) The antenna center height above ground and ground elevation above mean sea level, both to an accuracy of no less than ±1 meter;
(iv) The antenna gain pattern(s) in the azimuth and elevation planes that include the peak of the main beam; and
(v) The antenna downtilt angle(s).
(2) An SDARS licensee operating terrestrial repeaters must maintain an accurate and up-to-date inventory of its terrestrial repeaters operating above 2 watts average EIRP, including the information set forth in this section which shall be available upon request by the Commission.
(d)
(e)
(a)
(1) Space station operators must operate in accordance with the orbital debris mitigation plans, statements, and disclosures provided to the Commission pursuant to §§ 100.110 through 100.114.
(2) Operators must notify the Commission of any significant changes to the orbital debris mitigation plans, statements, and disclosures within 30 days of the date the change is effective.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
(b)
(a) Earth station applicants must provide a radiofrequency exposure report that demonstrates compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. Applicants with terminals that will exceed the guidelines in § 1.1310 of this chapter for radio frequency radiation exposure shall provide a plan for mitigation of radiofrequency exposure to the extent required to meet those guidelines.
(b) Earth stations defined as mobile devices as defined in § 2.1091 of this chapter must comply with the requirements of part 2, subpart J of this chapter.
(a) The holder of an FCC blanket earth station license is responsible for operation of any earth station or user terminal under that license.
(b) For purposes of this part, a blanket licensee for user terminals, ESIMs, or Mobile Earth Stations, does not need to maintain control over the specific device, but must be in control of the network and maintain the ability to cease transmissions from the device.
(a) Earth station antennas must not transmit at elevation angles less than five degrees, measured from the horizontal plane to the direction of maximum radiation, in a frequency band shared with terrestrial radio services or in a frequency band with an allocation to space services operating in both the Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth directions. In other bands, earth station antennas must not transmit at elevation angles less than three degrees. In some instances, it may be necessary to specify greater minimum elevation angles because of interference considerations.
(b) ESAAs in aircraft on the ground must not transmit at elevation angles less than three degrees. There is no minimum angle of antenna elevation for ESAAs while airborne.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(1) Except as set forth in this section, operators of receive-only earth stations seeking to operate with non-U.S. licensed space stations must file an FCC Form 312—Main Form requesting a license or license modification to operate such station.
(2) Operators of receive-only earth stations need not apply for a license to receive transmissions from non-U.S.-licensed space stations that have been duly approved for U.S. market access, provided the space station operator and earth station operator comply with all applicable rules in this chapter and with applicable conditions in the Permitted Space Station List or market-access grant.
(a) When an earth station in the FSS is to remain at a single location for fewer than six months, the location may be considered to be temporary fixed. Services provided at a single location which are initially known to be of longer than six months' duration shall not be provided under a temporary fixed authorization.
(b) When a station, other than an ESV, authorized as a temporary fixed earth station, is to remain at a single location for more than six months, application for a regular station authorization at that location shall be filed at least thirty days prior to the expiration of the six-month period.
(c) The licensee of an earth station, other than an ESV, which is authorized to conduct temporary fixed operations in bands shared co-equally with terrestrial fixed stations shall provide the following information to the licensees of all terrestrial facilities lying within the coordination contour of the proposed temporary fixed earth station site before beginning transmissions:
(1) The name of the person operating the station and the telephone number at which the operator can be reached directly;
(2) The exact frequency or frequencies used and the type of emissions and power levels to be transmitted; and
(3) The commencement and anticipated termination dates of operation from each location.
(d) Transmissions may not be commenced until all affected terrestrial licensees have been notified and the earth station operator has confirmed that harmful interference will not be caused to such terrestrial stations.
(e) Operations of temporary fixed earth stations shall cease immediately upon notice of harmful interference from the Commission or the affected licensee.
(f) Filing requirements concerning applications for new temporary fixed earth station facilities operating in frequency bands shared co-equally with terrestrial fixed stations.
(i) When the initial location of the temporary fixed earth station's operation is known, the applicant shall provide, as part of the FCC Form 312—Main Form application, a frequency coordination report in accordance with § 100.276 for the initial station location.
(ii) When the initial location of the temporary fixed earth station's operation is not known at the time the application is filed, the applicant shall provide, as part of FCC Form 312—Main Form application, a statement by the applicant acknowledging its coordination responsibilities under § 100.276.
(a) A licensee for site specific earth stations must certify to commencement of operations within 365 days from grant.
(b) A Nationwide, Non-Site Licensee that is required to register locations prior to operations must certify to the commencement of operations within 365 days from registration.
(c) A blanket licensee for user terminals, ESIMs, or Mobile Earth Stations, must certify to the commencement of operations within 365 days from license grant.
(a)
(b)
(1) The administrative aspects of the coordination process are set forth in § 101.103 of this chapter in the case of coordination of terrestrial stations with earth stations and in this subpart in the case of earth station coordination with terrestrial stations.
(2) An applicant for an earth station authorization or registrants pursuant to an immovable earth station licensed under a Nationwide, Non-Site License, shall coordinate the proposed frequency usage with existing terrestrial users and with applicants for terrestrial station authorizations with previously filed applications in accordance with the following procedure:
(i) An applicant for an earth station authorization shall perform an interference analysis in accordance with the procedures set forth below for each terrestrial station, for which a license or construction permit has been granted or for which an application has been accepted for filing, which is or is to be operated in a shared frequency band to be used by the proposed earth station and which is located within the great circle coordination distance contour(s) of the proposed earth station.
(ii) The earth station applicant shall provide each such terrestrial station licensee, permittee, and prior grantee with the technical details of the proposed earth station and the relevant interference analyses that were made. At a minimum, the earth station applicant shall provide the terrestrial user with the following technical information:
(A) The geographical coordinates of the proposed earth station antenna(s),
(B) Proposed operating frequency band(s) and emission(s),
(C) Antenna center height above ground and ground elevation above
(D) Longitude range of GSO satellites at which antenna may be pointed, for proposed earth station antenna(s) accessing GSO satellites,
(E) Horizon elevation plot,
(F) Antenna horizon gain plot(s) for satellite longitude range specified in (a)(2)(vi) of this section, taking into account the provisions of requirements for earth stations operating with NGSO satellites,
(G) Minimum elevation angle,
(H) Maximum equivalent isotropically radiated power (e.i.r.p.) density in the main beam in any 4 kHz band, (dBW/4 kHz) for frequency bands below 15 GHz or in any 1 MHz band (dBW/MHz) for frequency band above 15 GHz,
(I) Maximum available RF transmit power density in any 1 MHz band and in any 4 kHz band at the input terminals of the antenna(s),
(J) Maximum permissible RF interference power level as determined in accordance with (a)(1) of this section for all applicable percentages of time, and
(K) A plot of great circle coordination distance contour(s) and rain scatter coordination distance contour(s).
(3) The coordination procedures specified in § 101.103 of this chapter shall be applicable except that the information to be provided shall be that set forth in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and that the 30-day period allowed for response to a request for coordination may be increased to a maximum of 45 days by mutual consent of the parties.
(4) Where technical problems are resolved by an agreement or operating arrangement between the parties that would require special procedures be taken to reduce the likelihood of harmful interference (such as the use of artificial site shielding) or would result in lessened quality or capacity of either system, the details thereof shall be contained in the application.
(5) Multiple antennas in an NGSO FSS gateway earth station complex located within an area bounded by one second of latitude and one second of longitude may be regarded as a single earth station for purposes of coordination with terrestrial services.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Applicants for authority to operate a new transmitting earth station in the vicinity of an FCC monitoring station or to modify the operation of a transmitting earth station in a way that would increase the field strength produced at such a monitoring station above that previously authorized should consider the possible need to protect the FCC stations from harmful interference. Geographic coordinates of the facilities that require protection are listed in § 0.121(c) of this chapter.
(2) Applications for fixed stations that will produce field strength greater than 10 mV/m or power flux density greater than −65.8 dBW/m
(3) In the event that the calculated value of the expected field strength exceeds 10 mV/m (−65.8 dBW/m
(h)
(1) Any applicant for a new permanent transmitting fixed earth station to be located on the island of Puerto Rico, Desecheo, Mona, Vieques, or Culebra, or for modification of an existing authorization to change the frequency, power, antenna height, directivity, or location of such a station on one of these islands in a way that would increase the likelihood of causing interference, must notify the Interference Office, Arecibo Observatory, HC3 Box 53995, Arecibo, Puerto Rico 00612, in writing or electronically, of the technical parameters of the proposal. Applicants may wish to consult interference guidelines, which will be provided by Cornell University. Applicants who choose to transmit information electronically should email to:
(2) The notification to the Interference Office, Arecibo Observatory shall be made prior to, or simultaneously with, the filing of the application with the Commission. The notification must specify the geographical coordinates of the antenna (NAD-83 datum), antenna height above ground, ground elevation at the antenna, antenna directivity and gain, proposed frequency, relevant FCC rule part, type of emission, effective radiated power, and whether the proposed use is itinerant. Generally, submission of the information in the technical portion of the FCC license application is adequate notification. In addition, the applicant shall indicate in its application to the Commission the date notification was made to the Arecibo Observatory.
(3) After receipt of such applications, the Commission will allow the Arecibo Observatory a period of 20 days for comments or objections in response to the notification indicated. The applicant will be required to make reasonable efforts in order to resolve or mitigate any potential interference problem with the Arecibo Observatory and to file either an amendment to the application or a modification application, as appropriate. If the Commission determines that an applicant has satisfied its responsibility to make reasonable efforts to protect the Observatory from interference, its application may be granted.
(4) The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to operations that transmit on frequencies above 15 GHz.
(i)
(j)
(k)
(1) Applications for new, modified, or renewed earth station licenses and registrations in the 3.7-4.0 GHz portion of the band in CONUS are no longer accepted.
(2) Applications for new earth station licenses or registrations within CONUS in the 4.0-4.2 GHz portion of the band will not be accepted until the transition is completed and upon announcement by the Space Bureau via public notice that applications may be filed.
(3) Fixed and temporary fixed earth stations operating in the 3.7-4.0 GHz portion of the band within CONUS will be protected from interference by licensees in the 3.7 GHz Service subject to the deadlines set forth in § 27.1412 of this chapter and are eligible for transition into the 4.0-4.2 GHz band so long as they:
(i) Were operational as of April 19, 2018 and continue to be operational;
(ii) Were licensed or registered (or had a pending application for license or registration) in the ICFS database on November 7, 2018; and
(iii) Timely certified the accuracy of the information on file with the Commission by May 28, 2019.
(4) Fixed and temporary earth station licenses and registrations that meet the criteria in paragraph (c) of this section may be renewed or modified to maintain operations in the 4.0-4.2 GHz band.
(5) Applications for new, modified, or renewed licenses and registrations for earth stations outside CONUS operating in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band will continue to be accepted.
The carrier frequency of each earth station transmitter authorized in these services shall be maintained within 0.001% of the reference frequency.
(a)
(1) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 50% up to and including 100% of the authorized bandwidth: 25 dB.
(2) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 100% up to and including 250% of the authorized bandwidth: 35 dB.
(3) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 250% of the authorized bandwidth: An amount equal to 43 dB plus 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of the transmitter power in watts.
(4) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in this section.
(b)
(1) + 40 dBW in any 4 kHz band for θ ≤0°;
(2) + 40 + 3θ dBW in any 4 kHz band for 0° <θ ≤5°; and
(3) where θ is the angle of elevation of the horizon viewed from the center of radiation of the antenna of the earth station and measured in degrees as positive above the horizontal plane and negative below it.
(c)
(1) + 64 dBW in any 1 MHz band for θ ≤0°;
(2) + 64 + 3 θ dBW in any 1 MHz band for 0° <θ ≤5°; and
(3) where θ is the angle of elevation of the horizon viewed from the center of radiation of the antenna of the earth station and measured in degrees as positive above the horizontal plane and negative below it.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Transmissions from FSS earth stations in frequencies above 10 GHz may exceed the uplink EIRP and EIRP density limits specified in the station authorization under conditions of uplink fading due to precipitation by an amount not to exceed 1 dB above the actual amount of monitored excess attenuation over clear sky propagation conditions. EIRP levels must be returned to normal as soon as the attenuating weather pattern subsides.
(2) An FSS earth station transmitting to a geostationary space station in the 13.77-13.78 GHz band must not generate more than 71 dBW EIRP in any 6 MHz band.
(3) An FSS earth station transmitting to a non-geostationary space station in the 13.77-13.78 GHz band must not generate more than 51 dBW EIRP in any 6 MHz band.
(4) Automatic power control may be used to increase the EIRP density in a 6 MHz uplink band in this frequency range to compensate for rain fade, provided that the power flux-density at the space station does not exceed the value that would result when transmitting with an EIRP of 71 dBW or 51 dBW, as appropriate, in that 6 MHz band in clear-sky conditions.
(g)
(h)
(1) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations placed in service on or before July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed −70 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the band 1559-1587.42 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such stations shall not exceed −80 dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in that band.
(2) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations placed in service on or before July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1626.5 MHz shall not exceed −64 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the band 1587.42-1605 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth generated by such stations shall not exceed −74 dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the 1587.42-1605 MHz band.
(3) The e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations placed in service after July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed −70 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the band 1559-1605 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations shall not exceed −80 dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the 1559-1605 MHz band.
(4) As of January 1, 2005, the e.i.r.p. density of emissions from mobile earth stations placed in service on or before July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink frequencies between 1610 MHz and 1660.5 MHz shall not exceed −70 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the 1559-1605 MHz band. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations shall not exceed −80 dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in the 1559-1605 MHz band. Inmarsat-B terminals manufactured more than six months after
(5) The e.i.r.p density of emissions from mobile earth stations with assigned uplink frequencies between 1990 MHz and 2025 MHz shall not exceed −70 dBW/MHz, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval, in frequencies between 1559 MHz and 1610 MHz. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations between 1559 MHz and 1605 MHz shall not exceed −80 dBW, averaged over any 2 millisecond active transmission interval. The e.i.r.p. of discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such stations between 1605 MHz and 1610 MHz manufactured more than six months after
(6) Mobile earth stations placed in service after July 21, 2002 with assigned uplink frequencies in the 1610-1660.5 MHz band shall suppress the power density of emissions in the 1605-1610 MHz band to an extent determined by linear interpolation from −70 dBW/
(7) Mobile earth stations manufactured more than six months after
(8) Mobile earth stations manufactured more than six months after
(9) The e.i.r.p density of carrier-off state emissions from mobile earth stations manufactured more than six months after
(10) A Root-Mean-Square detector shall be used for all power density measurements.
(a) The gain of any earth station antenna operating in the FSS, including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting to a GSO satellite, may not exceed the following:
(i) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc as defined in § 100.3:
Where θ is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target satellite, and dBi refers to dB relative to an isotropic radiator.
(ii) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc as defined in § 100.3:
Where θ is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target satellite, and dBi refers to dB relative to an isotropic radiator.
(b) The gain of any earth station antenna operating in the FSS, including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting to a NGSO satellite, may not exceed the following:
(c) An FSS receiving earth station, including feeder link earth station for other satellite services, not confirming to the gain patterns in (a) and (b) of this section is not entitled to any greater protection from interference from authorized operation of other stations that would not have cause interference to that earth station if it was using an antenna with gain patterns conforming to the levels specified (a) and (b) of this section.
(a) The off-axis eirp density of any earth station operating in the FSS, including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting to a GSO satellite, the co-polarized transmissions may not exceed the following:
(i) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc as defined in § 100.3:
Where θ is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target satellite.
(ii) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc as defined in § 100.3:
Where θ is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target satellite.
(b) The off-axis eirp density of any earth station operating in the FSS, including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting to a GSO satellite, the cross-polarized transmission may not exceed the following:
(i) In the plane tangent to the GSO arc as defined in § 100.3:
Where θ is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target satellite.
(ii) In the plane perpendicular to the GSO arc as defined in § 100.3:
Where θ is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth station antenna to the assigned orbital location of the target satellite.
(c) The off-axis eirp density of any earth station operating in the FSS, including feeder links for other satellite services, transmitting to a NGSO satellite, may not exceed the following:
Where θ is the angle in degrees from a line from the earth station antenna to the target satellite.
(a) FSS is secondary to the UMFUS in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band. Notwithstanding that secondary status, an applicant for a license for a transmitting earth station in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band that meets one of the following criteria may be authorized to operate without providing interference protection to stations in the UMFUS:
(1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant UMFUS license(s) for the area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(2) The FSS earth station was authorized prior to July 14, 2016;
(3) The application for the FSS earth station was filed prior to July 14, 2016 and has been subsequently granted; or
(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:
(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band within the county where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in either paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. For purposes of this requirement, multiple earth stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one earth station;
(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(iii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees within the area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(b) Applications for earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band shall provide an exhibit describing the zone within which the earth station will require protection from transmissions of UMFUS licensees. For purposes of this rule, the protection zone shall consist of the area where UMFUS licensees may not locate facilities without the consent of the earth station licensee. The earth station applicant shall demonstrate in its application, using reasonable engineering methods, that the requested protection zone is necessary in order to protect its proposed earth station.
(c) The protection zone (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section) shall comply with the following criteria. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:
(1) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the 37.5-40 GHz band within the county within which the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in paragraph (c) of this section, and there are no more than 14 other authorized earth stations operating in the 37.5-40 GHz band within the PEA within which the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in paragraph (c) of this section. For purposes of this requirement, multiple earth stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one earth station;
(2) The protection zone, together with the protection zone of other earth stations in the same PEA authorized pursuant to this, does not cover, in the aggregate, more than the amount of population of the PEA within which the earth station is located as noted in table 2 to this paragraph (c)(2):
(3) The protection zone does not contain any major event venue, urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port. In addition, the area mentioned in the preceding sentence shall not cross any of the following types of roads, as defined in functional classification guidelines issued by the Federal Highway Administration pursuant to 23 CFR 470.105(b): Interstate, Other Freeways and Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial. The Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty Executive Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map contains information on the classification of roads. For purposes of this rule, an urban area shall be an Adjusted Urban Area as defined in 21 U.S.C. 101(a)(37).
(4) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees within the protection zone with respect to existing facilities constructed and in operation by the UMFUS licensee. In coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use the applicable processes contained in § 101.103(d) of this chapter.
(d) Notwithstanding that FSS is co-primary with the UMFUS in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band, earth stations in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band shall be limited to individually licensed earth stations. An applicant for a license for a transmitting earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band must meet one of the following criteria to be authorized to operate without providing any additional interference protection to stations in the UMFUS:
(1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant UMFUS license(s) for the area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(2) The earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band was authorized prior to February 1, 2018;
(3) The application for the earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band was filed prior to February 1, 2018; or
(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:
(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band within the county where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in paragraphs (d)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, and there are no more than 14 other authorized earth stations operating in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band within the PEA where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in paragraphs (d)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. For purposes of this requirement, multiple earth stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one earth station;
(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(iii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees within the area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(e) Notwithstanding that FSS is co-primary with the UMFUS in the 24.75-25.25 GHz and 50.4-51.4 GHz bands, earth stations in these bands shall be limited to individually licensed earth stations. An applicant for a license for a transmitting earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz or 50.4-51.4 GHz band must meet one of the following criteria to be authorized to operate without providing any additional interference protection to stations in the UMFUS:
(1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant UMFUS license(s) for the area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6dBm/m
(2) The earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was authorized prior to August 20, 2018; or the earth station in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band was authorized prior to June 12, 2019;
(3) The application for the earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was filed prior to August 20, 2018; or the application for the earth station in the 50.4-51.4 GHz band was filed prior to June 12, 2019; or
(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:
(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the same frequency band within the county where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in either paragraph (e)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section, and there are no more than 14 other authorized earth stations operating in the same frequency band within the Partial Economic Area where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in paragraph (e)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. For purposes of the requirement in this paragraph (e)(4), multiple earth stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one earth station;
(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(iii) The area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees within the area in which the earth station generates a PFD, at 10 meters above ground level, of greater than or equal to −77.6 dBm/m
(f) If an earth station applicant or licensee in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz, 47.2-48.2 GHz and/or 50.4-51.4 GHz bands enters into an agreement with an UMFUS licensee, their operations shall be governed by that agreement, except to the extent that the agreement is inconsistent with the Commission's rules or the Communications Act.
(g) Any earth station authorizations issued pursuant to §§ 100.120-100.121 and 100.281 shall be conditioned upon operation being in compliance with the criteria contained in the applicable paragraph.
(h)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) ESVs must not operate in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) and 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) frequency bands on vessels smaller than 300 gross tons.
(2) ESV operators transmitting in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) frequency band to GSO satellites in the FSS must not seek to coordinate, in any geographic location, more than 36 megahertz of uplink bandwidth on each of no more than two GSO FSS satellites.
(3) ESVs, operating while docked, for which coordination with terrestrial stations in the 3700-4200 MHz band is completed in accordance with § 100.276, will receive protection from such terrestrial stations in accordance with the coordination agreements, for 180 days, renewable for 180 days.
(4) ESVs in motion must not claim protection from harmful interference from any authorized terrestrial stations to which frequencies are already assigned, or any authorized terrestrial station to which frequencies may be assigned in the future in the 3700-4200 MHz (space-to-Earth) frequency band.
(5) ESVs operating within 200 km from the baseline of the United States, or within 200 km from a U.S.-licensed fixed service offshore installation, must complete coordination with potentially affected U.S.-licensed fixed service operators prior to operation. The coordination method and the interference criteria objective will be determined by the frequency coordinator. The details of the coordination must be maintained and available at the frequency coordinator, and must be filed with the Commission electronically via ICFS or successor system to be placed on public notice. The coordination notifications must be filed in the form of a statement referencing the relevant call signs and file numbers. Operation of each individual ESV may commence immediately after the public notice that identifies the notification sent to the Commission is released. Continuance of operation of that ESV for the duration of the coordination term must be dependent upon successful completion of the normal public notice process. If, prior to the end of the 30-day comment period of the public notice, any objections are received from U.S.-licensed Fixed Service operators that have been excluded from coordination, the ESV licensee must immediately cease operation of that particular station on frequencies used by the affected U.S.-licensed Fixed Service station until the coordination dispute is resolved and the ESV licensee informs the Commission of the resolution. As used in this section, “baseline” means the line from which maritime zones are measured. The baseline is a combination of the low-water line and closing lines across the mouths of inland water bodies and is defined by a series of baseline points that include islands and “low-water elevations,” as determined by the U.S. Department of State's Baseline Committee.
(6) An ESV must automatically cease transmission if the ESV operates in violation of the terms of its coordination agreement, including, but not limited to, conditions related to speed of the vessel or if the ESV travels outside the coordinated area, if within 200 km from the baseline of the United States, or within 200 km from a U.S.-licensed fixed service offshore installation. Transmissions may be controlled by the ESV network control and monitoring center. The frequency coordinator may decide whether ESV operators should automatically cease transmissions if the vessel falls below a prescribed speed within a prescribed geographic area.
(7) ESV transmissions in the 5925-6425 MHz (Earth-to-space) band shall not exceed an EIRP spectral density towards the radio-horizon of 17 dBW/MHz, and shall not exceed an EIRP towards the radio-horizon of 20.8 dBW. The ESV network shall shut-off the ESV transmitter if either the EIRP spectral density towards the radio-horizon or the EIRP towards the radio-horizon is exceeded.
(f)
(1) All ESAA terminals operated in U.S. airspace, whether on U.S.-registered civil aircraft or non-U.S.-registered civil aircraft, must be licensed by the Commission. All ESAA terminals on U.S.-registered civil aircraft operating outside of U.S. airspace must
(2) Prior to operations within a foreign nation's airspace, the ESAA operator must ascertain whether the relevant administration has operations that could be affected by ESAA terminals, and must determine whether that administration has adopted specific requirements concerning ESAA operations. When the aircraft enters foreign airspace, the ESAA terminal must operate under the Commission's rules, or those of the foreign administration, whichever is more constraining. To the extent that all relevant administrations have identified geographic areas from which ESAA operations would not affect their radio operations, ESAA operators may operate within those identified areas without further action. To the extent that the foreign administration has not adopted requirements regarding ESAA operations, ESAA operators must coordinate their operations with any potentially affected operations.
(3) For ESAA transmissions in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band from international airspace within line-of-sight of the territory of a foreign administration where fixed service networks have primary allocation in this band, the maximum PFD produced at the surface of the Earth by emissions from a single aircraft carrying an ESAA terminal must not exceed the following values unless the foreign Administration has imposed other conditions for protecting its fixed service stations:
Where: θ is the angle of arrival of the radio-frequency wave (degrees above the horizontal) and the aforementioned limits relate to the PFD under free-space propagation conditions.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(b)
(1) An ancillary terrestrial component in these bands shall:
(i) In any band segment coordinated for the exclusive use of an MSS applicant within the land area of the U.S., where there is no other L-band MSS satellite making use of that band segment within the visible portion of the geostationary arc as seen from the ATC coverage area, the ATC system will be limited by the in-band and out-of-band emission limitations contained in this section and the requirement to maintain a substantial MSS service.
(ii) In any band segment that is coordinated for the shared use of the applicant's MSS system and another MSS operator, where the coordination agreement existed prior to February 10, 2005 and permits a level of interference to the other MSS system of less than 6% ΔT/T, the applicant's combined ATC and MSS operations shall increase the system noise level of the other MSS to no more then 6% ΔT/T. Any future coordination agreement between the parties governing ATC operation will supersede this paragraph.
(iii) In any band segment that is coordinated for the shared use of the applicant's MSS system and another MSS operator, where a coordination agreement existed prior to February 10, 2005 and permits a level of interference to the other MSS system of 6% ΔT/T or greater, the applicant's ATC operations may increase the system noise level of the other MSS system by no more than an additional 1% ΔT/T. Any future coordination agreement between the parties governing ATC operations will supersede this paragraph.
(iv) In a band segment in which the applicant has no rights under a coordination agreement, the applicant may not implement ATC in that band.
(2) ATC base stations shall not exceed an out-of-channel emissions measurement of −57.9 dBW/MHz at the edge of a MSS licensee's authorized and internationally coordinated MSS frequency assignment.
(3) An applicant for an ancillary terrestrial component in these bands shall:
(i) Demonstrate, at the time of application, how its ATC network will comply with the requirements of footnotes US308 and US315 to the Table of Frequency Allocations contained in § 2.106 of this chapter regarding priority and preemptive access to the L-band MSS spectrum by the aeronautical mobile-satellite en-route service (AMS(R)S) and the global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS).
(ii) Coordinate with the terrestrial CMRS operators prior to initiating ATC transmissions when co-locating ATC base stations with terrestrial commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) base stations that make use of Global Positioning System (GPS) time-based receivers.
(iii) Provide, at the time of application, calculations that demonstrate the ATC system conforms to the ΔT/T requirements of this section, if a coordination agreement that incorporates the ATC operations does not exist with other MSS operators.
(4) Applicants for an ATC in these bands must demonstrate that ATC base stations shall not:
(i) Exceed a peak EIRP of 31.9-10*log (number of carriers) dBW/200kHz, per sector, for each carrier in the 1525-1541.5 MHz and 1547.5-1559 MHz frequency bands;
(ii) Exceed an EIRP in any direction toward the physical horizon (not to include man-made structures) of 26.9-10*log (number of carriers) dBW/200 kHz, per sector, for each carrier in the 1525-1541.5 MHz and 1547.5-1559 MHz frequency bands;
(iii) Exceed a peak EIRP of 23.9 −10*log(number of carriers) dBW/200 kHz, per sector, for each carrier in the 1541.5-1547.5 MHz frequency band;
(iv) Exceed an EIRP toward the physical horizon (not to include man-made structures) of 18.9 −10*log(number of carriers) dBW/200 kHz, per sector, for each carrier in the 1541.5-1547.5 MHz frequency band;
(v) Exceed a total PFD level of −56.8 dBW/m
(vi) Exceed a total PFD level of −56.6 dBW/m
(vii) Exceed a total PFD level of −64.6 dBW/m
(viii) Exceed a peak antenna gain of 16 dBi;
(ix) Generate EIRP density, averaged over any two-millisecond active transmission interval, greater than −70 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1605 MHz band or greater than a level determined by linear interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from −70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to −46 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz. The EIRP, averaged over any two-millisecond active transmission interval, of discrete out-of-band emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such base stations shall not exceed −80 dBW in the 1559-1605 MHz band or exceed a level determined by linear interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from −80 dBW at 1605 MHz to −56 dBW at 1610 MHz. A root-mean-square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one megahertz or equivalent and no less video bandwidth shall be used to measure wideband EIRP density for purposes of this rule, and narrowband EIRP shall be measured with a root-mean-square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one kilohertz or equivalent.
(5) Applicants for an ancillary terrestrial component in these bands must demonstrate, at the time of the application, that ATC base stations shall use left-hand-circular polarization antennas with a maximum gain of 16 dBi and overhead gain suppression according to the following:
Where: Gmax is the maximum gain of the base station antenna in dBi.
(6) Prior to operation, ancillary terrestrial component licensees shall:
(i) Provide the Commission with sufficient information to complete coordination of ATC base stations with Search-and-Rescue Satellite-Aided Tracking (SARSAT) earth stations operating in the 1544-1545 MHz band for any ATC base station located either within 27 km of a SARSAT station, or within radio horizon of the SARSAT station, whichever is less.
(ii) Take all practicable steps to avoid locating ATC base stations within radio line of sight of Mobile Aeronautical Telemetry (MAT) receive sites in order to protect U.S. MAT systems consistent with ITU-R Recommendation ITU-R M.1459. MSS ATC base stations located within radio line of sight of a MAT receiver must be coordinated with the Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) for non-Government MAT receivers on a case-by-case basis prior to operation. For government MAT receivers, the MSS licensee shall supply sufficient information to the Commission to allow coordination to take place. A listing of current and planned MAT receiver sites can be obtained from AFTRCC for non-Government sites and through the FCC's IRAC Liaison for Government MAT receiver sites.
(7) ATC mobile terminals shall:
(i) Be limited to a peak EIRP level of 0 dBW and an out-of-channel emissions of −67 dBW/4 kHz at the edge of an MSS licensee's authorized and internationally coordinated MSS frequency assignment.
(ii) Be operated in a fashion that takes all practicable steps to avoid causing interference to U.S. radio astronomy service (RAS) observations in the 1660-1660.5 MHz band.
(iii) Not generate EIRP density, averaged over any two-millisecond active transmission interval, greater than −70 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1605 MHz band or greater than a level determined by linear interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from −70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to −46 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz. The EIRP, averaged over any two-millisecond active transmission interval, of discrete out-of-band emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such mobile terminals shall not exceed −80 dBW in the 1559-1605 MHz band or exceed a level determined by linear interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from −80 dBW at 1605 MHz to −56 dBW at 1610 MHz. The EIRP density of carrier-off-state emissions from such mobile terminals shall not exceed −80 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1610 MHz band, averaged over a two-millisecond interval. A root-mean-square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one megahertz or equivalent and no less video bandwidth shall be used to measure wideband EIRP density for purposes of this rule, and narrowband
(8) When implementing multiple base stations and/or base stations using multiple carriers, where any third-order intermodulation product of these base stations falls on an L-band MSS band coordinated for use by another MSS operator with rights to the coordinated band, the MSS ATC licensee must notify the MSS operator. The MSS operator may request coordination to modify the base station carrier frequencies, or to reduce the maximum base station EIRP on the frequencies contributing to the third-order intermodulation products. The threshold for this notification and coordination is when the sum of the calculated signal levels received by an MSS receiver exceeds −70 dBm. The MSS receiver used in these calculations can be assumed to have an antenna with 0 dBi gain. Free-space propagation between the base station antennas and the MSS terminals can be assumed and actual signal polarizations for the ATC signals and the MSS system may be used.
(c)
(1) An applicant for an ATC in these bands must demonstrate that ATC base stations shall:
(i) Not exceed a peak EIRP of 32 dBW in 1.25 MHz;
(ii) Not cause harmful interference to systems identified in paragraph (c) of this section and, in any case, shall not exceed out-of-channel emissions of −44.1 dBW/30 kHz at the edge of the MSS licensee's authorized frequency assignment;
(iii) At the time of application, that it has taken, or will take steps necessary to avoid causing interference to other services sharing the use of the 2450-2500 MHz band through frequency coordination; and
(iv) Base stations operating in frequencies above 2483.5 MHz shall not generate EIRP density, averaged over any two-millisecond active transmission interval, greater than −70 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1610 MHz band. The EIRP, averaged over any two-millisecond active transmission interval, of discrete out-of-band emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such base stations shall not exceed −80 dBW in the 1559-1610 MHz band. A root-mean-square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one megahertz or equivalent and no less video bandwidth shall be used to measure wideband EIRP density for purposes of this rule, and narrowband EIRP shall be measured with a root-mean-square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one kilohertz or equivalent.
(2) An applicant for an ancillary terrestrial component in these bands must demonstrate that mobile terminals shall:
(i) Meet the requirements contained to protect radio astronomy service (RAS) observations in the 1610.6-1613.8 MHz band from harmful interference;
(ii) Observe a peak EIRP limit of 1.0 dBW in 1.25 MHz;
(iii) Observe an out-of-channel EIRP limit of −57.1 dBW/30 kHz at the edge of the licensed MSS frequency assignment; and
(iv) For ATC mobile terminals operating in assigned frequencies in the 1610-1626.5 MHz band, not generate EIRP density, averaged over any two-millisecond active transmission interval, greater than −70 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1605 MHz band or greater than a level determined by linear interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from −70 dBW/MHz at 1605 MHz to −10 dBW/MHz at 1610 MHz. The EIRP, averaged over any two-millisecond active transmission interval, of discrete out-of-band emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth from such mobile terminals shall not exceed −80 dBW in the 1559-1605 MHz band or exceed a level determined by linear interpolation in the 1605-1610 MHz band, from −80 dBW at 1605 MHz to −20 dBW at 1610 MHz. The EIRP density of carrier-off-state emissions from such mobile terminals shall not exceed −80 dBW/MHz in the 1559-1610 MHz band, averaged over a two-millisecond interval. A root-mean-square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one megahertz or equivalent and no less video bandwidth shall be used to measure wideband EIRP density for purposes of this rule, and narrowband EIRP shall be measured with a root-mean-square detector function with a resolution bandwidth of one kilohertz or equivalent.
(3) Applicants for an ancillary terrestrial component to be used in conjunction with an MSS system using CDMA technology shall coordinate the use of the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS spectrum designated for CDMA systems using the framework established by the ITU in Recommendation ITU-R M.1186.
(4) To avoid interference to an adjacent channel licensee in the Broadband Radio Service (BRS), the power of any ATC base station emission above 2495 MHz shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) measured in watts in accordance with the standards below.
(i) For base stations, the attenuation shall be not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at the upper edge of the authorized ATC band, unless a documented interference complaint is received from an adjacent channel licensee in the BRS. Provided that a documented interference complaint cannot be mutually resolved between the parties, the following additional attenuation requirements shall apply:
(ii) If a pre-existing BRS base station suffers harmful interference from emissions caused by a new or modified ATC base station located 1.5 km or more away, within 24 hours of the receipt of a documented interference complaint the ATC licensee must attenuate its emissions by at least 67 + 10 log (P) dB measured at 3 megahertz above the edge of the authorized ATC band, and shall immediately notify the complaining licensee upon implementation of the additional attenuation.
(iii) If a pre-existing BRS base station suffers harmful interference from emissions caused by a new or modified ATC base station located less than 1.5 km away, within 24 hours of the receipt of a documented interference complaint the ATC licensee must attenuate its emissions by at least 67 + 10 log (P)−20 log(D
(iv) If a new or modified BRS base station suffers harmful interference from emissions caused by a pre-existing ATC base station located 1.5 km or more away, within 60 days of receipt of a documented interference complaint the licensee of the ATC base station must attenuate its base station emissions by at least 67 + 10 log (P) dB measured at 3 megahertz above the edge of the authorized ATC band.
(v) If a new or modified BRS base station suffers harmful interference from emissions caused by a pre-existing ATC base station located less than 1.5 km away, within 60 days of receipt of a documented interference complaint:
(A) the ATC licensee must attenuate its base station emissions by at least 67 + 10 log (P)−20 log(D
(B) if both base stations are co-located, the ATC licensee must limit its undesired signal level at the new or modified BRS base station receiver(s) to
(vi) Compliance with these rules is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater. However, in the 1 MHz bands immediately above and adjacent to the 2495 MHz a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. A narrower resolution bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve measurement accuracy, provided the measured power is integrated over the full required measurement bandwidth (
(5) Licensees of terrestrial low-power systems operating in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band shall operate consistent with the technical limits and other requirements.
The requirements adopt in this section are based on cdma2000 and IS-95 system architecture. A licensee may use different system architecture upon demonstration that it will produce no greater potential interference than would be produced in a cdma2000 and IS-95 system architecture.
(d)
(1) Any mobile earth station (MES) operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz bands must have the following minimum set of capabilities to ensure compliance with Footnote 5.353A in § 2.106 of this chapter and the priority and real-time preemption requirements imposed by Footnote US315 in § 2.106 of this chapter.
(i) All MES transmissions must have a priority assigned to them that preserves the priority and preemptive access given to maritime distress and safety communications sharing the band.
(ii) Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety data communications must be capable of either:
(A) Recognizing message and call priority identification when transmitted from its associated Land Earth Station (LES), or
(B) Accepting message and call priority identification embedded in the message or call when transmitted from its associated LES and passing the identification to shipboard data message processing equipment.
(iii) Each MES must be assigned a unique terminal identification number that will be transmitted upon any attempt to gain access to a system.
(iv) After an MES has gained access to a system, the mobile terminal must be under control of an LES and must obtain all channel assignments from it.
(v) All MESs that do not continuously monitor a separate signaling channel or signaling within the communications channel must monitor the signaling channel at the end of each transmission.
(vi) Each MES must automatically inhibit its transmissions if it is not correctly receiving separate signaling channel or signaling within the communications channel from its associated LES.
(vii) Each MES must automatically inhibit its transmissions on any or all channels upon receiving a channel-shut-off command on a signaling or communications channel it is receiving from its associated LES.
(viii) Each MES with a requirement to handle maritime distress and safety communications must have the capability within the station to automatically preempt lower precedence traffic.
(2) Any LES for an MSS system operating in the 1530-1544 MHz and 1626.5-1645.5 MHz bands must have the following minimum set of capabilities to ensure compliance with Footnote 5.353A and the priority and real-time preemption requirements imposed by Footnote US315 in § 2.106 of this chapter. An LES fulfilling these requirements must not have any additional priority with respect to FSS stations operating with other systems.
(i) LES transmissions to MESs must have a priority assigned to them that preserves the priority and preemptive access given to maritime distress and safety communications pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(ii) The LES must recognize the priority of calls to and from MESs and make channel assignments taking into account the priority access that is given to maritime distress and safety communications.
(iii) The LES must be capable of receiving the MES identification number when transmitted and verifying that it is an authorized user of the system to prohibit unauthorized access.
(iv) The LES must be capable of transmitting channel assignment commands to the MESs.
(v) The communications channels used between the LES and the MES shall have provision for signaling within the voice/data channel, for an MES that does not continuously monitor the LES signaling channel during a call.
(vi) The LES must transmit periodic control signals to MESs that do not continuously monitor the LES signaling channel.
(vii) The LES must automatically inhibit transmissions to an MES to which it is not transmitting in a signaling channel or signaling within the communications channel.
(viii) The LES must be capable of transmitting channel-shut-off commands to MESs on signaling or communications channels.
(ix) Each LES must be capable of interrupting, and if necessary, preempting ongoing routine traffic from an MES in order to complete a maritime distress, urgency or safety call to that MES.
(x) Each LES must be capable of automatically turning off one or more of its associated channels in order to complete a maritime distress, urgency or safety call.
(3) No person without an FCC license for such operation may transmit to a space station in the NVNG, 1.5/1.6 GHz, 1.6/2.4 GHz, or 2 GHz MSS from anywhere in the United States except to receive service from the holder of a pertinent FCC blanket license or from another party with the permission of such a blanket licensee.
(e)
(1) Operation of any of the following devices aboard civil aircraft is prohibited, unless the device is installed in a manner approved by the Federal Aviation Administration or is used by the pilot or with the pilot's consent:
(i) Earth stations capable of transmitting in the 1.5/1.6 GHz, 1.6/2.4 GHz, or 2 GHz MSS frequency bands;
(ii) ATC terminals capable of transmitting in the 1.5/1.6 GHz or 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS bands;
(iii) Earth stations used for non-voice, non-geostationary MSS communication that can emit radiation in the 108-137 MHz band.
(2) No portable device of any type identified in paragraph (a) of this section (including transmitter or transceiver units installed in other devices that are themselves portable) may be sold or distributed to users unless it conspicuously bears the following warning: “This device must
(a)
(1) ATC shall be deployed in the forward-band mode of operation whereby the ATC mobile terminals transmit in the MSS uplink bands and the ATC base stations transmit in the MSS downlink bands in portions of the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz/1525-1559 MHz bands (L-band) and the 1610-1626.5 MHz/2483.5-2500 MHz bands.
An L-band MSS licensee is permitted to apply for ATC authorization based on a non-forward-band mode of operation provided it is able to demonstrate that the use of a non-forward-band mode of operation would produce no greater potential interference than that produced as a result of implementing the rules of this section. A 1.6/2.4 GHz band licensee is permitted to apply for ATC authorization on a non-forward-band mode of operation where the equipment deployed will meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(2) ATC operations shall be limited to certain frequencies:
(i) In the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz/1525-1559 MHz bands (L-band), ATC operations are limited to the frequency assignments authorized and internationally coordinated for the MSS system of the MSS licensee that seeks ATC authority.
(ii) In the 1610-1626.5 MHz/2483.5-2500 MHz bands, ATC operations are limited to the 1610-1617.775 MHz, 1621.35-1626.5 MHz, and 2483.5-2495 MHz bands and to the specific frequencies authorized for use by the MSS licensee that seeks ATC authority.
(3) ATC operations shall not exceed the geographical coverage area of the Mobile-Satellite Service network of the applicant for ATC authority.
(4) ATC base stations shall comply with all applicable antenna and structural clearance requirements established in part 17 of this chapter.
(5) ATC base stations and mobile terminals shall comply with part 1 of this chapter, Subpart I—Procedures Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, including the guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields as defined in §§ 1.1307(b) and 1.1310 of this chapter for PCS networks.
(6) ATC base station operations shall use less than all available MSS frequencies when using all available frequencies for ATC base station operations would exclude otherwise available signals from MSS space-stations.
(b)
(1)
(i) For the L-band, an applicant must demonstrate that it can provide space-segment service covering all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands one-hundred percent of the time, unless it is not technically possible for the MSS operator to meet the coverage criteria from its orbital position.
(ii) For the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service bands, an applicant must demonstrate that it can provide space-segment service to all locations as far north as 70° North latitude and as far south as 55° South latitude for at least 75% of every 24-hour period,
(2)
(i) Operational NGSO MSS ATC systems shall maintain an in-orbit spare satellite.
(ii) Operational GSO MSS ATC systems shall maintain a spare satellite on the ground within one year of commencing operations and launch it into orbit during the next commercially reasonable launch window following a satellite failure.
(iii) All MSS ATC licensees must report any satellite failures, malfunctions or outages that may require satellite replacement within ten days of their occurrence.
(3)
(4)
(i) The MSS ATC operator will use a dual-mode handset that can communicate with both the MSS network and the MSS ATC component to provide the proposed ATC service; or
(ii) Other evidence establishing that the MSS ATC operator will provide an integrated service offering to the public.
(5)
(i) In the 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service bands, MSS ATC is limited to no more than 7.775 MHz of spectrum in the L-band and 11.5 MHz of spectrum in the S-band. Licensees in these bands may implement ATC only on those channels on which MSS is authorized, consistent with the 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS band-sharing arrangement.
(ii) In the L-band, MSS ATC is limited to those frequency assignments available for MSS use in accordance with the Mexico City Memorandum of Understanding, its successor agreements or the result of other organized efforts of international coordination.
(c)
(1) Each ATC mobile station utilized for operation under this part and each transmitter marketed, as set forth in § 2.803 of this chapter, must be of a type that has been authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure for use under this part.
(2) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in these services may request equipment authorization following the procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set forth in part 2 of this chapter.
(3) Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. An Environmental Assessment may be required if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be
(4) Applications for equipment authorization of terrestrial low-power system equipment that will operate in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band shall demonstrate the following:
(i) The transmitted signal is digitally modulated;
(ii) The 6 dB bandwidth is at least 500 kHz;
(iii) The maximum transmit power is no more than 1 W with a peak EIRP of no more than 6 dBW;
(iv) The maximum power spectral density conducted to the antenna is not greater than 8 dBm in any 3 kHz band during any time interval of continuous transmission;
(v) Emissions below 2483.5 MHz are attenuated below the transmitter power (P) measured in watts by a factor of at least 40 + 10 log (P) dB at the channel edge at 2483.5 MHz, 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 5 MHz from the channel edge, and 55 + 10 log (P) dB at X MHz from the channel edge where X is the greater of 6 MHz or the actual emission bandwidth;
(vi) Emissions above 2495 MHz are attenuated below the transmitter power (P) measured in watts by a factor of at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between the channel edge at 2495 MHz and X MHz from this channel edge and 55 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies more than X MHz from this channel edge, where X is the greater of 6 MHz or the actual emission bandwidth; and
(vii) Compliance with these rules is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater. However, in the 1 MHz bands immediately above and adjacent to the 2495 MHz a resolution bandwidth of at least 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. If 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission is less than 1 MHz, the power measured must be integrated over the required measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz. A resolution bandwidth narrower than 1 MHz is permitted to improve measurement accuracy, provided the measured power is integrated over the full required measurement bandwidth (
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) An operational MSS system that applies for authority to deploy ATC in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band for terrestrial low-power operations satisfying the equipment certification requirements of paragraph (c)(4) of this section is not required to demonstrate compliance with paragraph (b) of this section, except to demonstrate the commercial availability of MSS, without regard to coverage requirements.
(2) An ATC licensee seeking to modify its license to add authority to operate a terrestrial low-power network shall certify in its modification application that its operations will utilize a Network Operating System (NOS), consisting of a network management system located at an operations center or centers. The NOS shall have the technical capability to address and resolve interference issues related to the licensee's network operations by reducing operational power; adjusting operational frequencies; shutting off operations; or any other appropriate means. The NOS shall also have the ability to resolve interference from the terrestrial low-power network to the licensee's MSS operations and to authorize access points to the network, which in turn may authorize access to the network by end-user devices. The NOS operations center shall have a point of contact in the United States available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, with a phone number and address made publicly-available by the licensee.
(3) All access points operating in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band shall only operate when authorized by the ATC licensee's NOS, and all client devices operating in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band shall only operate when under the control of such access points.
(h)
If harmful interference is caused to other services by ancillary MSS ATC operations, either from ATC base stations or mobile terminals, the MSS ATC operator must resolve any such interference. If the MSS ATC operator claims to have resolved the interference and other operators claim that interference has not been resolved, then the parties to the dispute may petition
(a)
(1) The ATIS signal must be a separate subcarrier that is automatically activated whenever any radio frequency signal is transmitted.
(2) The ATIS message must continuously repeat.
(3) The ATIS subcarrier signal must be generated at a frequency of 7.1 MHz ±25 kHz and modulate the uplink radio frequency carrier at a level no less than −26 dB (referenced to the unmodulated carrier).
(4) ATIS subcarrier deviation must not exceed 25 kHz.
(5) The ATIS message protocol must be International Morse Code keyed by a 1200 Hz ±800 Hz tone representing a mark and a message rate of 15 to 25 words per minute. The tone must frequency-modulate the subcarrier signal with the ATIS message.
(6) The ATIS message must include the FCC-assigned call sign of the transmitting earth station, a telephone number providing immediate access to personnel capable of resolving interference or coordination problems, and a unique serial number of ten or more digits programmed into the ATIS message in a permanent manner so that it cannot be readily changed by the operator on duty. Additional information may be included in the ATIS data stream provided the total ATIS message length does not exceed 30 seconds.
(7) Use of a direct sequence spread spectrum ATIS signal must be in accordance with the requirements of this section.
(b)
(1) The ATIS message must be modulated onto a direct sequence spread spectrum signal in accordance with the DVB-CID standard, ETSI TS 103 129 V1.1.2 (2014-03)
(2) The ATIS message must continuously repeat.
Paragraph (b) of this section is waived for earth stations using modulators manufactured before August 1, 2017, that cannot be made compliant with the DVB-CID standard by a software upgrade.
(c)
No device described by the marketer or seller using the terms “SEND” or “Satellite Emergency Notification Device” may be marketed or sold in the United States unless it complies with the requirements of RTCM 12800.0.
(a) A space station or earth station operator may be required to temporarily cease radio emissions upon a Commission determination of:
(1) Failure to operate in conformance with the Commission's rules or conditions on a license authorization;
(2) Failure to timely pay any regulatory fee debts without prior Commission approval or request for waiver in advance of the payment deadline; or
(3) During the pendency of an investigation into any potential violation of the Commission's rules or conditions on a license as directed by the Commission.
(a) Subject to section 503 of the Communications Act, a forfeiture may be imposed for failure to operate in conformance with the Communications Act, license terms, any conditions imposed on an authorization, or any of the Commission's rules and regulations; or for failure to comply with Commission requests for information needed to complete international coordination or for failure to cooperate in Commission investigations with respect to international coordination.
(b) Subject to section 503 of the Communications Act, a forfeiture will be imposed and the station license may be terminated for malicious transmission of any signal that causes harmful interference with any other radio communications or signals.
(c) Subject to section 312 of the Communications Act, a station license may be revoked for any reason stated in section 312(a) of the Communications Act, including repeated or willful violation of the kind set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. The operator of a space station license that has been revoked under this rule part must maintain control of each authorized spacecraft until it has deorbited.
(d) The Commission may prevent a licensee from launching or operating additional satellites or space stations under a space station license for any violation of the kind set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section until such violation is cured.
(e) The Commission may place a licensee into an authorization freeze status preventing a licensee from receiving any new or additional licenses or authorizations for any violation of the kind set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
(f) Subject to sections 312(a)(1) and 316 of the Communications Act, the Commission may revoke or modify a station license if the grant of the operations requested in the station license was predicated on statements subsequently found to be intentionally false or misleading.
(g) The sanctions specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section will be imposed pursuant to such notice and an opportunity to be heard as is required pursuant to Titles III and V of the Communications Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the requirements of due process.
(h) For purposes of this section, the term “repeated” and “willful” are defined as set out in section 312(f) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 312(f).
(a) All space and earth station licenses shall be automatically terminated in whole or in part without further notice to the licensee upon:
(1) The failure to meet an applicable milestone as specified in § 100.147.
(2) The failure to meet any registration and coordination requirements as specified in § 100.120(c)(2).
(3) The failure to meet any operational requirements for earth stations as specified in §§ 100.270 through 100.286.
(4) The expiration of the license term, unless an application for extension of the license term has been filed with the Commission pursuant to § 100.149.
(5) The removal or alteration of earth station equipment or antennas that renders the earth station not operational for more than 90 days, or upon the occurrence of a failure or anomaly that renders a space station permanently unable to conduct any radiocommunications.
(6) The failure to maintain 50% of the maximum number of NGSO satellites
(7) The failure to provide any SCS on all or some of the SCS authorized frequencies for more than 90 days, for an SCS space station licensee authorized pursuant to § 100.113. In this instance, the authorization will be terminated in whole or in part with respect to the relevant frequencies on which SCS has not be operational for more than 90 days in the United States, unless specific authority is requested.
A station authorization terminated in whole or in part under the provisions of § 100.302 may be reinstated if the Commission, in its discretion, determines that reinstatement would best serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Petitions for reinstatement will be considered only if:
(a) The petition is filed within 30 days after the expiration date set forth in § 100.301, whichever is applicable;
(b) The petition explains the failure to file a timely notification or renewal application; and
(c) The petition sets forth with specificity the procedures that have been established to ensure timely filings in the future.
The protection from interference afforded by the registration of a receiving earth station shall be automatically terminated if:
(a) The request for registration is not submitted to the Commission within three months of the completion of the frequency coordination process, except for as provided in § 100.276;
(b) The receiving earth station is not constructed and placed into service within six months after completion of coordination;
(c) The Commission finds that the station has been used less than 50% of the time during any 12 month period;
(d) The Commission finds that the station has been used for an unlawful purpose or otherwise in violation of the Commission's rules, regulations or policies;
(e) The Commission finds that the actual use of the facility is inconsistent with what was set forth in the registrant's application; or
(f) The Commission finds that the frequency coordination exhibit, upon which the granted registration is based, is incomplete or does not conform with established coordination procedures.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation (DOT), proposes to substantially recalibrate the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program to realign this program with Congressional intent. That recalibration includes proposing to amend DOT's fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles for model years (MYs) 2022-2026 and MYs 2027-2031. Consistent with statutory requirements, the fuel economy standards proposed in this rule are founded on light-duty vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel fuels, a category that includes non-plug-in hybrid vehicles. In formulating the proposed standards, NHTSA has not considered, consistent with law, the imputed fuel-economy performance of battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs) or the electric operation of vehicles that use plug-in hybrid electric powertrains, nor compliance credits or adjustments to the two-cycle fuel economy test procedures to account for air conditioning and off-cycle technologies. NHTSA also is proposing to eliminate the inter-manufacturer credit trading system and to amend the light-duty vehicle fleet classification system to allocate vehicles into passenger and non-passenger automobile fleets appropriately, based on their attributes and capabilities, starting in MY 2028. Elimination of unlawful considerations, combined with several of the proposed changes, would significantly improve the capabilities of manufacturers to meet fuel economy standards, better align the program with Congressional intent, and reduce manufacturer incentives to design vehicles and add features that are not desired by American consumers and that have questionable real-world fuel economy benefits. NHTSA is therefore proposing to set fuel economy standards that increase from newly proposed MY 2022 standards at a rate of 0.5 percent per year through MY 2026, followed by 0.25 percent per year through MY 2031, with MY 2027 stringency established as a bridge between the two sets of standards. The reduced stringency increases in later years, coupled with a reevaluation of the coefficients that define the functions governing fuel economy standards, are intended to establish maximum feasible standards in a manner that gains real-world fuel-economy-benefits, while enabling the industry to adapt to the proposed substantial recalibration of the CAFE program. NHTSA projects that the amended standards would correspond to the industry fleetwide average for all light-duty vehicles of roughly 34.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in MY 2031.
For access to the dockets or to read background documents or comments received, please visit
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should be submitted to: Office of Management and Budget at
For technical and policy issues, Joseph Bayer, CAFE Program Division Chief, Office of Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; email:
This proposal affects companies that manufacture or sell new passenger automobiles (passenger cars) and non-passenger automobiles (light trucks), as defined under NHTSA's CAFE regulations.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether particular activities may be regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the regulations. You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this action to the persons listed in
The relationship between the light-duty vehicle market and the CAFE program has gone through several cycles over its almost 50-year history. First created to require conservation of petroleum in response to price shocks caused by the Arab oil embargoes of the 1970s, the CAFE program has led not only to the desired improvements in fuel economy but also created unintended responses from vehicle manufacturers—often to the detriment of consumers.
Over the CAFE program's history, separate standards for the passenger car and light truck fleets (referred to by law as passenger automobiles and non-passenger automobiles) have led manufacturers to reshape the market in unanticipated ways—such as by almost eliminating the production of station wagons (passenger cars that generally have more robust cargo capacity, adding mass and reducing fuel economy) in favor of vehicles like minivans and crossover utility vehicles (considered light trucks, and subject to less stringent standards).
Strict mile-per-gallon-based standards in the program's early years also led manufacturers to seek significant reductions in vehicle size and mass, leading to increased injury or fatality risk for occupants of smaller vehicles involved in a crash.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) started providing special fuel economy adjustments for technologies that had potential for fuel economy improvements but were not measurable using the laboratory test procedures (
The creation of a system for inter-manufacturer credit trading—intended to improve the cost-effectiveness of the CAFE program by allowing manufacturers that could improve the fuel economy of their fleets more cost-effectively to earn credits for exceeding fuel economy standards and sell those credits to manufacturers that would need to incur higher costs to meet fuel economy standards—has also resulted in a windfall for EV-exclusive manufacturers that sell credits to other non-EV manufacturers, which in turn pay for those credits with capital that could be invested toward improving the fuel economy performance or other desirable attributes of their traditional fleets. The enormous fuel economy values assigned to EVs have, heretofore, been included in the baseline fleet fuel economy for subsequent CAFE rulemakings upon which stringency increases are applied—thereby significantly increasing the fuel economy requirements for traditional gasoline- or diesel-fueled fleets.
At the same time, the classification system that has long divided the fleet between passenger cars (intended to
While the CAFE program was intended to push manufacturers to improve fuel economy while preserving their ability to design and produce vehicles that meet market demands, the system has spun off its axis and requires recalibration. Instead of allowing manufacturers to design and produce vehicles they believe their customers will want and need, while spreading real-world fuel economy improvements across their fleets, the system has increasingly led manufacturers to try to fit square vehicle pegs in round classification holes to force the adoption of technologies that do not meet the demands of American families simply to obtain on-paper fuel economy improvements that may have little basis in reality. All of this adds inefficiency and cost—pushing even more consumers out of an already unaffordable new car market.
By delegation of authority from the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary), NHTSA is proposing to amend the previously promulgated CAFE standards applicable to passenger and non-passenger automobiles (colloquially referred to as passenger cars and light trucks, and together known as light-duty vehicles) produced for MYs 2022-2026 and MYs 2027-2031. Proposing amended standards beginning with MY 2022 is consistent with the Secretary's direction in the January 28, 2025, memorandum titled “Fixing the CAFE Program” and is also the earliest model year for which NHTSA has not concluded CAFE compliance proceedings; additional discussion regarding NHTSA's proposal to amend standards beginning in MY 2022 can be found in Section V.
Consistent with the terms of the CAFE program mandated in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) and other laws (codified in chapter 329 of title 49, United States Code), the fuel economy standards proposed herein are founded on light-duty vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel fuels, a category that includes non-plug-in hybrid vehicles.
This proposed rule fulfills NHTSA's statutory obligation to set CAFE standards at the maximum feasible level that the agency determines vehicle manufacturers can achieve in each model year, balancing four key factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, the need of the Nation to conserve energy, and the effect of other Federal regulations on fuel economy.
The standards presented in this proposal significantly differ from those finalized in the 2020, 2022, and 2024 rules because, in formulating those prior standards, NHTSA considered both the fuel economy of EVs and PHEVs and compliance credits that could be earned when a manufacturer over-complied with an applicable fuel economy standard impermissibly. As a result, the fuel economy standards previously established by NHTSA for passenger cars and light trucks for MYs 2022-2031 failed to satisfy substantive statutory requirements. NHTSA is proposing in this NPRM the “maximum feasible” amended fuel economy requirements for the model years in question that best reflect and balance the various practical considerations and limitations mandated for the CAFE program.
This rulemaking is intended to establish maximum feasible fuel economy standards while restoring the functionality intended by Congress. It marks a significant reset. As an initial matter, NHTSA proposes to remove consideration of prohibited technologies and credits from every aspect of the standards development process to bring the program back within its statutory constraints. NHTSA discussed extensively its prior unlawful consideration of prohibited technologies and credits in the standards development process in the final rule,
NHTSA is proposing to remove consideration of AC efficiency and OC fuel consumption improvement values (FCIVs) from its standard-setting analysis starting with MY 2028, which is the first year in which a removal of FCIVs could go into effect.
The agency also proposes to eliminate the inter-manufacturer credit trading program (which is authorized, but not required, by 49 U.S.C. 32903(f)) beginning with MY 2028. This change in the program is long overdue. While NHTSA does not consider the availability of credits or credit trading in
The agency also proposes a substantial reclassification of the light-duty fleet in a manner intended by Congress in creating the CAFE program—with the passenger car fleet consisting of vehicles primarily designed to move people, and the light truck fleet consisting of vehicles primarily designed to operate off road or move cargo. NHTSA believes these proposed changes are necessary to restore the CAFE program to its intended orbit but recognizes the changes will introduce significant design consideration for manufacturers. Moving a large fraction of vehicles previously classified as light trucks into a manufacturer's passenger vehicle fleet will have a significant effect on the overall fuel economy performance of the manufacturer's passenger fleet—after all, even if based upon the same platform as a passenger car, the additional vehicle height adds significant mass and decreases fuel economy. Meanwhile, removal of vehicles from a manufacturer's light truck fleet will leave that fleet consisting of even heavier and less aerodynamic vehicles, such as large sports utility vehicles and pickup trucks, thereby decreasing the overall average fuel economy of the light truck fleet. Accordingly, while a manufacturer's combined overall fleet fuel economy may remain the same, both its passenger car and light truck fleets will necessarily achieve lower measured fuel economy. NHTSA is also proposing to update the classification criteria from technology-based to performance-based standards where applicable, consistent with best practices for regulation. This proposal intends to take these changes into account through amendments to both the footprint curves and standards applicable to various points within the curves. NHTSA intends that, as a result of this proposed update, automobiles classified as non-passenger will exhibit true non-passenger capabilities that display relevant off-highway vehicle attributes such as approach angle and running clearance or include design features that provide higher payload and towing abilities for transporting property.
By surveying the measured fuel economy performance of gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger cars and light trucks produced for the U.S. market in MY 2022, NHTSA has created a maximum feasible foundation from which to establish standards for subsequent model years. NHTSA is proposing to set fuel economy standards that increase from the newly proposed MY 2022 standards at a rate of 0.5 percent per year through MY 2026 followed by 0.25 percent per year through MY 2031, with MY 2027 stringency as a bridge between the two sets of standards.
In addition to the proposed standards (also referred to as the “Preferred Alternative”) NHTSA considers a range of regulatory alternatives for each fleet, consistent with the agency's obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and E.O. 12866. The regulatory alternatives are as follows:
NHTSA
NHTSA's preliminary conclusion is that this decision best comports with statutory requirements and is justified to reset standards set in final rules issued in 2020, 2022, and 2024, respectively, which were established improperly above the maximum feasible level because NHTSA considered statutorily prohibited factors in establishing those
Increasing the stringency of standards at modest annual rates, following a reset to eliminate the consideration of impermissible factors that were applied in setting the current standards, and coupled with a re-examination of the shape of the fuel economy target functions and the vehicle classification definitions, best comports with statutory requirements. Moreover, the level, shape, and applicability of the standards to the proposed passenger and non-passenger automobile fleets are justified by the inappropriate distortions the existing regulations have caused in the marketplace. Those regulations resulted in unnecessary regulatory burdens that did not further statutory purposes because the standards were not attainable for the gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleet.
The proposed CAFE standards remain vehicle-footprint-based, like the current CAFE standards in effect since MY 2011. The footprint of a vehicle is the area calculated by multiplying the wheelbase times the track width, essentially the rectangular area of a vehicle measured from tire to tire where the tires hit the ground. This means that the standards are defined by mathematical equations that represent constrained linear functions relating vehicle footprint to fuel economy targets for passenger cars and light trucks.
NHTSA estimates that the proposed standards would correspond to a combined industry fleetwide average of roughly 34.5 mpg in MY 2031 for passenger cars and light trucks.
For simplification, NHTSA provides industry-wide mpg estimates corresponding to the proposed standards in the table below but reiterates that the coefficients that define the mathematical functions comprise the actual standards.
To the
NHTSA is also proposing new minimum domestic passenger car CAFE standards (MDPCS) for MYs 2022-2026 and MYs 2027-2031 as required by EISA, which are applied to passenger cars that are deemed to be manufactured in the United States. Section 32902(b)(4) of 49 U.S.C. requires NHTSA to project the minimum domestic standard when it promulgates passenger car standards for a model year; these standards are shown in Table I-3 below. NHTSA continues to apply an offset (albeit a far smaller one than was first used in the 2020 final rule and applied to the 2022 and 2024 final rules) when calculating the MDPCSs for MYs 2027-2031, reflecting prior differences between passenger car footprints forecast originally by the agency and passenger car footprints as they occurred in the real world. The proposed minimum domestic passenger car standards (MDPCS) for each model year are as shown in the table below.
NHTSA uses the CAFE Compliance and Effects Modeling System (the CAFE Model) developed and maintained by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center or Volpe) as a tool for assessing the likely regulatory effects of the proposal and various regulatory alternatives. The Model does not determine which standards satisfy the requirements of EPCA, and no model can predict precisely the engineering configurations automakers are likely to introduce in response to evolving trends in market demand. However, the analysis developed using the CAFE Model provides further support for NHTSA's preliminary judgment that the standards proposed in this rule are the maximum standards that are technologically feasible and economically practicable for the gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles covered by the proposed rule, considering the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy.
One significant modification from previous standard-setting proceedings and previous applications of the CAFE Model is that NHTSA did not include EVs in the base fleet for analysis purposes and did not consider or model the potential production of EVs as a CAFE compliance strategy for automakers. Section 32902 of chapter 49 directs NHTSA to establish fuel economy standards that are feasible and practicable for gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles without regard to any reliance on non-gasoline- or diesel-powered alternatives. Automakers, of course, are free to produce EVs in response to market demand, and their production and sale of EVs will earn credit toward compliance with the CAFE standards in accordance with the “petroleum equivalency factor,” or “PEF,” prescribed by the Department of Energy (DOE).
Additional updates to the CAFE Model and its inputs since the 2024 final rule include updating the Market Data Input File to reflect the change in analysis fleet from MYs 2022-2024, updating the modeling capability to allow for vehicle reclassification, updating the Scenarios Input File to set the value of civil penalties at zero,
NHTSA estimates that this proposed rule would reduce the average up-front vehicle costs due to CAFE standards by approximately $900, cutting in half what consumers might expect to pay as a result of increased requirements under the No-Action Alternative.
The current estimates of costs and benefits are important considerations, performed as directed by E.O. 12866, and also serve as an informative data point in NHTSA's consideration of the factors that NHTSA is required to balance by statute when determining maximum feasible standards. NHTSA concludes, for the purposes of this proposal, that Alternative 2 is maximum feasible on the basis of these respective factors. NHTSA also considered several sensitivity cases by varying different inputs and concluded that, even when varying inputs resulted in changes to net benefits, those changes were not significant enough to alter the tentative conclusion that Alternative 2 is maximum feasible.
Finally, NHTSA has computed “annualized” benefits and costs relative to the No-Action Alternative, as follows:
Though NHTSA is prohibited from considering the availability of certain flexibilities in making its determination about the levels of CAFE standards that would be maximum feasible, manufacturers have a variety of flexibilities available to aid their compliance. NHTSA is proposing certain changes to these flexibilities and other features of the CAFE program as shown in Table I-6, and as described further in Section VI of this preamble.
The
When NHTSA promulgates new regulations or amends its existing regulations, it generally presents an analysis that estimates the impacts of those regulations, including the impacts of other regulatory alternatives it considered during the rulemaking. These analyses derive from statutes such as the APA
These statutes contain a variety of requirements for which NHTSA seeks to account in its analysis. NHTSA captures all of these requirements by presenting an analysis that spans a meaningful range of regulatory alternatives; that quantifies a range of technological, economic, and environmental impacts; and that does so in a manner that accounts for various express statutory requirements for the CAFE program (
This section provides further detail on the key features and components of NHTSA's standard-setting (also known as “constrained”) analysis. NHTSA's standard-setting analysis reflects statutory limitations on what NHTSA can consider when determining maximum feasible CAFE standards. In determining maximum feasible fuel economy levels, “the Secretary of Transportation—(1) may not consider the fuel economy of dedicated automobiles; (2) shall consider dual fueled automobiles to be operated only on gasoline or diesel fuel; and (3) may not consider, when prescribing a fuel economy standard, the trading, transferring, or availability of credits.”
This section also describes how NHTSA's analysis has been constructed specifically to reflect other governing law applicable to CAFE standards, reviews how NHTSA's analysis has been updated to represent relevant statutory provisions more closely, and describes additional technical work recently conducted by the agency. The analysis for this proposed rule aids NHTSA in implementing its statutory obligations, including the weighing of various considerations, by informing decision-makers about the estimated effects of different regulatory alternatives.
NHTSA's analysis makes use of a range of data (
In coordination with the DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe or the Volpe Center), NHTSA uses the CAFE Compliance and Effects Modeling System (CAFE Model or the Model) to simulate and analyze manufacturers' potential responses to new CAFE standards and to estimate various impacts of those responses. NHTSA has used the CAFE Model to perform analyses supporting every CAFE rulemaking since 2001. Working together, NHTSA and Volpe ensure that the CAFE Model's operation reflects the statutory directives discussed in more detail in Section II below.
The CAFE Model first estimates how vehicle manufacturers might respond to a given regulatory scenario; from that potential compliance solution, the system estimates what impact that response will have on fuel consumption, emissions, safety impacts, and economic externalities. The following section summarizes information necessary to understand the analysis, while Draft TSD Chapter 2 and the CAFE Model Documentation present additional details on the Model's operation.
The CAFE Model may be characterized as an integrated system of models that estimate the impact of various policy options. For example, one model estimates manufacturers' responses, another estimates resultant changes in total vehicle sales, and still another estimates resultant changes in fleet turnover (
Manufacturer compliance simulation and the ensuing effects estimation, collectively referred to as compliance modeling, encompass numerous subsidiary elements. Compliance simulation begins with a detailed user-provided initial forecast of the vehicle models offered for sale during the simulation period.
Estimating impacts involves calculating resulting changes in new vehicle costs, estimating a variety of costs (
NHTSA also uses EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) model to estimate “vehicle” or “downstream” emission factors for criteria pollutants
To prepare for the analysis that supports this proposed rule, DOT has continued to refine and expand the capabilities of the CAFE Model. As examples, and as discussed in more detail below, the reference fleet uses mid-MY 2024 compliance data (the most recent available data at the time of the analysis) and includes the capability (in addition to capabilities integrated into the modeling system) to account for proposed changes to the regulatory vehicle classification definitions. The analysis also employs separate input files for the modeling runs that NHTSA uses for its standard-setting analysis, which excludes the 49 U.S.C. 32902(h) factors that NHTSA cannot consider (constrained analysis), and the modeling runs that NHTSA uses for its analysis of impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act, which does not exclude the 49 U.S.C. 32902(h) factors (unconstrained analysis), and those input files have been updated accordingly. Common to both analyses are routine updates to dollar year values (
Multiple requirements govern the scope and nature of CAFE standard setting; the specific requirements regarding the technical characteristics of CAFE standards and the analysis thereof include, but are not limited to, the following:
DOT has continued its ongoing effort to refine and expand the capabilities of the CAFE Model for use in analyzing regulatory alternatives as considered in this proposal. Any analysis of regulatory actions that will be implemented several years in the future, and whose benefits and costs accrue over decades, requires many assumptions. Over such time horizons, many, perhaps even most, of the relevant assumptions in such an analysis are inevitably uncertain. To help address this, NHTSA updates the assumptions used in each successive CAFE analysis to reflect the current state of the world more accurately and to apply the best current estimates of future conditions. Accordingly, since the 2024 final rule, DOT has made the following changes to the CAFE Model and its inputs:
• Updating the Market Data Input File to reflect the change in analysis fleet from MYs 2022-2024;
• Updating algorithms and settings to remove statutorily prohibited inputs from the standard-setting analysis and to select between different types of analyses (
• Updating the base dollar year from 2021$ to 2024$;
• Updating the capability to exclude plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) electricity usage when PHEV fuel economy operation is in gasoline-only mode for standard setting;
• Updating the modeling capability to allow for vehicle reclassification;
• Updating the Market Data Input File to include vehicle reclassification;
• Updating the Model to use a bracketed costing approach to determine prices for the five levels of mass reduction (MR);
• Updating the Scenarios Input File to remove AC and OC FCIVs;
• Updating the Market Data Input File to include advanced truck credits for MY 2024 vehicles, noting that those credits sunset after MY 2024 and are therefore only applicable to that one year;
• Updating the Parameters Input File to set the social cost of carbon at zero;
• Updating the Parameters Input File for changes in other economic variables;
• Updating the Scenarios Input File with an adjusted tax credit phase-out timeframe;
• Updating the Scenarios Input File to set civil penalties to zero;
• Updating selected economic assumptions:
○ Rebound elasticity;
○ Payback period;
○ Value of travel time per vehicle; and
○ Numerous other updates based on the 2025 AEO; and
• Updating emission rates based on EPA's “MOVES5” model.
These and other updated analytical inputs are discussed in the remainder of this section and in detail in the Draft TSD.
NHTSA is analyzing the effects of different potential CAFE standards on industry, consumers, and society at large. These different potential standards are described as “regulatory alternatives,” and, amongst the regulatory alternatives, NHTSA identifies which ones the agency is proposing to select. EPCA, as amended by EISA, expressly requires that CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks be based on one or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy and be expressed in the form of a mathematical function.
Under the footprint-based standards, the function defines a fuel economy performance target for each unique footprint combination within a car or truck model type. Using the functions, each manufacturer thus will have an average fuel economy standard for each year that is unique to each of its regulatory fleets (
For passenger cars, consistent with prior rulemakings, NHTSA is defining fuel economy targets as shown in Equation II-1.
Here,
For light trucks, also consistent with prior rulemakings, NHTSA is defining fuel economy targets as shown in Equation II-2.
Though the general model of the target function equation is the same for passenger cars and light trucks, and the
The parameters defining the general curve shapes have remained the same since the 2012 final rule. NHTSA periodically reconsiders whether to update the mathematical functions but in each prior instance concluded that the existing curves continued to represent the relationship between footprint and fuel economy reasonably. Consistent with the agency's past practice of reviewing the mathematical functions prior to each rulemaking, NHTSA re-examined the curve shapes for this proposal.
More specifically, NHTSA performed descriptive statistical analyses using manufacturer-reported data for the MY 2022 and MY 2024 fleets. NHTSA used the MY 2022 fleet for analysis of curve shapes relevant to the MYs 2022-2027 standards and used the MY 2024 “reclassified” fleet for analysis of curve shapes relevant to the MYs 2028-2031 standards. As discussed in more detail in Draft TSD Chapter 1, the proposed updates to NHTSA's vehicle classification regulations beginning in MY 2028 have material impacts on the relationship between fuel economy and footprint for each regulatory class, as expressed by the standards-defining functions.
To estimate the relationship between fuel economy and footprint and to maintain general consistency with analyses of past rules (and the conformance to statutory prohibitions), the agency excluded all diesel engine vehicles and all plug-in electric vehicles, which include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles (BEV), and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV), and applied weighting and other adjustments to the fuel consumption and footprint data. Table II-1 summarizes the methodological approaches that NHTSA considered for reassessing the footprint curves.
NHTSA believes that the ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression framework continues to be an appropriate method for estimating the relationship of footprint to fuel economy. While the agency relied on the minimum absolute deviation (MAD) regression framework in the 2010 final rule to address the effects of “outlier” vehicles in the fleet, the agency addresses outlier vehicles in this reconsideration through technology-based exclusions (
As discussed in Draft TSD Chapter 1, NHTSA considers a variety of technical and policy issues when determining the footprint curve shape in any CAFE rulemaking action. For example, standards that decrease sharply with increasing footprint could create incentives for manufacturers to upsize vehicles, since small changes in vehicle footprint would result in a significant change in the vehicle's fuel economy target; conversely, flatter standards could create a significant amount of additional technology burden for larger vehicles to meet fuel economy targets like those of smaller vehicles. That said, NHTSA performed an analysis for the 2024 final rule showing that vehicle footprints, within vehicle types, have been stable on a sales-weighted basis since MY 2012.
The footprint curve updates for this proposal are intended to ensure that the agency appropriately captures the footprint-to-fuel economy relationship using the most current data. As discussed in Draft TSD Chapter 1, the observed relationship between footprint and fuel economy for both the passenger car and light truck fleets is on average “flatter” (
Finally, the required CAFE level applicable to a passenger car (either domestic or import) or light truck fleet in a given model year is determined by calculating the production-weighted harmonic average of fuel economy targets applicable to specific vehicle model configurations in the fleet, as shown in Equation II-3.
Additional details about the specific values defining the mathematical functions and visual representations of the fuel economy target curves are presented in Section III, below.
The first step in the agency's analysis of the effects of different levels of fuel economy standards is the compliance simulation. As used throughout this rulemaking, “compliance simulation” means the simulation of how manufacturers could comply with different levels of CAFE standards by adding fuel economy-improving technology to an existing fleet of vehicles, using the CAFE Model. The CAFE Model uses a variety of data, including data provided by manufacturers, to simulate final fleet sales and performance.
At the most basic level, a model is a set of equations, algorithms,
For the MYs 2022-2026 analysis, NHTSA has performed two exercises: first, it has re-evaluated the statistical model used to determine the shape (
For MYs 2022-2024, NHTSA uses each proposed standard to calculate vehicle model target function values for each vehicle model in the standard-setting fleet.
NHTSA also computes the MDPCS for each model year by taking the sales-weighted harmonic mean of the model-level target function values for all vehicles in the passenger car fleet in that model year and multiplying the value by 92 percent.
NHTSA determines each manufacturer's achieved fuel economy in miles per gallon separately for each regulatory class using the sales-weighted average of the 2-cycle fuel economy values of all models produced by the manufacturer in the relevant regulatory class. NHTSA then compares this achieved value to the corresponding manufacturer regulatory class standard in each model year to determine whether the fleet of vehicles to which it corresponds would comply with each proposed standard in that model year. To determine the total number of vehicles out of compliance, NHTSA determines compliance for each manufacturer's regulatory fleet in each model year under each proposed alternative, and if a fleet is determined to be out of compliance, the agency sums the total number of vehicles sold in the non-compliant fleet.
As discussed in more detail in Section IV, NHTSA analyzes the difference between each manufacturer's fleet CAFE compliance value and the proposed standard. NHTSA has considered using the CAFE Model to simulate behavior for the MYs 2022-2026 compliance period to estimate how manufacturers and consumers could have responded to different CAFE standards. However, for MYs 2022-2025, production is already closed or is in process, and MY 2026 production plans likely are solidified and underway by the time of this NPRM's publishing. This type of analysis overestimates the ability of manufacturers to optimize in response to the proposed standards for these years and likely leads to different results from the actual outcomes. Thus, simulating a response and any monetized costs or benefits deriving from that do not represent real economic effects from the proposed change in policy.
For the MYs 2027-2031 amendment analysis, NHTSA used the CAFE Model to simulate manufacturers' potential responses to new CAFE standards and to estimate the various impacts of those responses on manufacturers and society. The Model considers various inputs, such as technology effectiveness data, technology costs, and other relevant factors, and uses those inputs to generate output predictions.
NHTSA attempts to ensure that the technology inputs and assumptions that go into the CAFE Model are based on sound science and reliable data and that NHTSA's reasons for using those inputs and assumptions are transparent and understandable to stakeholders. This section and the following section discuss at a high level how the agency generates the technology inputs and assumptions that the CAFE Model uses for the compliance simulation.
NHTSA incorporates technology inputs and assumptions either directly in the CAFE Model or in the CAFE Model's various input files. The compliance simulation algorithm is at the heart of the CAFE Model's decisions about how to apply technologies to a manufacturer's vehicles to project how the manufacturer could meet CAFE standards. The compliance simulation algorithm consists of several equations that direct the Model to apply fuel economy-improving technologies to vehicles in a way that simulates how manufacturers might apply those technologies to their vehicles in the real world. The compliance simulation algorithm projects a cost-effective pathway for manufacturers to comply with different levels of CAFE standards, considering the technology present on manufacturers' vehicles now and what technology could be applied to their vehicles in the future. Embedded in the CAFE Model is the universe of technology options that the Model can consider and rules about the order in which it can consider those options, as well as estimates of how effective fuel economy-improving technology is on different types of vehicles (
Technology inputs and assumptions are also located in all four of the CAFE Model Input Files. The Market Data Input File is a spreadsheet file that characterizes the fleet of vehicles used as the starting point for the CAFE Model. There is one row describing each vehicle model and model configuration manufactured for the United States market in a model year (or years) and input and assumption data that links those vehicles to technology and economic, environmental, and safety inputs and assumptions. The Technologies Input File identifies 71 technologies the agency uses in the analysis, along with information used to inform the compliance simulation and effects estimates, including phase-in caps to identify when and how widely each technology can be applied to specific types of vehicles, most of the technology costs (hybrid vehicle battery costs are provided in a separate file), and the fuel share percentage for PHEV to capture the charge sustaining operation. The Scenarios Input File provides the coefficient values defining the standards for each regulatory alternative
NHTSA generates these technology inputs and assumptions in several ways, including using data submitted by vehicle manufacturers pursuant to their CAFE reporting obligations; public data on vehicle models from manufacturer websites, press materials, marketing brochures, and other publicly available information; collaborative research, testing, and modeling with other Federal agencies, like Argonne; and research, testing, and modeling with independent organizations, like IAV GmbH Ingenieurgesellschaft Auto und Verkehr (IAV), Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and FEV North America. NHTSA also considers the work done to develop inputs and assumptions for prior rules to the extent it is still relevant and applicable; feedback from stakeholders on prior rules and from meetings conducted before the commencement of this proposed rule; and NHTSA's own engineering judgment. NHTSA uses the term “engineering judgment” throughout this rulemaking to refer to decisions made by a team of NHTSA engineers and analysts. This judgment is based on their experience working in the automotive industry and other relevant fields and assessment of all the data sources described above. Most importantly, the agency uses engineering judgment to assess how best to represent vehicle manufacturers' potential responses to different levels of CAFE standards within the boundaries of the agency's modeling tools, as “a model is meant to simplify reality in order to make it tractable.”
NHTSA begins the compliance analysis by defining the range of fuel economy-improving technologies that the CAFE Model could add to a manufacturer's vehicles in the U.S. market.
Adding a technology to the range of options that the CAFE Model can consider requires several data elements, including a broadly applicable technology definition, estimates of how effective that technology is at improving fuel economy on different vehicle types (
NHTSA has been refining the technology options it considers since first developing the CAFE Model in 2002. In this context, “refining” means both adding and removing technology options depending on current technology availability and projected future availability in the U.S. market, while balancing a reasonable amount of modeling and analytical complexity. In recent years, the agency has refined the internal combustion engine (ICE) technology options, particularly the TURBO and HCR pathways, to reflect better the diversity of engines in the current fleet. Consistent with NHTSA's interpretation of EPCA/EISA, discussed further in Section II.0 and V, the agency includes several hybrid technologies to represent appropriately the diversity of current and anticipated future technology options while ensuring NHTSA's analysis remains consistent with statutory limitations prohibiting the consideration of EVs in establishing standards and considering only the gas or diesel operation of dual fueled automobiles.
The technology options do not include technologies NHTSA has determined will not be available in the rulemaking timeframe. As with past analyses, the agency does not include technologies unlikely to be feasible in the rulemaking timeframe, engine technologies designed for markets other than the United States market required to use unique gasoline,
In this analysis, the CAFE Model does not dictate or predict the technologies manufacturers must use to comply; rather, the CAFE Model outlines a technology pathway that manufacturers could use to meet the standards cost effectively. While NHTSA estimates the costs and benefits for different levels of CAFE standards based on a simulation of the technology manufacturers could apply in the rulemaking timeframe, it is entirely possible and reasonable that manufacturers may use different technology options to meet the agency's standards in the real world and may even use technologies that NHTSA does not include in the analysis. This is because NHTSA's standards do not mandate the application of any particular technology. Rather, NHTSA's standards are performance-based: manufacturers in the real world can and do use a range of compliance solutions that include technology application and encouraging sales shifts from one vehicle model or trim level to another.
Chapter 3 of the Draft TSD and Section II.0 below describe the technologies that NHTSA uses for the analysis. Each technology has a name that loosely corresponds to its real-world technology equivalent. NHTSA abbreviates the name to a short signifier for the CAFE Model to read. The agency organizes those technologies into groups based on technology type: basic and advanced engines, transmissions, hybridization, and road load technologies, which include MR, aerodynamic improvement, and low rolling resistance tire technologies.
NHTSA then organizes the groups into pathways. The pathways instruct the CAFE Model how and in what order to apply technology. In other words, the pathways define mutually exclusive technologies (
As an example, NHTSA's “Turbo Engine Path” consists of five different engine technologies that employ different levels of turbocharging technology. A turbocharger is essentially a small turbine driven by exhaust gases produced by the engine. As these gases flow through the turbocharger, they spin the turbine, which in turn spins a compressor that pushes more air into an engine's cylinders. Having more air in the engine's cylinders allows the engine to burn more fuel, which then creates more power, without needing a physically larger engine. In the agency's analysis, an engine that is turbocharged “downsizes,” or becomes smaller. Choosing to turbocharge an engine allows a manufacturer to maintain similar levels of performance to a larger, non-turbocharged engine with a smaller engine that uses less fuel to do the same amount of work. Allowing basic engines to be downsized and turbocharged instead of just turbocharged keeps the vehicle's utility and performance constant so that NHTSA can measure the costs and benefits of different levels of fuel economy improvements, rather than the change in different vehicle attributes. This concept of performance neutrality is discussed further, below.
The Model only allows forward movement along the technology pathways, adding more advanced technology as the Model moves through the technology tree. This ensures that a vehicle that uses a more advanced technology cannot downgrade to a less advanced version of the technology or ensures that a vehicle does not switch to technology that is significantly technically different. This progressive order also realistically represents how manufacturers often start with the lowest and most cost-effective technologies and generally advance along particular technology pathways. As an example, if a vehicle in the compliance simulation begins with a TURBOD engine—a turbocharged engine with cylinder deactivation—it cannot adopt a TURBO0 engine.
NHTSA also considers two categories of technology, for model years in which the technology categories are applicable, that the agency could not simulate as part of the CAFE Model's technology pathways. “Off-cycle” and AC efficiency are two types of technologies that improve vehicle fuel economy but are not accounted for using 2-cycle testing. To account for the benefits of these technologies, EPA has allowed manufacturers to generate FCIVs when they add these technologies, which are used to improve a manufacturers' certified fuel economy. As an example, manufacturers can generate FCIVs for technology like active seat ventilation and solar reflective surface coatings that make the cabin of a vehicle more comfortable for the occupants without using less efficient accessories like heat or AC. Instead of including OC and AC efficiency technologies in the technology pathways, NHTSA includes the improvement as a defined benefit that gets applied to a manufacturer's entire fleet in applicable model years instead of to individual vehicles. The defined benefit that each manufacturer receives in the analysis for using OC and AC efficiency technology on their vehicles is located in the Market Data
To illustrate how NHTSA simulates technology application, throughout this section NHTSA follows the hypothetical vehicle mentioned above that begins the compliance simulation with a TURBOD engine. The agency's hypothetical vehicle, Generic Motors' Ravine Runner F Series, is a roomy, top-of-the-line sport utility vehicle (SUV). The Ravine Runner F Series starts the compliance simulation with technologies from most technology pathways; specifically, after looking at Generic Motors' website and marketing materials, the agency determines that it has technology that loosely fits within the following technologies that the agency considers in the CAFE Model: it has a turbocharged engine with cylinder deactivation, a fairly advanced 10-speed automatic transmission, a 12V start-stop system, the least advanced tire technology, a fairly aerodynamic vehicle body, and it employs a fairly advanced level of MR. NHTSA tracks the technologies on each vehicle using a “technology key,” which is the string of technology abbreviations for each vehicle. The vehicle technologies and their abbreviations that the agency considers in this analysis are shown in Draft TSD Chapter 2. The technology key for the Ravine Runner F Series is “TURBOD; AT10L2; SS12V; ROLL0; AERO5; MR3.”
The Market Data Input File is one of four Excel input files that the CAFE Model uses for compliance and effects simulation. The Market Data Input File's “Vehicles” tab (or worksheet) houses one of the most significant compilations of technology inputs and assumptions in the analysis, which is a characterization of the fleet of vehicle models each manufacturer produced for sale in the United States for MY 2024. This provides the starting point from which the CAFE Model adds fuel economy-improving technology. NHTSA calls this fleet the “analysis fleet.” The analysis fleet includes a number of inputs necessary for the Model to add fuel economy-improving technology to each vehicle for the compliance analysis and to calculate the resulting impacts for the effects analysis.
The “Vehicles” tab contains a separate row for each vehicle model. Vehicle models are vehicles that share the same fuel economy value and vehicle footprint. This means that vehicle models with different configurations that affect the vehicle's certification fuel economy value are distinguished in separate rows in the Vehicles tab. For example, the agency's Ravine Runner example vehicle comes in three different configurations—the Ravine Runner FWD, Ravine Runner AWD, and Ravine Runner F Series—which would result in three separate rows.
In each row, NHTSA also designates a vehicle's engine, transmission, and platform codes.
Figure II-1 below shows how NHTSA separates the different configurations of the hypothetical Ravine Runner. NHTSA sees by the Platform Codes that these Ravine Runners all share the same platform, but only the Ravine Runner FWD and Ravine Runner AWD share an engine. Even so, all three certification fuel economy values are different, which is common for vehicles that differ in drive type (drive type meaning whether the vehicle has AWD, 4-wheel drive (4WD), front-wheel drive (FWD), or rear-wheel drive (RWD). While it is simpler to aggregate vehicles by model, ensuring that NHTSA captures model variants with different fuel economy values improves the accuracy of the analysis and the potential that estimated costs and benefits from different levels of standards are appropriate. NHTSA includes information about other vehicle technologies at the farthest right side of the Vehicles tab, and in the “Engines,” “Transmissions,” and “Platforms” worksheets, as discussed further below.
Moving
Next, NHTSA includes vehicle information necessary for applying different types of technology; for example, designating a vehicle's body style allows NHTSA to apply aerodynamic technology appropriately, and designating starting CW values allows the agency to apply MR technology more accurately. Importantly, this section also includes vehicle footprint data, which is needed because NHTSA sets footprint-based standards.
NHTSA also sets product design cycles, which are the years in which the CAFE Model can apply technologies to vehicles. Manufacturers often introduce fuel-saving technologies at a “redesign” of their product or adopt technologies at “refreshes” in between product redesigns. As an example, the redesigned third generation Chevrolet Silverado was released for MY 2019 and featured a new platform, updated drivetrain, increased towing capacity, reduced weight, improved safety, and expanded trim levels, to name a few improvements. For MY 2022, the Chevrolet Silverado received a refresh (or facelift as it is commonly called), with an updated interior, infotainment, and front-end appearance.
During modeling, all improvements from technology application are initially realized on a component and then propagated (or inherited) down to the vehicles that share that component. As such, new component-level technologies are initially evaluated and applied to a platform, engine, or transmission during their respective redesign or refresh years. Any vehicles that share the same redesign or refresh schedule as the component apply these technology improvements during the same model year. The rest of the vehicles inherit technologies from the component during their refresh or redesign year (for engine- and transmission-level technologies) or during a redesign year only (for platform-level technologies). Section 4.4 of the CAFE Model Documentation contains additional information about technology evaluation and inheriting within the CAFE Model.
The CAFE Model also considers the potential safety effect of MR technologies and crash compatibility of
The CAFE Model includes procedures to consider the direct labor impacts of manufacturers' responses to CAFE regulations, considering the assembly location of vehicles, engines, and transmissions; the percent U.S. content (based on the percent U.S. and Canadian content, as reported by manufacturers to NHTSA); and the dealership employment associated with new vehicle sales. Estimated labor information, by vehicle, is included in the Market Data Input File. Sales volumes included in and adapted from the market data also influence total estimated direct labor projected in the analysis. Chapter 6.2.5 of the Draft TSD contains additional discussion of the labor utilization analysis.
NHTSA then assigns the technologies to individual vehicles. This initial linkage of vehicle technologies is how the CAFE Model knows how to advance a vehicle down each technology pathway. Assigning CAFE Model technologies to individual vehicles is dependent on the mix of information the agency has about any particular vehicle and trends about how a manufacturer has added technology to that vehicle in the past, equations and models that translate real-world technologies to their counterparts in NHTSA's analysis (
As discussed further below, the agency uses information directly from manufacturers to populate some fields in the Market Data Input File, like vehicle HP ratings and vehicle weight. NHTSA also uses manufacturer data as an input to various other models that calculate how a manufacturer's real-world technology equates to a technology level in the agency's model. For example, the agency calculates initial MR, aerodynamic drag reduction, and ROLL levels by looking at industry-wide trends and calculating—through models or equations—levels of improvement for each technology. The models and algorithms that the agency uses are described further below and in detail in Chapter 3 of the Draft TSD. Other fields, like vehicle refresh and redesign years, are projected forward based on historic trends.
Recall the Ravine Runner F Series example with the technology key “TURBOD; AT10L2, SS12V; ROLL0; AERO5; MR3.” For this example, Generic Motor's publicly available spec sheet for the Ravine Runner F Series says that it uses Generic Motor's Turbo V6 engine with proprietary Adaptive Cylinder Management Engine (ACME) technology. Generic Motor's ACME improves fuel economy and lowers emissions by operating the engine using only three of the engine's cylinders in most conditions and using all six engine cylinders when more power is required. Based on this information, NHTSA would conclude that this engine is turbocharged and uses a form of cylinder deactivation, meaning it would be appropriately classified as TURBOD. Generic Motors uses this engine in several of their vehicles, and the specifications of the engine can be found in the Engines Tab of the Market Data Input File, under a six-digit engine code.
This is a relatively easy engine to assign based on publicly available specification sheets, but some technologies are more difficult to assign. Manufacturers use different trade names or terms for different technology, and the way that the agency assigns the technology in the agency's analysis may not necessarily line up with how a manufacturer describes the technology. NHTSA must use some engineering judgment to determine how discrete technologies in the market best fit the technology options that the agency considers in the agency's analysis. The agency discusses factors used to assign each vehicle technology in the individual technology subsections below.
In addition to the Vehicles Tab that houses the analysis fleet, the Market Data Input File includes information that affects how the CAFE Model might apply technology to vehicles in the compliance simulation. Specifically, the Market Data Input File's “Manufacturers” tab includes a list of vehicle manufacturers considered in the analysis and several pieces of information about their economic and compliance behaviors. For this analysis, the compliance simulation assumes that manufacturers continue to apply technology to the extent practicable to reach compliance. This modeling change is made by indicating in the “Manufacturers” tab that all manufacturers will comply with NHTSA's standards and is consistent with the recent amendment to EPCA that set civil penalties (
Finally, NHTSA designates a “payback period” for each manufacturer. The payback period represents an assumption that consumers are willing to buy vehicles with more fuel economy technology because the fuel economy technology saves them money on gas in the long run. For the past several rulemaking analyses using the CAFE Model the agency has assumed that in the absence of CAFE or other regulatory standards, manufacturers apply technology that “pays for itself”—by saving the consumer money on fuel—in 30-months, or 2.5 years. NHTSA has updated the agency's payback period for this proposed rule to assume a full 3-year payback period based on an examination of empirical economics literature. This is discussed in detail in Section II.E.1.a below, and in the Draft TSD and PRIA.
Before the agency begins building the Market Data Input File for any analysis, NHTSA must consider what model year vehicles comprise the analysis fleet. There is an inherent time delay in the data the agency can use for any particular analysis because NHTSA receives compliance data after a model year has been completed.
Using recent data for the analysis fleet is more likely to reflect the current vehicle fleet than older data. Recent data reflects (1) manufacturers' realized decisions on what fuel economy-improving technology to apply; (2) mix shifts in response to consumer preferences; (
At the time NHTSA starts building the analysis fleet, data received from vehicle manufacturers
For this analysis, the light-duty analysis fleet consists of every vehicle model in MY 2024 in nearly every configuration that has a different compliance fuel economy value. This results in nearly 4,000 individual rows in the Vehicles Tab of the Market Data Input File.
The next section discusses how the agency's analysis evaluates how effectively adding technology to a vehicle in the analysis fleet improves that vehicle's fuel economy value.
The CAFE Model uses technology effectiveness values to allow it to know which technologies to apply. Without these values, it does not know how effective any particular technology is at improving a vehicle's fuel economy value. Accurate technology effectiveness estimates require information about (1) the vehicle type and size; (2) other technologies on the vehicle or being added to the vehicle at the same time; and (3) and how the vehicle is driven. Any oversimplification of these complex factors could make the effectiveness estimates less accurate.
To build a database of technology effectiveness estimates that includes these factors, NHTSA partners with Argonne. Argonne has developed and maintains a modeling and simulation tool called Autonomie that generates technology effectiveness estimates for the CAFE Model. The Autonomie Model is a mathematical representation of an entire vehicle, including its individual technologies (such as the engine and transmission), overall vehicle characteristics (such as mass and aerodynamic drag), and environmental conditions (such as ambient temperature and barometric pressure). The Autonomie Model simulates vehicle behavior over time.
NHTSA simulates a vehicle model's behavior over the two-cycle tests used to measure vehicle fuel economy.
Measuring every vehicle's fuel economy value by using the same test cycles ensures that the fuel economy certification results are repeatable for each vehicle model and comparable across all of the different vehicle models. When performing physical vehicle cycle testing, sophisticated test and measurement equipment is calibrated according to strict industry standards, which ensures repeatability and comparability of the results. Testing variables can include dynamometers, environmental conditions, types and locations of measurement equipment, and precise testing procedures. These physical tests provide the benchmarking empirical data used to develop and verify Autonomie's vehicle control algorithms and simulation results. Autonomie's inputs are discussed in more detail later in this section.
Full-vehicle modeling and simulation are also essential to measuring how all technologies on a vehicle interact. For example, if technology A improves a particular vehicle's fuel economy by 5 percent and technology B improves a particular vehicle's fuel economy by 10 percent, an analysis using single or limited point estimates may erroneously assume that applying both of these technologies together would achieve a simple additive fuel economy improvement of 15 percent. Single point estimates generally do not provide accurate effectiveness values because they do not capture complex relationships among technologies. Technology effectiveness often differs significantly depending on the vehicle type (
In addition, because manufacturers often add several fuel-saving technologies simultaneously when redesigning a vehicle, it is difficult to isolate the effect of adding any one individual technology to the full-vehicle system. Modeling and simulation offer the opportunity to isolate the effects of individual technologies by using a single or small number of initial vehicle configurations and incrementally adding technologies to those configurations. This provides a consistent reference point for the incremental effectiveness estimates for each technology and for combinations of technologies for each vehicle type. Vehicle modeling also reduces the potential for overcounting or undercounting technology effectiveness.
Argonne does not build an individual vehicle model for every single-vehicle configuration in NHTSA's light-duty Market Data Input File. This would be nearly impossible, because Autonomie requires very detailed data on hundreds of different vehicle attributes (
There are 10 technology classes for this analysis: small car (SmallCar), small performance car (SmallCarPerf), medium car (MedCar), medium performance car (MedCarPerf), small SUV (SmallSUV), small performance SUV (SmallSUVPerf), medium SUV (MedSUV), medium performance SUV (MedSUVPerf), pickup truck (Pickup), and high towing pickup truck (PickupHT).
NHTSA uses a two-step process that involves two algorithms to give vehicles a “fit score” that determines which vehicles best fit into each technology class. At the first step, the agency determines the vehicle's size. At the second step, NHTSA determines the vehicle's performance level. Both algorithms consider several metrics about the individual vehicle and compare that vehicle to other vehicles in the analysis fleet. This process is discussed in detail in Draft TSD Chapter 2.2.
Consider NHTSA's example Ravine Runner F Series, which is a medium-sized performance SUV. The exact same combination of technologies on the Ravine Runner F Series operate differently in a compact car or pickup truck because they are different vehicle sizes. The example Ravine Runner F Series also achieves slightly better performance metrics than other medium-sized SUVs in the analysis fleet. By “performance metrics,” the agency means power, acceleration, handling, braking, and so on. For the performance versus standard technology classification, the agency considers the vehicle's estimated 0-60 mph time compared to an average 0-60 mph time for the vehicle's technology class. Accordingly, the “technology class” for the Ravine Runner F Series in the agency's analysis is “MedSUVPerf,” because it meets the criteria of a “performance” 0-60 mph acceleration time.
Table II-2 shows how vehicles in different technology classes that use the exact same fuel economy technology have very different absolute fuel economy values. Note that the Autonomie absolute fuel economy values are not used directly in the CAFE Model; NTHSA calculates the ratio between two Autonomie absolute fuel economy values (one for each technology key for a specific technology class) and applies that ratio to an analysis fleet vehicle's starting fuel economy value.
Depending on the technology, when two technologies are added to the vehicle together, they may not result in an additive fuel economy improvement. This is an important concept to understand because in Section II.D, NHTSA presents technology effectiveness estimates for every single combination of technology that could be applied to a vehicle. In some cases, technology effectiveness estimates show that a combined technology has a different effectiveness estimate than if the individual technologies were added together individually. However, this is expected and not an error. Continuing NHTSA's example from above, turbocharging technology and dynamic cylinder deactivation (DEAC) technology both improve fuel economy by reducing the engine displacement and accordingly burning less fuel. Turbocharging allows a manufacturer to use a smaller engine that can offer performance equivalent to a larger naturally aspirated engine, and its fuel efficiency improvements are, in part, due to the reduced displacement. DEAC effectively makes an engine with a particular displacement intermittently offer some of the fuel economy benefits of a smaller displacement engine by deactivating cylinders when the work demand does not require the full engine displacement and reactivating them as-needed to meet higher work demands;
As expected, the percent improvement in Table II-3 between the first and second rows is 1.7 percent and between the third and fourth rows is 0.3 percent, even though the only difference within the two sets of technology keys is the DEAC technology (note that the agency only compares technology keys within the same technology class). This is because there are complex interactions between all fuel economy-improving technologies. The agency models these individual technologies and groups of technologies to reduce the uncertainty and improve the accuracy of the CAFE Model outputs.
Some technology synergies that NHTSA discusses in Section II.D include advanced engine and hybrid powertrain technology synergies. As an example, NHTSA does not see a particularly high effectiveness improvement from applying advanced engines to existing parallel strong hybrid (
Just as NHTSA's CAFE Model analysis requires a large set of technology inputs and assumptions, the Autonomie modeling uses a large set of technology inputs and assumptions. Figure II-2 below shows the suite of fuel consumption input data used in the Autonomie modeling to generate the fuel consumption input data NHTSA uses in the CAFE Model.
As shown in Figure II-2 above, full-vehicle benchmarking is a major source of data for the Autonomie model. For full-vehicle benchmarking, vehicles are instrumented with sensors and tested on both the road and chassis dynamometers (
NHTSA uses a range of models to do the component modeling. As shown in Figure II-2, battery pack modeling using Argonne's BatPaC Model and engine modeling are two of the most significant component models used to generate data for the Autonomie modeling. NHTSA discusses BatPaC in detail in Section II.D, but briefly, BatPaC is the battery pack modeling tool used to estimate the cost of vehicle battery packs for all hybridized vehicles, which is based on the materials chemistry, battery design, and manufacturing design of the plants manufacturing the battery packs.
Engine modeling is used to generate engine fuel map models that define the fuel consumption rate for an engine equipped with specific technologies when operating over a variety of engine load and engine speed conditions. Some performance metrics captured in engine modeling include power, torque, airflow, volumetric efficiency, fuel consumption, turbocharger performance and matching, pumping losses, and more. Each engine map model has been developed ensuring the engine will still operate under real-world constraints using a suite of other models. Some examples of these models that ensure the engine map models capture real-world operating constraints include simulating heat release through a predictive combustion model, simulating knock characteristics through a kinetic fit knock model,
IAV develops the engine map models, using their GT-POWER modeling tool, by creating a base, or root, engine map and then modifying that root map, incrementally, to isolate the effects of the added technologies. The engine maps are based on real-world engine
Argonne also compiles a database of vehicle attributes and characteristics reasonably representative of the vehicles in that technology class used to build the vehicle models. Relevant vehicle attributes may include a vehicle's fuel efficiency, HP, 0-60 mph acceleration time, and stopping distance, among others, while vehicle characteristics may include whether the vehicle has all-wheel-drive, 18-inch wheels, summer tires, and so on. Argonne has identified representative vehicle attributes and characteristics for the light-duty fleet from publicly available information and automotive benchmarking databases, such as A2Mac1,
Argonne then assigns “reference” technologies to each vehicle model. The reference technologies are the technologies on the first step of each CAFE Model technology pathway, and they closely (but not exactly) correlate to the technology abbreviations that NHTSA uses in the CAFE Model. As an example, the first Autonomie vehicle model in the MedSUVPerf technology class starts out with the least advanced engine, which is DOHC (a dual-overhead cam engine) in the CAFE Model, or eng01 in the Autonomie modeling. The vehicle has the least advanced transmission (AT5), the least advanced MR level (MR0), the least advanced aerodynamic body style (AERO0), and the least advanced ROLL level (ROLL0). The first vehicle model is also defined by initial vehicle attributes and characteristics that consist of data from the suite of sources mentioned above. Again, these attributes are meant to represent the average of vehicle attributes found on vehicles in a certain technology class.
Then, just as a vehicle manufacturer tests its vehicles to ensure they meet specific performance metrics, Autonomie ensures that the built vehicle model meets its performance metrics. NHTSA includes quantitative performance metrics in the agency's Autonomie modeling to ensure that the vehicle models can meet real-world performance metrics that consumers observe and that are important for vehicle utility and customer satisfaction. The four performance metrics that NHTSA uses in the Autonomie modeling for light-duty vehicles are low-speed acceleration (the time required to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph), high-speed passing acceleration (the time required to accelerate from 50 to 80 mph), gradeability (the ability of the vehicle to maintain constant 65 mph speed on a 6-percent upgrade), and towing capacity for light-duty pickup trucks. The agency has been using these performance metrics for the last several CAFE Model analyses, and vehicle manufacturers have agreed that these performance metrics are representative of the metrics considered in the automotive industry.
If the vehicle model does not initially meet one of the performance metrics, then Autonomie's powertrain sizing algorithm increases the vehicle's engine power. The increase in power is achieved by increasing engine displacement (which is the measure of the volume of all cylinders in an engine), which might involve an increase in the number of engine cylinders, which may lead to an increase in the engine weight. This iterative process then determines if the baseline vehicle with increased engine power and corresponding updated engine weight meets the required performance metrics. The powertrain sizing algorithm stops once all the baseline vehicle's performance requirements are met.
Some technologies require extra steps for performance optimization before the vehicle models are ready for simulation. Specifically, the sizing and optimization process is more complex for hybridized vehicles, which include hybrid electric vehicle (HEVs) and PHEVs, compared to vehicles with only ICE engines, as discussed further in the Draft TSD Chapter 3.3.4. As an example, a PHEV powertrain that can travel a certain number of miles on its battery energy alone (referred to as all-electric range (AER)), or as performing in electric-only mode) is also sized to ensure that it can
Every time a vehicle model in Autonomie adopts a new technology, the vehicle weight is updated to reflect the weight of the new technology. For some technologies, the direct weight change is easy to assess. For example, when a vehicle is updated to a higher geared transmission, the weight of the original transmission is replaced with the corresponding transmission weight (
In addition to using performance metrics commonly used by automotive manufacturers, NHTSA instructs Autonomie to mimic real-world manufacturer decisions by resizing engines only at specific intervals in the analysis and in specific ways. When a vehicle manufacturer is making decisions about how to change a vehicle model to add fuel economy-improving technology, the manufacturer could entirely
NHTSA's analysis ensures that vehicle models maintain consistent performance levels to allow NHTSA to estimate the costs and benefits of different levels of fuel economy standards more accurately. For its analysis, NHTSA wants to capture only the costs and benefits that result from NHTSA changing its CAFE standards. For example, a manufacturer may add a turbocharger to its engine without downsizing the engine and then direct all the additional engine work to additional vehicle HP instead of vehicle fuel economy improvements. If NHTSA modeled increases or decreases in performance because of fuel economy-improving technology, then that increase in performance has a monetized benefit attached to it that is not specifically due to the agency's fuel economy standards. By ensuring that the agency's vehicle modeling remains performance neutral, NHTSA can better ensure that the agency is reasonably capturing the costs and benefits due only to potential changes in the fuel economy standards.
Autonomie then adopts one single fuel-saving technology to the initial vehicle model, keeping everything else the same except for that one technology and the attributes associated with it. Once one technology is assigned to the vehicle model and the new vehicle model meets its performance metrics, the vehicle model is used as an input to the full-vehicle simulation. This means that Autonomie simulates driving the optimized vehicle models for each technology class on the test cycles NHTSA described above. As an example, the Autonomie modeling could start with 10 initial vehicle models (one for each technology class in the analysis). Those 10 initial vehicle models use a 5-speed automatic transmission (AT5). Argonne then builds 10 new vehicle models; the only difference between the 10 new vehicle models and the first set of vehicle models is that the new vehicle models have a 6-speed automatic transmission (AT6). Replacing the AT5 with an AT6 would lead either to an increase or decrease in the total weight of the vehicle because each technology class includes different assumptions about transmission weight. Argonne then ensures that the new vehicle models with the 6-speed automatic transmission meet their performance metrics. Argonne has 20 different vehicle models that can be simulated on the two-cycle tests. This process is repeated for each technology option and for each technology class. This results in 10 separate datasets, each with over
NHTSA condenses the million-or-so datapoints from Autonomie into three datasets used in the CAFE Model. These three datasets include (1) the fuel economy value that each modeled vehicle achieved while driving the test cycles, for every technology combination in every technology class (converted into “fuel consumption,” which is the inverse of fuel economy; fuel economy is mpg and fuel consumption is gallons per mile); (2) the fuel economy value for PHEVs driving those test cycles, when those vehicles drive on gasoline only; and (3) optimized battery costs for each vehicle that adopts some sort of hybridized powertrain (discussed in more detail below). NHTSA then uses these datapoints to produce the technology effectiveness values in the CAFE Model.
Technology effectiveness values allow the CAFE Model to simulate how manufacturers can improve fuel economy relative to a consistent reference point by adding technology and combinations of technologies. The effectiveness values represent the simulated relative improvement of fuel economy that can be applied to a vehicle when new technology is added. These values are calculated based on comparing the achieved fuel economies simulated using the Autonomie full-vehicle models.
NHTSA adds the technology effectiveness values to the CAFE Model as inputs. When the CAFE Model runs a simulation, the effectiveness values for that vehicle's class determine how much the vehicle's fuel economy improves with the application of each technology. The CAFE Model's compliance simulation begins with actual fuel economy values derived from compliance data. As the CAFE Model adds technology, the technology effectiveness values are applied to estimate the new fuel economy value for the vehicle, and the CAFE Model runs millions of combinations of technologies on different vehicles to find the most cost-effective means of compliance for each manufacturer and fleet.
Return to the Ravine Runner F Series example, which has a starting fuel economy value of just over 26 mpg and a starting technology key “TURBOD; AT10L2; SS12V; ROLL0; AERO5; MR3.” The equivalent Autonomie vehicle model has a starting fuel economy value of just over 30.8 mpg and is represented by the technology descriptors Midsize SUV, Perfo, Micro Hybrid, eng38, AUp 10, MR3, AERO1, or ROLL0. In MY 2028, the CAFE Model determines that Generic Motors needs to redesign the Ravine Runner F Series to reach Generic Motors' new CAFE standard. The Ravine Runner F Series now has new fuel economy-improving technology, a parallel strong HEV with a TURBOE engine, an integrated 8-speed automatic transmission, 30-percent improvement in ROLL, 20-percent aerodynamic drag reduction, and 10-percent lighter glider (
Note that the fuel economy values NHTSA obtains from the Autonomie modeling are based on the city and highway test cycles (
In sum, NHTSA uses Autonomie to generate modeling and simulation technology effectiveness estimates. These estimates ensure that the modeling captures differences in technology effectiveness due to (1) vehicle size and performance relative to other vehicles in the analysis fleet; (2) other technologies on the vehicle or being added to the vehicle at the same time; and (3) how the vehicle is driven. The modeling approach allows the isolation of technology effects in the analysis supporting an accurate assessment and comports with the NAS 2015 recommendation to use full-vehicle modeling supported by the application of lumped improvements at the sub-model level.
In NHTSA's analysis, “technology effectiveness values” are the relative difference between the fuel economy value for one Autonomie vehicle model driving the two-cycle tests and a second Autonomie vehicle model that uses new technology driving the two-cycle tests. NHTSA adds the difference between two Autonomie-generated fuel economy values to a vehicle in the Market Data Input File's CAFE compliance fuel economy value. NHTSA then calculates the costs and benefits of different levels of fuel economy standards using the incremental improvement required to bring an analysis fleet vehicle model's fuel economy value to a level that contributes to a manufacturer's fleet meeting its CAFE standard.
In the next section, Technology Costs, NHTSA describes the process of generating costs for the Technologies Input File.
NHTSA estimates present and future costs for fuel-saving technologies by taking into consideration the type of vehicle or type of engine when technology costs vary by application. These cost estimates are based on three main inputs. First, direct manufacturing costs (DMCs), or the component and labor costs of producing and assembling the physical parts and systems, are estimated assuming high-volume production. Second, NHTSA estimates indirect costs. DMCs generally do not include the indirect costs of tools, capital equipment, financing, engineering, sales, administrative support, or return on investment. NHTSA accounts for these indirect costs via a scalar markup of DMCs, which is termed the retail price equivalent (RPE). Finally, the costs for technologies may change over time as industry streamlines design and manufacturing processes. To model this, the agency estimates potential cost improvements with cost learning. The retail cost of equipment in any future year is estimated to be equal to the product of the DMC, RPE, and cost learning. Considering the retail cost of equipment, instead of merely DMCs, allows NHTSA to account for the real-world price effects of a technology as well as market realities. Each of these technology cost components is described briefly below and in the following individual technology sections as well as in detail in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Draft TSD.
DMCs are the component and assembly costs of the physical parts and systems that make up a complete vehicle. NHTSA uses agency-sponsored tear-down studies of vehicles and parts to estimate the DMCs of individual technologies, in addition to independent tear-down studies, other publications, and confidential business information (CBI). In the simplest cases, NHTSA sponsors studies to produce results that confirm or refute third-party industry estimates and determine alignment with confidential information provided by manufacturers and suppliers. In cases where the tear-down study results differ significantly from credible independent sources, the agency scrutinizes the study assumptions and sometimes revises or updates the analysis accordingly.
Due to the variety of technologies and their applications and the cost and time required to conduct detailed tear-down analyses, NHTSA did not sponsor teardown studies for every technology. In addition, the analysis includes some fuel-saving technologies that are pre-production or sold in very small pilot volumes, but for whom appropriate data are available for the range of vehicles the agency models. For those technologies, NHTSA could not conduct a tear-down study to assess costs because the product is not yet in the marketplace for evaluation. In these cases, the agency relies upon third-party estimates and confidential information from suppliers and manufacturers; however, there are some concerns with relying on CBI to estimate costs. The agency and the source may have had incongruent or incompatible definitions of the reference point from which to measure costs. The source may have provided DMCs at a date many years in the future and assumed very high production volumes, important caveats to consider for agency analysis. In addition, a source may provide incomplete information. In other cases, intellectual property considerations and strategic business partnerships may have contributed to a manufacturer's cost information and could be difficult to account for in the CAFE Model, as not all manufacturers may have access to proprietary technologies at stated costs. In light of these concerns, NHTSA carefully evaluates new information, especially regarding emerging technologies.
While costs for fuel-saving technologies reflect the best estimates available today, technology cost estimates likely will change in the future as technologies are deployed, production is expanded, and nascent technologies mature. For emerging technologies, NHTSA uses the best information available at the time of the analysis and continues to update cost assumptions for any future analysis. Chapter 3 of the Draft TSD discusses each category of technologies (
As discussed above, direct costs represent the cost associated with acquiring raw materials, fabricating parts, and assembling vehicles with the various technologies that manufacturers are expected to use to improve the fuel economy of their fleets. They include materials, labor, and variable energy costs required to produce and assemble the vehicle. However, they do not include overhead costs required to develop and produce the vehicle, costs incurred by manufacturers or dealers to sell vehicles, or the profit manufacturers and dealers make from their investments. These items together contribute to the price consumers ultimately pay for the vehicle. Table II-5 illustrates how these components can affect retail prices.
To estimate total consumer costs (
For more than three decades, the retail price of motor vehicles has been, on average, roughly 50 percent above the direct cost expenditures of manufacturers. That is, the retail price is approximately 1.5 times the direct cost expenditures.
An RPE of 1.5 does not mean that manufacturers automatically mark up each vehicle by exactly 50 percent. Rather, it means that, over time, the competitive marketplace has resulted in pricing structures that average out to this relationship across the entire industry. Prices for any individual model may be marked up at a higher or lower rate depending on market demand. On average, over time and across the vehicle fleet, consumers spend about $1.50 for each dollar of direct costs incurred by manufacturers. Based on NHTSA's own evaluation and the widespread use and acceptance of the RPE by automotive industry stakeholders, the agency has determined that the RPE provides a reasonable indirect cost markup for use in the analysis. A detailed discussion of indirect cost methods and the basis for the agency's use of the RPE to reflect these costs, rather than other indirect cost markup methods, is available in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) for the 2020 final rule.
Finally, manufacturers make improvements to production processes over time, which often result in lower costs. “Cost learning” reflects the effect of experience and volume on the cost of production, which generally results in better utilization of resources, leading to higher and more efficient production. As manufacturers gain experience through production, they refine production techniques, raw material and component sources, and assembly methods to maximize efficiency and reduce production costs.
NHTSA estimates cost learning by considering methods established by T.P. Wright and later expanded upon by J.R. Crawford. Wright, examining aircraft production, found that every doubling of cumulative production of airplanes resulted in decreasing labor hours at a fixed percentage. This fixed percentage is commonly referred to as the progress rate or progress ratio, where a lower rate implies faster learning as cumulative production increases. J.R. Crawford expanded upon Wright's learning curve theory to develop a single unit cost model, which estimates the cost of the nth unit produced where the following information is known: (1) cost to produce the first unit; (2) cumulative production of n units; and (3) the progress ratio.
Consistent with Wright's learning curve, most technologies in the CAFE Model use the basic approach by Wright, where NHTSA estimates technology cost reductions by applying a fixed percentage to the projected cumulative production of a given fuel economy technology in a given model year.
The agency assigns groups of similar technologies or technologies of similar complexity to each learning curve. While the grouped technologies differ in operating characteristics and design, NHTSA chooses to group them based on market availability, complexity of technology integration, and production volume of the technologies that can be implemented by manufacturers and suppliers. In general, the agency considers most basic engine and transmission technologies to be mature technologies that do not experience any additional improvements in design or manufacturing. Other basic engine technologies, like VVL, SGDI, and DEAC, decrease in costs through around MY 2036, because those were introduced into the market more recently. All advanced engine technologies follow the same general pattern of a gradual reduction in costs until MY 2036, when they plateau and remain flat. NHTSA expects the cost to decrease as production volumes increase, manufacturing processes are improved, and economies of scale are achieved. The agency has assigned advanced engine technologies based on a singular preceding technology to the same learning curve as that preceding technology. Similarly, the more advanced transmission technologies experience a gradual reduction in costs through MY 2031, when they plateau and remain flat. Lastly, the agency estimates that the learning curves for road load technologies, with the exception of the most advanced MR level (which decreases at a fairly steep rate through MY 2040, as discussed further below and in Chapter 3.4 of the Draft TSD), will decrease through MY 2036 and then remain flat.
For technologies that have been in production for many years, like some engine and transmission technologies, this approach produces reasonable estimates that NHTSA can compare against other studies and publicly available data. Generating the learning curve for battery packs for hybrid vehicles in future model years is significantly more complicated, and NHTSA discusses how the agency generated those learning curves in detail in Chapter 3.3 of the Draft TSD. NHTSA's battery pack learning curves recognize that there are many factors that could potentially lower battery pack costs over time outside of cost reductions from improvements in manufacturing processes due to knowledge gained through experience in production.
Table II-7 shows how some of the technologies on the MY 2024 Ravine Runner F Series decrease in cost over several years. Note that these costs are specifically applicable to the MedSUVPerf class, and other technology classes may have different costs for the same technologies. These costs are pulled directly from the Technology Costs Input File, meaning that they include the DMC, RPE, and learning.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) included several tax credits intended to encourage the adoption of clean vehicles.
NHTSA models three provisions of the IRA only through MY 2025 and does not model any of these provisions from MY 2026 forward. The first is the advanced manufacturing production tax credit (AMPC), which provides a $35 per kWh tax credit for manufacturers of battery cells and an additional $10 per kWh for manufacturers of battery modules (all applicable to manufacture in the United States).
NHTSA also models two credits available to new vehicle buyers, the clean vehicle credit (30D)
NHTSA assumes, based on the updated constraints in OB3 that the impact of the credits would be
NHTSA jointly models the CVCs. Both credits are available at the time of sale and provide up to $7,500 towards the purchase of light-duty vehicles placed in service before the end of 2025. Since only one of the CVCs may be claimed for purchasing a given vehicle, NHTSA models them jointly.
As mentioned above, NHTSA is including the tax credits in its analysis through MY 2025. This was a natural terminal point for the CVCs, which are set to expire this year. The agency elected not to model the AMPC in future model years because of the more stringent foreign entity of concern (FEOC) constraints (
The agency assumes that manufacturers and consumers will each capture half of the dollar value of the AMPC and CVCs. The agency assumes that manufacturers' shares of both credits will offset part of the cost to supply models eligible for the credits—PHEVs, specifically. The subsidies reduce the costs of eligible vehicles and increase their attractiveness to buyers. Because the AMPC credit scales with battery capacity, NHTSA determines average battery energy capacity for passenger cars, and light trucks based on Argonne simulation outputs. Draft TSD Chapter 2.3.2 contains a detailed discussion of these assumptions. NHTSA accounts for all the eligibility requirements of 30D, and the AMPC, such as the location of final assembly and battery production, the origin of critical minerals, and the income restrictions of 30D through the credit schedules constructed in part based off of these factors and allows all PHEVs produced and sold during the timeframe that tax credits are offered to be eligible for those credits subject to the MSRP restrictions discussed above.
To account for the agency's inability dynamically to model sourcing requirements and income limits for 30D, NHTSA uses projected values of the average value of 30D and the AMPC for the proposal. The projections increase throughout the analysis due to the expectation that gradual improvements in supply chains over time would allow more vehicles to qualify for the credits.
NHTSA uses a DOE report that provides combined values of the CVCs.
The CAFE Model accounts for the statutory MSRP restrictions of 30D by assuming that the CVCs cannot be applied to cars with an MSRP above $55,000 or other vehicles with an MSRP above $80,000, which are ineligible for 30D. 45W does not have the same MSRP restrictions; however, because NHTSA is unable to model the CVCs separately at this time, the agency has to choose whether to model the restriction for both CVCs or not to model the restriction at all. NHTSA chooses to include the restriction for both CVCs to be conservative.
NHTSA uses real dollars for future costs and benefits, such as technology costs in future model years. Including the tax credits as nominal dollars instead of real dollars artificially raises the value of the credits in respect to other costs, so NHTSA converts the DOE projections to real dollars.
The CAFE Model projects vehicles in model year cohorts rather than on a calendar year basis. Given that model years and calendar years can be misaligned (
As NHTSA describes above, the CAFE Model simulates cost-effective ways that vehicle manufacturers could comply with CAFE standards, subject to limits that ensure that the Model reasonably replicates manufacturers' decisions in the real world. This section describes the equations the CAFE Model uses to determine how to apply technology to vehicles, including whether technologies are cost effective, and why the agency believes the CAFE Model's calculation of potential compliance pathways reasonably represents manufacturers' decision-making. This section also gives a high-level overview of real-world limitations that vehicle manufacturers face when designing and manufacturing vehicles and how the agency includes those in the technology inputs and assumptions in the analysis.
For each manufacturer's fleet, the CAFE Model first determines whether any technology should be “inherited” from an engine, transmission, or platform that currently uses the technology and should be applied to a vehicle that is due for a refresh or redesign. NHTSA describes above how vehicle manufacturers use the same or similar engines, transmissions, and platforms across multiple vehicle models, and the agency tracks vehicle models that share technology by assigning Engine, Transmission, and Platform Codes to vehicles in the analysis fleet. As an example, variants of the Ford 10R80 10-speed transmission are currently used in the following Ford Motor Company vehicles: 2017-present Ford F-150, 2018-present Ford Mustang, 2018-present Ford Expedition/Lincoln Navigator, 2019-present Ford Ranger, and the 2020-present Ford Explorer/Lincoln Aviator. The 2WD variant of the 10R80, as applied to the CAFE Model, is shared by the 2WD Expedition models, 2WD F-150 models, and the Mustang, thus linking these models by the same Transmission Code. If one of these three vehicle model types receives a transmission upgrade, the other two would automatically receive the same upgrade at their next redesign or refresh.
After applying inherited technologies, the Model begins the process of evaluating what technologies could be applied to the manufacturer's vehicles. The CAFE Model applies the most cost-effective technology out of the universe of technology options that the Model could potentially apply. To determine whether a particular technology is cost effective, the Model calculates the “effective cost” of multiple technology options and chooses the option that results in the lowest “effective cost.” A technology that has an effective cost less than zero (Equation II-4 results in a negative number) is considered cost effective, as a negative effective cost implies that the technology “pays for itself.” The “effective cost” calculation is actually multiple calculations, but this section describes only the highest levels of that logic; interested readers can consult the CAFE Model Documentation for additional information on the calculation of effective cost. Equation II-4 shows the CAFE Model's effective cost calculation for this analysis.
The components of this “cost per credit” effective cost calculation are described further here. The CAFE Model considers the total cost of a technology (TechCost) that could be applied to a group of connected vehicles, just as a vehicle manufacturer might consider what new technologies it has ready for the market and which vehicles should and could receive the upgrade. Next, like the technology costs, the CAFE Model calculates the total value of Federal incentives (TaxCredits) available for a technology that could be applied to a group of vehicles and subtracts that total incentive from the total technology costs. The total fuel cost savings (FuelSavings) are the savings in fuel expense resulting from switching from one technology to another. For this, the CAFE Model must calculate the total fuel cost for the vehicle before application of a technology and subtract the total fuel cost for the vehicle after calculation of that technology. The total fuel cost for a given vehicle depends on both the price of gas (or gasoline equivalent fuel) and the number of miles that a vehicle is driven, among other factors.
After inherited technologies and cost-effective technologies are applied, the CAFE Model determines whether the manufacturer's fleet meets its CAFE standard. If the manufacturer is still not in compliance, the Model applies non-cost-effective technologies (which have an effective cost greater than zero) until it runs out of technology options.
The Model runs the compliance simulation successively and accounts for technology added during each previous model year by carrying forward technologies between model years once they are applied. The CAFE Model does this by mirroring real-world decisions of manufacturers to carry forward most technologies between model years, concentrating the application of new technology to vehicle redesigns or mid-cycle “freshenings,” and design cycles vary widely among manufacturers and specific products. Comments from manufacturers and Model peer reviewers for past CAFE rules have strongly supported explicit year-by-year simulation. The multi-year planning capability increases the Model's ability to simulate manufacturers' real-world behavior, accounting for the fact that manufacturers will seek out compliance paths for several model years at a time, while accommodating the year-by-year requirement.
In addition to the Model's technology application decisions pursuant to the compliance simulation algorithm, several technology inputs and assumptions work together to determine which technologies the CAFE Model can apply. The technology pathways, discussed in detail above, are one significant way that the agency instructs the CAFE Model to apply technology. Again, the pathways define mutually exclusive technologies (
In addition to technology pathway logic, NHTSA uses several technology applicability rules to replicate better manufacturers' decision-making. The “skip” input—represented in the Market Data Input File as “SKIP” in the appropriate technology column corresponding to a specific vehicle model—is particularly important for accurately representing how a manufacturer applies technologies to their vehicles in the real world. This tells the Model not to apply a specific technology to a specific vehicle model. SKIP inputs are used to simulate manufacturer decisions, including: (1) parts and process sharing; (2) stranded capital; and (3) performance neutrality.
First, parts sharing includes the concepts of platform, engine, and transmission sharing, which are discussed in detail in Section II.C.2 and Section II.C.3, above. A “platform” refers to engineered underpinnings shared on several differentiated vehicle models and configurations. Manufacturers share and standardize components, systems, tooling, and assembly processes within their products (and occasionally with the products of another manufacturer) to manage complexity and costs for development, manufacturing, and assembly. Detailed discussion for this type of SKIP is provided in the “adoption features” section for different technologies, if applicable, in Chapter 3 of the Draft TSD.
Similar to vehicle platforms, manufacturers create engines that share parts. For instance, manufacturers may use different piston strokes on a common engine block or bore out common engine block castings with different diameters to create engines with an array of displacements. Head assemblies for different displacement engines may share many components and manufacturing processes across the engine family. Manufacturers may finish crankshafts with the same tools to similar tolerances. Engines on the same architecture may share pistons and connecting rods, and the same engine architecture may include both 6- and 8-cylinder engines. One engine family may appear on many vehicles on a platform, and changes to that engine may or may not carry through to all the vehicles. Some engines are shared across a range of different vehicle platforms. Vehicle model/configurations in the analysis fleet that share engines belonging to the same platform are identified as such, and the agency also may apply a SKIP to a particular engine technology where it is known that a manufacturer shares an engine throughout several of their vehicle models and the engine technology is not appropriate for any of the platforms that share the same engine.
It is important to note that manufacturers can define a “common” engine platform in different ways. Some manufacturers consider engines as “common” if the engines share an architecture, components, or manufacturing processes. Other manufacturers take a narrower approach and consider engines “common” only if the parts in the engine assembly are the same. In some cases, manufacturers designate each engine in each application as a unique powertrain. For example, a manufacturer may have listed two engines separately for a pair that share designs for the engine block, the crankshaft, and the head because the accessory drive components, oil pans, and engine calibrations differ between the two. In practice, many engines share parts, tooling, and assembly resources, and manufacturers often coordinate design updates between two similar engines. NHTSA considers engines to be on a common platform (for purposes of coding, discussed in Section II.C.2 above, and for SKIP application) if the engines share a common cylinder count and configuration, displacement, valvetrain, and fuel type, or if the engines only differ slightly in compression ratio (CR), HP, and displacement.
Parts sharing also includes the concept of sharing manufacturing lines (the systems, tooling, and assembly processes discussed above), because manufacturers are unlikely to build a new manufacturing line to build a completely new engine. A new engine designed to be mass manufactured on an existing production line has limits in number of parts used, type of parts used, weight, and packaging size due to the weight limits of the pallets, material handling interaction points, and
SKIPs also relate to instances of stranded capital when manufacturers amortize research, development, and tooling expenses over many years, especially for engines and transmissions. The traditional production life cycles for transmissions and engines have been a decade or longer. If a manufacturer launches or updates a product with fuel-saving technology, and then later replaces that technology with an unrelated or different fuel-saving technology before the equipment and research and development investments have been fully paid off, there will be unrecouped, or stranded, capital costs. Quantifying stranded capital costs accounts for such lost investments. One design where manufacturers take an iterative redesign approach, as described in a recent SAE paper,
As a proxy for stranded capital, the CAFE Model accounts for platform and engine sharing and includes redesign and refresh cycles for significant and less significant vehicle updates. This analysis continues to rely on the CAFE Model's explicit year-by-year accounting for estimated refresh and redesign cycles, and shared vehicle platforms and engines, to moderate the cadence of technology adoption and thereby limit the implied occurrence of stranded capital and the need to account for it explicitly. In addition, confining some manufacturers to specific advanced technology pathways through technology adoption features acts as a proxy to account for stranded capital indirectly. Adoption features specific to each technology, if applied on a manufacturer-by-manufacturer basis, are discussed in each technology section.
The previous section has discussed, at a high level, how NHTSA generates the technology inputs and assumptions used in the CAFE Model. The process for generating these inputs and assumptions involves NHTSA using engineering judgment to evaluate and synthesize data from a variety of sources, including data submitted by vehicle manufacturers; consolidated publicly available data, such as press materials, marketing brochures, and other information; data from collaborative research, testing, and modeling with other Federal agencies and laboratories; data from research, testing, and modeling with independent organizations; data and assumptions from work done for prior rules; and feedback from stakeholders on prior rules and meetings conducted prior to the commencement of this rulemaking, to the extent it is still relevant and applicable.
This section discusses the specific technology pathways, effectiveness, and cost inputs and assumptions used in the compliance analysis. As an example, NHTSA has explained in the previous section that the starting point for estimating technology costs is an estimate of the DMC—the component and assembly costs of the physical parts and systems that make up a complete vehicle—for any particular technology. This section then explains how NHTSA bases the transmission technology DMCs on estimates from NAS.
After spending over a decade refining the technology pathways, effectiveness, and cost inputs and assumptions used in successive CAFE Model analyses, NHTSA has developed guiding principles to ensure that the CAFE Model's compliance analysis reflects impacts reasonably expected in the real world. These guiding principles are as follows:
The following sections discuss the engine, transmission, hybridization, MR, aerodynamic, tire rolling resistance, and other vehicle technologies considered in this analysis. The following sections discuss:
• How NHTSA defines technology in the CAFE Model;
• How NHTSA assigns technology to vehicles in the analysis fleet used as a starting point for this analysis;
• Any adoption features applied to the technology, so the analysis better represents manufacturers' real-world decisions;
• Technology effectiveness values; and
• Technology cost.
Note that the following technology effectiveness sections provide
ICE vehicles convert chemical energy in fuel to useful mechanical power. The chemical energy in the fuel is released and converted to mechanical power by being oxidized, or burned, inside the engine. The air/fuel mixture entering the engine and the burned fuel/exhaust by-products leaving the engine are the working fluids in the engine. The engine power output is a direct result of the work interaction between these fluids and the mechanical components of the engine.
NHTSA classifies the extensive variety of light-duty vehicle ICE technologies into discrete Engine Paths. These paths are used to model the most representative characteristics, costs, and performance of the fuel economy-improving engine technologies most likely available during the rulemaking timeframe. The paths are intended to be representative of the range of potential performance levels for each engine technology. In general, the paths are tied to ease of implementation of additional technology and how closely related the technologies are. The technology paths are presented in Chapter 3.1.1 of the Draft TSD.
The Engine Paths have been selected and refined over a period of more than 10 years, based on engines in the market, stakeholder comments, and engineering judgment, subject to the following factors: the included technologies are those most likely available during the rulemaking timeframe and within the range of potential performance levels for each technology, and excluded technologies are those unlikely to be feasible in the rulemaking timeframe, unlikely to be compatible with U.S. fuels, or for which there was not appropriate data available to allow the simulation of effectiveness across all vehicle technology classes in this analysis.
The Engine Paths begin with one of the three base engine configurations: dual-overhead camshaft (DOHC) engines have two camshafts per cylinder head (one operating the intake valves and one operating the exhaust valves), single overhead camshaft (SOHC) engines have a single camshaft, and overhead valve (OHV) engines also have a single camshaft located inside of the engine block (beneath the valves rather than overhead) connected to a rocker arm through a pushrod that actuates the valves. DOHC and SOHC engine configurations are common in the light-duty fleet.
The next step along an Engine Path is the Basic Engine Path technologies. These include variable valve lift (VVL), stoichiometric gasoline direct injection (SGDI), and a basic level of cylinder deactivation (DEAC). VVL dynamically adjusts how far the valve opens and reduces fuel consumption by reducing pumping losses and optimizing airflow over a broader range of engine operating conditions. Instead of injecting fuel at lower pressures and before the intake valve, SGDI injects fuel directly into the cylinder at high pressures allowing for more precise fuel delivery while providing a cooling effect and allowing for an increase in the CR, more optimal spark timing for improved efficiency, or both. DEAC disables the intake and exhaust valves and turns off fuel injection and spark ignition on select cylinders, which effectively allows the engine to operate temporarily as if it were smaller while also reducing pumping losses to improve efficiency. For this proposal, NHTSA has integrated variable valve timing (VVT) technology in all non-diesel engines, so there is not a separate box for it on the Basic Engine Path. VVL, SGDI, and DEAC can be applied to an engine individually or in combination with each other.
Moving beyond the Basic Engine Path technologies are the “advanced” engine technologies, which means that applying the technology—both in NHTSA's analysis and in the real world—requires significant changes to the structure of the engine or an entirely new engine architecture. The advanced engine technologies represent the application of alternate combustion cycles, various applications of forced induction technologies, or advances in cylinder deactivation.
Advanced cylinder deactivation (ADEAC) systems, also known as rolling or dynamic cylinder deactivation systems, allow the engine to vary the percentage of cylinders deactivated and the sequence in which cylinders are deactivated. Depending on the engine's speed and associated torque requirements, an engine might have most cylinders deactivated (
Forced induction gasoline engines include both supercharged and turbocharged downsized engines, which can pressurize or force more air into an engine's intake manifold when higher power output is needed. The raised pressure results in an increased amount of airflow into the cylinder to support combustion, increasing the specific power of the engine. The first-level turbocharged downsized technology (TURBO0) engine represents a basic level of forced air induction technology being applied to a DOHC engine. A cooled exhaust gas recirculation (CEGR) system takes engine exhaust gases, passes them through a heat exchanger to reduce their temperature, then mixes them with incoming air in the intake
The technology pathways represent an increase in the level or combinations of technologies being applied, with lower levels at the top and higher levels at the bottom of the path. Chapter 3.1.1 of the Draft TSD shows the technology pathways for visualization purposes; however, the CAFE Model could apply any cost-effective combinations of technologies from those given pathways. Levels of improvement are dependent upon the vehicle class and the technology combinations. Again, in general, the paths are tied to ease of implementation of additional technology and how closely related the technologies are. An example of how this applies to the TURBO family of technologies is described below. The pathways are not aligned from “least effective” to “most effective” because assuming so would ignore several important considerations, including how technologies interact on a vehicle, how technologies interact on vehicles of different sizes that have different power requirements, and how hardware changes may be required for a particular technology For example, the scenario below describes how, once a manufacturer downsizes an engine accompanying the application of a turbocharger, it would most likely not re-upsize the engine to add a less advanced turbocharger. The interaction of these technology combinations is discussed in more detail in Draft TSD Chapter 2.
While TURBO0 is modeled with cooled EGR (TURBOE) and with DEAC (TURBOD), these technologies do not apply to TURBO1 or TURBO2; this decision is intentional. NHTSA defines TURBO1 in the analysis by adding VVL to the TURBO0 engine, and TURBO2 is the highest turbo downsized engine with a high BMEP. The benefits of cooled EGR and DEAC on TURBO1 and TURBO2 technologies would occur at high engine speeds and loads, which do not occur on the two-cycle tests. Because NHTSA measured technology effectiveness in this analysis based on the delta in improvements in vehicles' two-cycle test fuel consumption values, adding cooled EGR and DEAC to TURBO1 and TURBO2 would provide little effectiveness improvement for the corresponding increase in cost, a technology decision that the agency does not believe manufacturers would adopt in the real world. NHTSA's modeling effectively captured these complex interactions among technologies—an example of why effectiveness values from different technologies cannot simply be added together.
Consistent with the approach of preventing moving backward in the technology tree, the Model does not allow a vehicle assigned a TURBO2 technology to adopt a TURBOE technology. A vehicle in the analysis fleet that is assigned the TURBO2 technology indicates a manufacturer made the decision to either skip over or move on from lower levels of force induction technology. Moving backwards in the technology tree from TURBO2 to any of the lower turbo technologies would require the engine to be upsized to meet the same performance metrics as the analysis fleet vehicle. As discussed further in Section II.C.2.c, NHTSA ensures the vehicles in this analysis meet similar performance levels after the application of fuel economy-improving technology, because the agency's objective is to measure the costs and benefits of manufacturers responding to CAFE standards in this analysis, and not the costs or benefits related to changing performance metrics in the fleet. Moving from a higher to a lower turbo technology works counter to saving fuel as the engine would grow in displacement, requiring more fuel, adding frictional losses, and increasing weight and cost. Accordingly, the agency believes that the Turbo engine pathway appropriately captures the ways manufacturers might apply increasing levels of turbocharging technology to their vehicles.
In this analysis, high compression ratio (HCR) engines represent a class of engines that achieve a higher level of fuel efficiency by implementing a high geometric CR with varying degrees of late intake valve closing (LIVC) (
NHTSA defines HCR engines as being naturally aspirated, gasoline, spark ignition (SI), using a geometric CR of 12.5:1 or greater,
The phrase “low power density issues” translates to a low torque density,
Vehicle manufacturers' intended performance attributes for a vehicle—like payload and towing capability, features for off-road use, and other attributes that affect aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance—dictate whether an HCR engine can be a suitable technology choice for that vehicle.
NHTSA includes three HCR Engine Path technology options in this analysis: (1) a first-level Atkinson-enabled engine (HCR) with VVT and SGDI; (2) an Atkinson-enabled engine with cooled exhaust gas recirculation (HCRE); and, (3) an Atkinson-enabled engine with DEAC (HCRD). This updated family of HCR engine map models also reflects the statement in NHTSA's May 2, 2022, final rule that a single engine that employs an HCR, CEGR,
These three HCR Engine Path technology options (HCR, HCRE, HCRD) should not be confused with the hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric pathway options that also utilize HCR engines in combination with a P2 hybrid powertrain (
The Miller cycle is another alternative combustion cycle that effectively uses an extended expansion stroke, similar to the Atkinson cycle but with the application of forced induction to improve fuel efficiency. Miller cycle-enabled engines have a similar trade-off in power density as Atkinson engines; the lower power density requires a larger volume engine in comparison to an Otto cycle-based turbocharged system for similar applications.
Variable compression ratio (VCR) engines work by changing the length of the piston stroke of the engine to optimize the CR and improve thermal efficiency over the full range of engine operating conditions. Engines that use VCR technology are currently in production as small-displacement, turbocharged, in-line four-cylinder, high BMEP applications.
Diesel engines have several characteristics that result in better fuel efficiency over traditional gasoline engines, including reduced pumping losses due to lack of (or greatly reduced) throttling, high-pressure direct injection of fuel, a combustion cycle that operates at a higher CR, and a very lean air/fuel mixture relative to an equivalent-performance gasoline engine. However, diesel technologies require additional systems to control NO
Finally, compressed natural gas (CNG) systems are ICE vehicles that run on natural gas as a fuel source. The fuel storage and supply systems for these engines differ tremendously from gasoline, diesel, and flexible-fuel vehicles.
There are other vehicle technologies that work in various ways to improve fuel efficiency, such as turbo compounding, negative valve overlaps in-cylinder fuel reforming (NVO), passive prechamber combustion (PPC), and high energy ignition; however, NHTSA's analysis did not include these technologies. While suitable explanations for their exclusion could be that these technologies are in various stages of development and some, like PPC, are in very limited production, the primary reason NHTSA opted not to include them in the analysis is that the agency believes these technologies will not gain enough adoption during the rulemaking timeframe. This topic was discussed in detail in the 2022 final rule,
The first step in assigning engine technologies to vehicles in the analysis fleet is to use data for each manufacturer to determine which vehicle platforms share engines. Within each manufacturer's fleet, NHTSA develops and assigns unique engine codes based on configuration, technologies applied, displacement, CR, and power output. NHTSA also assigns engine technology classes, which are codes that identify engine architecture (
When assigning engine technologies to vehicles in the analysis fleets, it is important to consider the actual technologies on a manufacturer's engine and compare them to the engine technologies in the analysis. NHTSA has over 250 unique engine codes in the light-duty analysis fleet, meaning that the technologies present on those engines in the real world must be identified and matched to the 29 engine map models (and therefore engine technology on the technology tree)
Engine technology adoption in the Model is defined through a combination of technology path logic, refresh and redesign cycles, phase-in capacity limits,
VCR technology requires a complete redesign of the engine and, in the analysis fleet, Nissan is the only manufacturer (including the Infiniti brand) to incorporate this technology. VCR engines are complex, costly by design, and address many of the same efficiency losses as mainstream technologies like turbocharged downsized engines. This makes it unlikely that a manufacturer that has already started down an incongruent technology path would adopt VCR technology. Because of these issues, VCR engine technology adoption is limited to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) that have already employed the technology and their partners. NHTSA does not believe any other manufacturers will invest in developing and market this technology in their fleet in the rulemaking timeframe.
As recognized in past analyses,
First, vehicles with 405 or more HP, and (to simulate parts sharing) vehicles that share engines with vehicles with 405 or more HP, are not allowed to adopt HCR engines due to their prescribed power needs being more demanding and likely not supported by the lower power density found in HCR-based engines.
Second, to maintain a performance-neutral analysis,
Finally, HCR engine application is restricted for some heavily performance-focused manufacturers that have demonstrated a significant commitment to power-dense technologies such as
Note that these adoption features apply only to vehicles that receive HCR engines that are not accompanied by a hybrid powertrain. A P2 hybrid system that uses an HCR engine overcomes the low-speed torque needs using the electric motor and thus has no restrictions or SKIPs applied.
NHTSA realizes that engine technology, vehicle type, and their applications are always evolving. The Hyundai Santa Cruz, a unibody pickup truck with a 4-cylinder HCR engine, is one example of a pickup truck with a non-hybrid HCR engine. However, the Santa Cruz is not comparable in capability to other pickup models like the Tacoma, Colorado, and Canyon, and it therefore cannot be assumed that those pickup models should be able to adopt non-hybrid HCR technology as well. Small unibody pickup trucks like the Santa Cruz and the Ford Maverick do not have the same capabilities and functionality as a mid-size body-on-frame pickup like the Toyota Tacoma.
NHTSA also emphasizes that, in the real world, manufacturers are not required to follow the technology pathways to compliance that the agency models in the standard-setting analysis but can instead take their own pathway based on their respective business models, technology availability, market share, and others. The CAFE Model simulates an example of a low-cost compliance pathway, and no manufacturer has to comply with the pathway as it has been modeled. Instead, manufacturers are free to choose their own path to compliance. NHTSA has added features and restrictions into the CAFE Model to make the compliance simulation more representative of how manufacturers make decisions about technology adoption in the real world. This is to ensure that the CAFE Model does not simulate unrealistic compliance pathways. For example, if the CAFE Model simulated manufacturers abandoning one technology in favor for another, particularly with respect to HCR technology for pickup trucks and high HP vehicles, the results and corresponding costs and benefits would be unrealistic and could lead to NHTSA setting standards that are more stringent than maximum feasible. For this and other reasons, the agency endeavors to model the most realistic and low-cost pathway to compliance. NHTSA's standard-setting analysis is also restricted in ways that manufacturers are not, increasing the likelihood that manufacturers will not follow the technology pathways projected in the standard-setting analysis.
How effective an engine technology is at improving a vehicle's fuel economy depends on several factors, such as the vehicle's technology class and any additional technology added or removed from the vehicle in conjunction with the new engine technology, as discussed in Section II.C above. The Autonomie model's full-vehicle simulation results provide most of the effectiveness values that are used as inputs to the CAFE Model. Chapter 2.4 of the Draft TSD and the CAFE Analysis Autonomie Documentation provide a full discussion of the Autonomie modeling. The Autonomie modeling uses engine map models as the primary inputs for simulating the effects of different engine technologies.
Engine maps provide a three-dimensional representation of engine performance characteristics at each engine speed and load point across the operating range of the engine. Engine maps have the appearance of topographical maps, typically with engine speed on the horizontal axis and engine torque, power, or BMEP on the vertical axis. A third engine characteristic, such as brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC), is displayed using contours overlaid across the speed and load map. The contours provide the values for the third characteristic in the regions of operation covered on the map. Other characteristics typically overlaid on an engine map include engine emissions, engine efficiency, and engine power. The engine maps developed to model the behavior of the engines in this analysis are referred to as engine map models.
The engine map models used in this analysis are representative of technologies currently in production or expected to be available in the rulemaking timeframe. The engine map models are developed to be representative of the performance achievable across the industry for a given technology, and they are not intended to represent the performance of a single manufacturer's specific engine. NHTSA targets a broadly representative performance level because the same combination of technologies produced by different manufacturers will differ in performance, due to manufacturer-specific designs for engine hardware, control software, and emissions calibration. Accordingly, the agency expects that the engine maps developed for this analysis will differ from engine maps for manufacturers' specific engines. However, it is intended and expected that the incremental changes in performance modeled for this analysis, due to changes in technologies or technology combinations, will be similar to the incremental changes in performance observed in manufacturers' engines for the same changes in technologies or technology combinations.
IAV developed most of the engine map models used in this analysis. IAV is one of the world's leading automotive industry engineering service partners with an over 35-year history of performing research and development for powertrain components, electronics, and vehicle design.
Just like Argonne optimizes a single vehicle model in Autonomie following the addition of a singular technology to the vehicle model, these engine map models were built in GT-POWER by incrementally adding engine technology to an initial engine—built using engine test data, component test data, and manufacturers' and suppliers' technical publications—and then optimizing the engine to consider real-world constraints like heat, friction, and knock. One of the basic assumptions the agency makes when developing these engine maps is using 87 octane Tier 3 gasoline because it is the most common octane rating on which engines are designed to operate, and it is the test fuel manufacturers will have to use for EPA fuel economy testing.
Before its use in the Autonomie analysis, both IAV and SwRI validated the generated engine maps against a global database of benchmarked data, engine test data, single-cylinder test data, prior modeling studies, technical studies, and information presented at conferences.
Note that absolute BSFC levels are never applied from the engine maps to any vehicle model or configuration for the rulemaking analysis; only the absolute fuel economy values from the full-vehicle Autonomie simulations are used to determine incremental effectiveness for switching from one technology to another technology. The incremental effectiveness is then applied to the absolute fuel economy or fuel consumption value of vehicles in the analysis fleet, which are based on CAFE or FE compliance data. For subsequent technology changes, NHTSA applies incremental effectiveness changes to the absolute fuel economy level of the previous technology configuration. Therefore, for a technically sound analysis, it is most important that the differences in BSFC among the engine maps be accurate and not the absolute values of the individual engine maps.
While the fuel economy improvements for most engine technologies in the analysis are derived from the database of Autonomie full-vehicle simulation results, the analysis incorporates a handful of what the agency refers to as “analogous effectiveness values.” These are used when an engine map model is not available for a particular technology combination. To generate an analogous effectiveness value, data from analogous technology combinations for available engine map models are used by conducting a pairwise comparison to generate a data set of emulated performance values for adding technology to an initial application. Analogous effectiveness values are used only for four SOHC technologies. NHTSA has determined that the effectiveness results using these analogous effectiveness values provided reasonable results. This process is discussed further in Chapter 3.1.4.2 of the Draft TSD.
The engine technology effectiveness values for all vehicle technology classes can be found in Chapter 3.1.4 of the Draft TSD. These values show the calculated improvement for upgrading the listed engine technology for a given combination of other technologies. The range of effectiveness values listed for each specific technology (
The engine costs in NHTSA's analysis are the product of engine DMCs, RPE, and the LE, updated to a consistent dollar year. Engine DMCs are obtained from multiple sources but primarily from the 2015 NAS report.
All engine technology costs start with a base engine cost, and then additional technology costs are based on cylinder and bank count and configuration; the DMC for each engine technology is a function of unit cost times either the number of cylinders or number of banks, based on how the technology is applied to the system. The total costs for all engine technologies in all model years across all vehicle classes can be found in the Technologies Input File.
Transmissions transmit torque generated by the engine from the engine to the wheels. Transmissions primarily use two mechanisms to improve fuel efficiency: (1) a wider gear range, which allows the engine to operate longer at higher efficiency speed-load points and (2) improvements in friction or shifting efficiency (
NHTSA models only automatic transmissions in the light-duty analysis. The three subcategories of automatic transmissions that are modeled in this analysis include traditional automatic transmissions (AT), dual-clutch transmissions (DCT), and continuously variable transmissions (CVT and eCVT).
To assign transmission technologies to vehicles in the analysis fleets, NHTSA identifies which Autonomie transmission model is most like a vehicle's real-world transmission, considering the transmission's configuration, costs, and effectiveness. As with engines, data from manufacturers' CAFE reports and publicly available information are used to assign transmissions to vehicles and determine which platforms share transmissions. Transmission codes that include information about the manufacturer, drive configuration, transmission type, and number of gears are used to link shared transmissions in a manufacturer's fleet. Just as manufacturers share transmissions in multiple vehicles, the CAFE Model treats transmissions as “shared” if they share a transmission code and transmission technologies will be adopted together.
While identifying an AT's gear count is fairly easy, identifying HEG levels for ATs and CVTs is more difficult. NHTSA reviews the age of the transmission design, relative performance versus previous designs, and technologies incorporated to assign an HEG level. There are no HEG Level 3 automatic transmissions in the analysis fleet. NHTSA finds all 7-speed, all 9-speed, all 10-speed, and some 8-speed automatic transmissions to be advanced transmissions operating at HEG Level 2 equivalence. The agency assigns eight-speed automatic transmissions and CVTs newly introduced for the light-duty market in MY 2016 and later as HEG Level 2. All other automatic transmissions are assigned to their respective transmission's initial technology level (
Most transmission adoption features are instituted through technology path logic (
The automatic transmission path precludes adoption of other transmission types once a platform progresses past an AT8. This restriction is used to avoid the significant level of stranded capital loss that could result from adopting a completely different transmission type shortly after adopting an advanced transmission, which would occur if a different transmission type has been adopted after AT8 in the rulemaking timeframe. Vehicles that did not start out with AT7L2 transmissions cannot adopt that technology in the Model. It is likely that other vehicles will not adopt the AT7L2 technology, as vehicles that have moved to more advanced automatic transmissions have
Vehicles that do not originate with a CVT or vehicles with multispeed transmissions beyond AT8 in the analysis fleet cannot adopt CVTs. Vehicles with multispeed transmissions greater than AT8 demonstrate increased ability to operate the engine at a highly efficient speed and load. Once on the CVT path, the platform is allowed to apply only improved CVT technologies. Due to the limitations of current CVTs, discussed in Draft TSD Chapter 3.2, this analysis restricts the application of CVT technology on light-duty vehicles with greater than 300 lb.-ft of engine torque. This is because of the higher torque (load) demands of those vehicles and CVT torque limitations based on durability constraints. NHTSA believes the 300 lb.-ft restriction represents an increase over current levels of torque capacity that is likely to be achieved during the rulemaking timeframe. This restriction aligns with CVT application in the analysis fleet, in that CVTs are seen only on vehicles with under 280 lb.-ft of torque.
Autonomie models transmissions as a sequence of mechanical torque gains. The torque and speed are multiplied and divided, respectively, by the current ratio for the selected operating condition. Furthermore, torque losses corresponding to the torque/speed operating point are subtracted from the torque input. Torque losses are defined based on a three-dimensional efficiency lookup table that has the following inputs: input shaft rotational speed, input shaft torque, and operating condition. NHTSA populates transmission template models in Autonomie with characteristics data to model specific transmissions.
The effectiveness values for the transmission technologies, for all light-duty technology classes, are shown in Chapter 3.2.4 of the Draft TSD. Note that the effectiveness for the AT5 and eCVT technologies is not shown. The eCVT transmissions do not have standalone effectiveness values because those technologies are implemented only as part of hybrid-electric powertrains. The AT5 has no effectiveness values because it is a reference-point technology against which all other transmission technologies are compared.
NHTSA's transmission DMCs come from the 2015 NAS report and studies cited therein. The costs are taken almost directly from the 2015 NAS report adjusted to the current dollar year or for the appropriate number of gears. Chapter 3.2 of the Draft TSD discusses the specific 2015 NAS report costs used to generate these transmission cost estimates, and all transmission costs across all model years can be found in the CAFE Model's Technologies Input File. NHTSA has used the 2015 NAS report transmission costs for the last several light-duty CAFE Model analyses (since re-evaluating all transmission costs for the 2020 final rule) and has not received comments or feedback on these costs.
The hybridization paths each include a set of technologies that share common hybrid powertrain components, like batteries and electric motors, for certain vehicle functions that were powered solely by ICEs traditionally. While all vehicles (including conventional ICE vehicles) use batteries and electric motors in some form, some component designs and powertrain architectures contribute to greater levels of hybridization than others, allowing the vehicle to use less gasoline or other fuel.
As explained elsewhere, NHTSA endeavors to model how manufacturers could apply technology to respond to CAFE standards. Hybrid technologies can improve fuel economy, and NHTSA believes that the inputs and assumptions selected to represent hybrid technologies are reasonable to use in NHTSA's CAFE Model. NHTSA provides details of the inputs and assumptions in the Draft TSD accompanying this proposed rule and provides more information regarding the agency's rationale and approach throughout Section II and III of this preamble.
Unlike with other technologies in the analysis, Congress placed specific limitations on how NHTSA considers the fuel economy of alternative fueled vehicles, which includes not only BEVs and FCEVs but also PHEVs.
Among the simpler configurations with the fewest hybrid components is micro HEV technology (SS12V), which uses a 12-volt system that simply restarts the engine from a stop. Mild HEVs use a 48-volt belt integrated starter generator (BISG) system that restarts the engine from a stop and provides some regenerative braking functionality.
Strong hybrid-electric vehicles (SHEVs) have higher system voltages compared to mild hybrids with BISG systems and are capable of engine stop/start, regenerative braking, electric motor assist of the engine at higher speeds and power demands with the ability to provide limited all-electric propulsion. Common SHEV powertrain architectures, classified by the interconnectivity of common hybrid vehicle components, include both a series-parallel architecture by power-split device (SHEVPS) as well as a parallel architecture (SHEVP2). SHEVP2s—though enhanced by the electric components, including just one electric motor—remains fundamentally similar to a conventional powertrain.
PHEVs utilize a combination gasoline-electric powertrain, like that of a SHEV, but have the ability to plug into the electric grid to recharge the battery, like that of a BEV; this contributes to all-electric mode capability in both blended and non-blended PHEVs.
As with previous CAFE analyses, there are a number of engine options available for SHEVs and PHEVs. These engines better represent the variety of different hybrid architectures and engine options available in the real world for SHEVs and PHEVs while still maintaining a reasonable level of analytical complexity.
NHTSA did not include additional mild hybrid technology such as more capable, higher output 48-volt mild hybrid systems beyond P0 mild hybrids, such as “P2, P3, or P4 configurations”
As described in Draft TSD Chapter 3.3, NHTSA assigns hybrid technologies to vehicles in the analysis fleet
The adoption features that NHTSA applies to strong hybrid technologies include path logic, powertrain substitution, and vehicle class restrictions. Per the technology pathways, SHEVPS, P2x, P2TRBx, and the P2HCRx technologies are considered mutually exclusive. When the Model applies one of these technologies, the others are immediately disabled from future application. However, all vehicles on the strong hybrid pathways can still advance to one or more of the plug-in technologies, when applicable in the modeling scenario (
When the Model applies any strong hybrid technology to a vehicle, the transmission technology on the vehicle is superseded; regardless of the transmission originally present, P2 hybrids adopt an advanced 8-speed automatic transmission (AT8L2), and PS hybrids adopt a continuously variable transmission via power-split device (eCVT). When the Model applies the P2
SKIP logic is also used to constrain adoption of SHEVPS and PHEVx0PS technologies. These technologies are “skipped” for vehicles with engines
It may be helpful to understand why NHTSA does not apply SKIP logic to P2s but does apply SKIP logic to SHEVPSs. Note the difference between SHEVP2 and SHEVPS architectures: P2 architectures are better for “larger vehicle applications because they can be integrated with existing conventional powertrain systems that already meet the additional attribute requirements” of large-vehicle segments.
While strong hybridization is allowed on all vehicle types, NHTSA allows different types of strong hybrid powertrains to be applied to different types of vehicles for the reasons discussed above. NHTSA believes that allowing SHEVPS and P2 powertrains to be applied subject to the base vehicle's performance requirements is a reasonable approach to maintaining a performance-neutral analysis.
The engine and transmission technologies on a vehicle are superseded when PHEV technologies are applied. For example, the Model applies an AT8L2 transmission with all PHEV20T/50T plug-in technologies, and the Model applies an eCVT transmission for all PHEV20PS/50PS and PHEV20H/50H plug-in technologies in the fleet; Draft TSD Chapter 3.3 provides more details on different system combinations of hybridization. A vehicle adopting PHEV20PS/50PS receives a hybrid full-time Atkinson cycle engine, and a vehicle adopting PHEV20H/PHEV50H receives an HCR engine. For PHEV20T/50T, the vehicle receives a TURBO1 engine.
Autonomie determines the effectiveness of each hybridized powertrain type by modeling the basic components, or building blocks, for each powertrain and then combining the components modularly to determine the overall efficiency of the entire powertrain. The components, or building blocks, which contribute to the effectiveness of a hybridized powertrain in the analysis include the vehicle's battery, electric motors, power electronics, and accessory loads. Autonomie identifies components for each hybridized powertrain type and then interlinks those components to create a powertrain architecture. Autonomie then models each hybridized powertrain architecture and provides an effectiveness value for each architecture. For example, Autonomie determines a PHEV's efficiency in part by considering the efficiencies of the battery (including charging efficiency), the electric traction drive system (ETDS) (the electric machine and power electronics), and mechanical power transmission devices.
The fundamental components of a hybrid powertrain's propulsion system—the electric motor and inverter—ultimately determine the vehicle's performance and efficiency. For this analysis, Autonomie employs a set of electric motor efficiency maps created by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), one for a traction
Beyond the powertrain components, Autonomie also considers electric accessory devices that consume energy and affect overall vehicle effectiveness, such as headlights, radiator fans, wiper motors, engine control units, transmission control units, cooling systems, and safety systems. In real-world driving and operation, the electrical accessory load on the powertrain varies depending on how the driver uses certain features and the condition in which the vehicle is operating, such as night driving or hot weather driving. However, for regulatory test cycles related to fuel economy, the electrical load is repeatable because the fuel economy regulations control these factors. Accessory loads during test cycles vary by powertrain type and vehicle technology class, since distinctly different powertrain components and vehicle masses consume different amounts of energy.
The analysis fleets consist of different vehicle types with varying accessory electrical power demand. For instance, vehicles with different motor and battery sizes require different sizes of electric cooling pumps and fans to manage component temperatures optimally. Autonomie has built-in models that can simulate these varying subsystem electrical loads. However, for this analysis, NHTSA uses a fixed (by vehicle technology class and powertrain type), constant power draw to represent the effect of these accessory loads on the powertrain on the 2-cycle test. NHTSA intends and expects that fixed accessory load values will, on average, have similar impacts on effectiveness as found on actual manufacturers' systems. This process is in line with the past analyses.
Certain technologies' effectiveness for reducing fuel consumption requires optimization through the appropriate sizing of the powertrain. Autonomie uses sizing control algorithms based on data collected from vehicle benchmarking,
Autonomie applies different powertrain sizing algorithms depending on the type of vehicle considered because different types of vehicles not only contain specific, optimized components, but they must also operate in varying driving modes. While the conventional powertrain sizing algorithm must consider only the power of the engine, the more complex algorithm for hybridized powertrains must simultaneously consider multiple factors, which could include the engine power, electric machine power, battery power, and battery capacity. Also, while the resizing algorithm for all vehicles must satisfy the same performance criteria, the algorithm for some electric powertrains must also allow those hybridized vehicles to operate in certain driving cycles, like the US06 cycle, without assistance of the combustion engine and ensure the electric motor/generator and battery can handle the vehicle's regenerative braking power, all-electric mode operation, and intended range of travel.
To establish the effectiveness of the technology packages, Autonomie simulates the vehicles' performance on compliance test cycles.
Chapters 2.4 and 3.3 of the Draft TSD and the CAFE Analysis Autonomie Documentation chapter titled “Test Procedure and Energy Consumption Calculations” discuss the components and test cycles used to model each hybrid powertrain type; please refer to those chapters for more technical details on each of the modeled technologies discussed in this section.
The range of effectiveness for the hybrid technologies used in this analysis is a result of the interactions between the components listed above and how the modeled vehicle operates on its respective test cycle. This range of values results in some modeled effectiveness values being close to real-world measured values and some modeled values departing from measured values, depending on the level of similarity between the modeled hardware configuration and the real-world hardware and software configurations. The range of effectiveness values for the hybrid technologies applied in the fleet is shown in Draft TSD Figure 3-23 and Figure 3-24.
Some advanced engine technologies indicate low effectiveness values when paired with hybrid architectures. The low effectiveness results from the application of advanced engines to existing P2 architectures. This effect is expected and illustrates the importance of using the full-vehicle modeling to capture interactions between technologies and to capture instances of both complementary technologies and non-complementary technologies. In developing its hybrid engine maps, NHTSA considers the engine, engine technologies, electric motor power, and battery pack size. The hybrid engine maps are calibrated to operate in their respective hybrid architecture most effectively and to allow the electric machine to provide propulsion or assistance in regions of the engine map that are less efficient. As the Model sizes the powertrain for any given application, it considers all these parameters as well as performance neutrality metrics to provide the most efficient solution. In this instance, the P2 powertrain improves fuel economy, in part, by allowing the engine to spend more time operating at efficient engine speed and load conditions. This reduces the advantage of adding advanced engine technologies, which also improve fuel economy, by broadening the range of speed and load conditions for the engine to operate at high efficiency. This redundancy in fuel-saving mechanisms results in a lower effectiveness when the technologies are added to each other.
The technology effectiveness values are developed specifically to support analyses for a rulemaking timeframe. For example, the hybrid Atkinson engine peak thermal efficiency was updated based on 2017 Toyota Prius engine data.
When the CAFE Model turns a vehicle powered by an ICE into a hybridized vehicle, it must remove the parts and costs associated with the ICE (and, potentially, the transmission—depending on the hybridization level and powertrain type) and add the costs of a battery pack and other non-battery hybridization components, such as the electric motor and power inverter. To estimate battery pack costs for this analysis, NHTSA needs an estimate of how much battery packs cost now (
Traditionally, a user would use BatPaC to cost a battery pack for a single vehicle, and the user would vary factors such as battery cell chemistry, battery power and energy, battery pack interconnectivity configurations, battery pack production volumes, charging constraints, or combinations of these factors, to name a few, to see how those factors would increase or decrease the cost of the battery pack. However, several hundreds of thousands of simulated vehicles in the analysis have hybridized powertrains, meaning that NHTSA would have to run individual BatPaC simulations for each full-vehicle simulation that requires a battery pack. This would have been computationally intensive and impractical. Instead, Argonne staff builds “lookup tables” with BatPaC that provide battery pack manufacturing costs, battery pack weights, and battery pack cell capacities for vehicles with varying power requirements modeled in these large-scale simulation runs.
Just like with other vehicle technologies, the specifications of different vehicle manufacturers' battery packs are extremely diverse. NHTSA, therefore, endeavored to develop battery pack costs that reasonably encompass the cost of battery packs for vehicles in each technology class.
In conjunction with the agency's partners at Argonne working on the CAFE analysis Autonomie modeling, NHTSA references assessment and outlook reports,
NHTSA also looks at vehicle sales volumes for MY 2022 to determine a reasonable base production volume assumption.
Similar to previous rulemakings, NHTSA uses sales as a starting point to analyze potential base modeled battery manufacturing plant production volume assumptions. Since actual production data for specific battery manufacturing plants are extremely hard to obtain and the battery cell manufacturer is not always the battery pack manufacturer,
As mentioned above, the BatPaC Lookup Tables provide $/kWh battery pack costs based on vehicle power and energy requirements. As the total cost of a battery pack increases the higher the power/energy requirements, the cost per kWh decreases. This represents the cost of hardware that is needed in all battery packs but is deferred across more kW/kWh in larger packs, which reduces the per kW/kWh cost. Table 3-78 in Draft TSD Chapter 3.3.5 shows an example of the BatPaC-based lookup tables for SHEVPS technology classes.
Note that the values in the table discussed above should
The CAFE Analysis Autonomie Documentation details other specific assumptions that Argonne used to simulate battery packs and their associated base year costs for the full-vehicle simulation modeling, including updates to the battery management unit
The DOE and Argonne have developed battery cost correlation equations from BatPaC for use in the 2024 CAFE final rule analysis—cost equations that continue to be used in this analysis.
While batteries and relative battery components are the biggest cost drivers of hybridization, non-battery hybridization components, such as electric motors, power electronics, and wiring harnesses, also add to the total cost required to electrify a vehicle. Different levels of hybrid vehicles have variants of non-battery hybridization components and configurations to accommodate different vehicle classes and applications with respective designs. For instance, some SHEVs may be engineered with only one electric motor, while other SHEVs may be engineered with two or even three electric motors within their powertrains to provide AWD functionality. In addition, some hybrid vehicle types still include conventional powertrain components, like an ICE and transmission.
For all hybrid vehicle powertrain types, NHTSA groups non-battery hybridization components into four major categories: electric motors, power electronics (generally including the DC-DC converter, inverter, and power distribution module), charging components (charger, charging cable, and high-voltage cables), and thermal management systems. NHTSA further groups the components into those composing the electric traction drive system, and all other components. Though each manufacturer's ETDS and power electronics vary between the same hybrid vehicle types and between different hybrid vehicle types, NHTSA considers the ETDS for this analysis to be composed of the electric motor and inverter, power electronics, and thermal system.
When researching costs for different non-battery hybridization components, NHTSA finds that different reports vary in components considered and cost breakdown. This is not surprising, as vehicle manufacturers use different non-battery hybridization components in different vehicle systems, or even in the same vehicle type, depending on the application. In order of the component categories discussed above, NHTSA examines cost teardown studies discussed in Draft TSD Chapter 3.3.5 on Table 3-82. Using the best available estimate for each component from the different reports captures components in most manufacturers' systems but not all; NHTSA believes, however, that this is a reasonable metric and approach for this analysis, given the non-standardization of hybrid powertrain designs and subsequent component specifications. Other sources NHTSA uses for non-battery hybridization component costs include an EPA-sponsored FEV teardown of a 2013 Chevrolet Malibu ECO with eAssist for some BISG component costs,
For the non-battery electrification component learning curves, NHTSA uses cost information from Argonne's 2016 Assessment of Vehicle Sizing, Energy Consumption, and Cost Through Large-Scale Simulation of Advanced Vehicle Technologies report.
In summary, NHTSA calculates the total hybrid powertrain costs by summing individual component costs, which ensures that all technologies in a hybrid powertrain appropriately contribute to the total system cost. NHTSA combines the costs associated with the ICE (if applicable) and transmission, non-battery hybridization components like the electric machine, and battery pack to create a full-system cost. Chapter 3.3.5.4 of the Draft TSD presents the total costs for each hybrid powertrain option, broken out by the components NHTSA discussed throughout this section. In addition, the section discusses where to find each of the component costs in the CAFE Model's various input files.
No car or truck uses energy (whether gas or otherwise) 100 percent efficiently when it is driven down the road. If the energy in a gallon of gas is thought of as a pie, the amount of energy ultimately available from that gallon to propel a car or truck down the road would only be a small slice. Instead, most of the energy is lost due to thermal and frictional losses in the engine and drivetrain and drag from ancillary systems (
NHTSA includes three road load reducing technology paths in this analysis: the Mass Reduction Path, Aerodynamic Improvements (AERO) Path, and Low Rolling Resistance Tires (ROLL) Path. For all three paths, NHTSA assigns analysis fleet technologies and identifies adoption features based on the vehicle's body style. The light-duty fleet body styles NHTSA includes in the analysis are convertible, coupe, sedan, hatchback, wagon, SUV, pickup, minivan, and van. Figure II-3 shows the light-duty fleet body styles used in the analysis.
As expected, the road load forces described above operate differently based on a vehicle's body style, and the technology adoption features and effectiveness values reflect this. The following sections discuss the three Road Load Reduction Paths.
MR is a relatively cost-effective means of improving fuel economy, and vehicle manufacturers are expected to apply
For this analysis, NHTSA considers five levels of MR technology (MR1-MR5) that include increasing amounts of advanced materials and MR techniques applied to the vehicle's glider.
The MR5 technology represents a high level of MR and requires a blend of aluminum and carbon fiber components. Achieving MR5 with aluminum exclusively is unlikely to be achievable by manufacturers during the rulemaking timeframe. While aluminum technology can be a potent MR pathway, it has its limitations. First, aluminum does not have a fatigue endurance limit. That is, with aluminum components there is always some combination of stress and cycles when failure occurs. Automotive design engineering teams will dimension highly stressed cross sections to provide an acceptable number of cycles to failure. But this often comes at mass savings levels that fall short of what would be expected purely based on density specific strength and stiffness properties for aluminum.
Looking at real data, the mostly aluminum (cab and bed are made from aluminum) 2021 Ford F150 achieves less than a 14-percent MR compared to its 2014 all-steel predecessor.
In past rules, commenters have noted that the NAS study relies on very little application of carbon fiber technology to achieve their highest level of MR technology. NHTSA notes that the NAS study espouses a maximum level of MR of approximately 14.5 percent using composites (
NHTSA assigns MR levels to vehicles in the analysis fleet by using regression analyses that consider a vehicle's body design
There are several ways NHTSA ensures that the CAFE Model considers MR technologies in the way that manufacturers might apply them in the real world. Given the degree of commonality among the vehicle models built on a single platform, manufacturers do not have complete freedom to apply unique technologies to each vehicle that shares the same platform. While some technologies (
In addition to leader-follower logic for vehicles that share the same platform, NHTSA also restricts MR5 technology to platforms that represent 80,000 vehicles or fewer. The CAFE Model does not apply MR5 technology to platforms representing high-volume sales, like a Chevrolet Traverse, for example, where hundreds of thousands of units are sold
In the Autonomie simulations, MR technology is simulated as a percentage of mass removed from the specific subsystems that make up the glider. The mass of subsystems that make up the vehicle's glider is different for every technology class, based on glider weight data from the A2Mac1 database
NHTSA's MR costs are based on two NHTSA light-weighting studies—the teardown of a MY 2011 Honda Accord and a MY 2014 Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck
Like past analyses, NHTSA considers several options for MR technology costs. The agency has determined that the NHTSA-sponsored studies accounted for significant factors the agency believes are important to include in this analysis, including materials considerations (material type and gauge, while considering real-world constraints such as manufacturing and assembly methods and complexity), safety (including the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's (IIHS) small overlap tests), and functional performance (including towing and payload capacity and noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH)), and gradeability in the pickup truck study.
First, NHTSA limits application of MR5 in the analysis to represent the limited volume of available dry carbon fiber and the resultant high costs of the raw materials. This constraint is described above and in more detail in Draft TSD Chapter 3. The CAFE Model assumes that there is not enough carbon fiber readily available to support vehicle platforms with more than 80,000 vehicles sold per year. NHTSA believes this volume constraint does more to limit the application of MR5 technology in the analysis than does its high price. Even if a lower price is used, the dominant constraint would still be volume. Second, NHTSA does not believe that a lower price would prove to be a competitive pathway to compliance with exotic materials technology compared to other less expensive technologies with higher effectiveness. The MR5 effectiveness as applied to vehicles in this analysis considers the total effect of reducing that level of mass from the vehicle, from the vehicle's starting MR level. As an example, while the cost of going from MR0 or MR1 to MR5 may be slightly overstated (but still limited in total application by the volume cap), the cost of going from MR4 to MR5 is not. NHTSA continues to consider the balance of carbon fiber and other
The energy required for a vehicle to overcome wind resistance, or more formally what is known as aerodynamic drag, ranges from minimal drag at low speeds to extremely significant drag at highway speeds.
Manufacturers can reduce aerodynamic drag either by reducing the drag coefficient or reducing vehicle frontal area, which can be achieved by passive or active aerodynamic technologies. Passive aerodynamics refers to aerodynamic attributes that are inherent to the shape and size of the vehicle. Passive attributes can include the shape of the hood, the angle of the windscreen, or even overall vehicle ride height. Active aerodynamics refers to technologies that variably deploy in response to driving conditions. Examples of active aerodynamic technologies are grille shutters, active air dams, and active ride height adjustment. Manufacturers may employ both passive and active aerodynamic technologies to improve aerodynamic drag values.
There are four levels of aerodynamic improvement (over AERO0, the first level) available in the analysis (AERO5, AERO10, AERO15, AERO20). Refer to Figure II-3 for a visual of each body style considered in the analysis. Each AERO level is associated with 5-, 10-, 15-, or 20-percent aerodynamic drag improvement values over a reference value computed for each vehicle body style. These levels, or bins, respectively correspond to the level of aerodynamic drag reduction over the reference value (
NHTSA assigns aerodynamic drag reduction technology levels in the analysis fleets based on vehicle body styles.
NHTSA looks at vehicle body style and vehicle HP to determine which types of vehicles can adopt different aerodynamic technology levels. For this analysis, AERO15 and AERO20 cannot be applied to minivans, and AERO20 cannot be applied to convertibles, pickup trucks, and wagons. NHTSA does not allow application of AERO15 and AERO20 technology to vehicles with more than 780 HP. This threshold is informed by information about performance of ICE vehicles. NHTSA recognizes that manufacturers tune aerodynamic features on these vehicles to provide desirable downforce at high speeds and to provide sufficient cooling for the powertrain, rather than reducing drag, resulting in middling drag coefficients despite advanced aerodynamic features. Therefore, manufacturers may have limited ability to improve aerodynamic drag coefficients for high performance ICE vehicles without reducing HP. This threshold for performance vehicles only limits the application of aerodynamic technologies on 2,518 units of sales volume in the analysis fleet.
The aerodynamic technology effectiveness values that show the potential fuel consumption improvement from AERO0 technology are found and discussed in Chapter 3.5.4 of the Draft TSD. For example, the AERO20 values represent the range of potential FCIVs that could be achieved through the replacement of AERO0 technology with AERO20 technology for every technology key that is not restricted from using AERO20. NHTSA uses the change in fuel consumption values between entire technology keys and not the individual technology effectiveness values. Using the change between whole technology keys captures the complementary or non-complementary interactions among technologies.
NHTSA has carried forward the established AERO technology costs previously used in the 2020 final rule, the MYs 2024-2026 standards analysis,
Tire rolling resistance burns additional fuel when driving. As a car or truck tire rolls, at the point the tread touches the pavement, the tire flattens out to create what tire engineers call the contact patch. The rubber in the contact patch deforms to mold to the tiny peaks and valleys of the pavement. The interlock between the rubber and these tiny peaks and valleys creates grip. Every time the contact patch leaves the road surface as the tire rotates, it must recover to its original shape, and then as the tire goes all the way around, it must create a new contact patch that molds to a new piece of road surface. However, this molding and repeated re-molding action takes energy. Just like stretching a rubber band requires work, so does deforming the rubber and the tire to form the contact patch. When thinking about the efficiency of driving a car down the road, this means that not all the energy produced by a vehicle's engine can go into propelling the vehicle forward. Instead, some small, but appreciable, amount goes into deforming the tire and creating the contact patch repeatedly. This also explains why tires with low pressure have higher rolling resistance than properly inflated tires. When the tire pressure is low, the tire deforms more to create the contact patch, which is the same as stretching the rubber farther in the analogy above. Larger deformations consume even more energy, which results in worse fuel economy. Low rolling resistance tires have characteristics that reduce frictional losses associated with the energy dissipated mainly in the deformation of the tires under load, thereby improving fuel economy.
NHTSA uses three levels of low rolling resistance tire technology for the light-duty analysis. Each level of low rolling resistance tire technology reduces rolling resistance by 10 percent from an industry-average rolling resistance coefficient (RRC) value of 0.009.
NHTSA has been using ROLL10 and ROLL20 in the last several CAFE Model analyses. NHTSA has only recently included ROLL30 due to lack of widespread commercial adoption of ROLL30 tires in the fleet within the rulemaking timeframe, despite commenters' argument on availability of the technology on current vehicle models and the possibility that there would be additional tire improvements over the next decade.
Assigning low rolling resistance tire technology to the analysis fleet is difficult because RRC data are not part of tire manufacturers' publicly released specifications, and because vehicle manufacturers often offer multiple wheel and tire packages for the same nameplate. Consistent with previous rules, NHTSA uses a combination of CBI, data from a NHTSA-sponsored ROLL study, and assumptions about parts-sharing to assign tire technology in the analysis fleet. A slight majority of vehicles (54.9 percent) in the analysis fleet do not use any ROLL improvement technology, while 13.0 percent of vehicles use ROLL10, and 28.4 percent of vehicles use ROLL20. Only 3.7 percent of vehicles in the analysis fleet use ROLL30.
The CAFE Model can apply ROLL technology at either a vehicle refresh or redesign. NHTSA recognizes that some vehicle manufacturers prefer to use higher RRC tires on some performance cars and SUVs. Since many performance cars have higher torque, to avoid tire slip, OEMs prefer to use higher RRC tires for these vehicles. Like the aerodynamic technology improvements discussed above, NHTSA applies ROLL technology adoption features based on vehicle HP and body style. All vehicles in the light-duty fleet that have below 350 hp can adopt all levels of ROLL technology. Draft TSD Chapter 3.6.3 shows that all light-duty vehicles under 350 hp can adopt ROLL technology, and as vehicle HP increases, fewer vehicles can adopt the highest levels of ROLL
DMCs and learning rates for ROLL10 and ROLL20 are the same as prior analyses
For this proposal, NHTSA's analysis of the regulatory alternatives removes FCIVs) for AC efficiency and OC technologies starting in MY 2028. NHTSA is making this change to align with its conclusion that technology specific incentives should not be considered when running the compliance simulation that informs its consideration of maximum feasible standards. Instead, NHTSA's analysis for MY 2028 and beyond is based on simulating compliance based on 2-cycle testing. To simulate compliance pathways using the CAFE Model without AC efficiency and OC technologies, NHTSA sets the maximum allowable FCIV to 0g carbon dioxide (CO
Under EPA's current procedures for determining fleet average fuel economy for CAFE compliance, manufacturers may generate FCIVs, which improve their fuel economy values. Manufacturers may generate FCIVs for the addition of OC and AC efficiency technologies, which can provide fuel economy benefits in real-world vehicle operation that are not fully captured using the 2-cycle test procedures (
Since EPA first proposed allowing manufacturers to earn FCIVs for AC efficiency and OC technologies, NHTSA has not modeled AC efficiency and OC technologies in the CAFE Model like other vehicle technologies, for several reasons. Each time NHTSA adds a technology option to the CAFE Model's technology pathways, the agency increases the number of Autonomie simulations by approximately a hundred thousand. This means that adding just five AC efficiency and five OC technology options would double the agency's Autonomie simulations to around 2 million total simulations. Instead, for applicable model years, the CAFE Model applies predetermined AC efficiency and OC benefits to each manufacturer's fleet after the CAFE Model applies traditional technology pathway options. The CAFE Model attempts to apply pathway technologies and AC efficiency and OC technologies in a way that both minimizes cost and allows the manufacturer to meet a given CAFE standard without over-or under-complying. The predetermined benefits that the CAFE Model applies for AC efficiency and OC technologies are based on manufacturers' MY 2024 mid-model year CBI compliance reports.
NHTSA uses manufacturers' MY 2024 AC efficiency and OC FCIVs they achieved via the “menu” as a starting point for each regulatory class, then holds those values constant from MYs 2024-2031 for the No-Action Alternative and through MY 2027 for action alternatives. Unlike previous versions of this analysis, NHTSA does not extrapolate the MY 2024 values to future model years. Instead, the CAFE Model assumes that FCIVs for MY 2027 will be the same as they were for MY 2024. Manufacturers have been able to settle in on a level of AC efficiency and OC technologies that maximize their return on investment (ROI); therefore, NHTSA does not anticipate a significant increase in manufacturers' AC efficiency and OC FCIVs between MYs 2024-2027 for any regulatory category. Additional details about how NHTSA determines AC efficiency and OC technology application rates are discussed Chapter 3.7 of the Draft TSD.
Because the CAFE Model applies AC efficiency and OC technology benefits independent of the technology pathways, NHTSA must account for the costs of those technologies independently, as well. NHTSA generates costs for these technologies on a dollars per gram of CO
For this rulemaking, NHTSA is removing FCIVs from its standard-setting analysis starting with MY 2028, which is the first year in which a removal of FCIVs could go into effect.
The prior subsections of Section II have discussed how manufacturers might respond to the proposed standards. While the technology analysis outlined different compliance strategies available to manufacturers, the costs and benefits that would accrue because of the proposed standards are dependent on how consumers respond to manufacturers' compliance decisions. The next few subsections describe how the agency models how consumers may respond to changes in vehicle prices and attributes caused by manufacturers' compliance decisions, as simulated by the CAFE Model.
Most of the economic effects simulated within the analysis are influenced by macroeconomic conditions that are outside the agency's influence. For example, fuel prices are determined mainly by global petroleum supply and demand, yet they affect how much fuel efficiency-improving technology U.S. manufacturers would apply to their vehicles, how much more consumers would be willing to pay to purchase models offering higher fuel economy, how much buyers would drive those vehicles, and the value of each gallon of fuel saved from improved fuel efficiency. Constructing these forecasts of the consequences of CAFE standards requires robust projections of demographic and macroeconomic variables that span the full timeframe of the analysis, including real GDP, consumer confidence, U.S. population, and real disposable personal income.
The analysis presented with the proposal employs fuel price projections developed by EIA, an agency within DOE, which collects, analyzes, and disseminates independent and impartial energy information to promote sound policy-making and public understanding of energy. EIA uses its National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to produce its AEO, which presents projections of future fuel prices (among many other economic and energy-related variables), and these are the source of some inputs to the agency's analysis. The agency's analysis for the proposal uses AEO's 2025 Alternative Transportation Case projections of U.S. population, GDP, disposable personal income, GDP deflator, and fuel prices. NHTSA uses AEO's 2025 Alternative Transportation Case because this case is intended to reflect recent policy directives and therefore provides a more informed analysis of conditions that will affect fuel prices than the reference case (which is tied, in part, to Federal energy policies that are no longer in place), especially in the near-term. The analysis also relies on S&P Global's forecasts of the total number of U.S. households
These macroeconomic assumptions are important inputs to the analysis, but they are also uncertain, particularly over the long lifetimes of the vehicles affected by this proposed rule. To reflect the effects of this uncertainty, the agency also uses AEO's Low Oil Price and High Oil Price side cases to analyze the sensitivity of its analysis to alternative fuel price projections. The purpose of the sensitivity analysis, which is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 9 of the PRIA, is to measure the degree to which different assumptions about fuel prices can change simulated outcomes. NHTSA similarly uses low and high economic growth cases from S&P Global's March 2025 forecast as bounding cases for the macroeconomic variables in its analysis.
The agency will consider updating these inputs if newer versions of the data are available prior to conducting the analysis for the final rule. NHTSA seeks comments on these data sources. If commenters feel that there are better alternative sources of the same or similar data, the agency requests commenters to identify their preferred data source and explain why they believe it is more appropriate within the context of this CAFE rulemaking.
The analysis presented for this proposed rulemaking uses a 2024 base year, consistent with the use of vehicle data for MY 2024, and data for that year represents actual observations rather than estimates to the extent possible. Chapter 4.1 of the Draft TSD discusses macroeconomic forecasts and assumptions NHTSA uses in this analysis.
Another key assumption that permeates the agency's analysis is how much consumers are willing to pay for improved fuel economy. The payback period assumption also has important implications for other regulatory analysis results, including the effect of standards on sales and the use of new vehicles, as well as the number and use
Manufacturers have repeatedly informed the agency that they believe that consumers only value between 2 to 3 years of fuel savings when choosing among competing models to purchase,
After weighing the results from the academic literature, previous statements from manufacturers, and the agency's retrospective analysis, NHTSA is using a 36-month payback assumption for the analysis of this proposal. While this estimate represents a longer payback period assumption than was applied in the analysis of the previous three CAFE rules, the agency tentatively believes that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that 36 months is appropriate. NHSTA seeks comments on whether this represents an appropriate representation of consumer willingness to pay higher upfront prices for future fuel savings. Recognizing the consequences of the payback assumption in the agency's regulatory analysis, NHTSA also includes sensitivity cases to examine the impacts of longer and shorter payback periods in Chapter 9 of the PRIA. These concepts are explored more thoroughly in Chapter 4.2.1.1 of the Draft TSD and Chapter 2.1 of the PRIA.
The composition of the on-road fleet—and how it changes in response to standards—determines many of the costs and benefits of the proposed rule. For example, how much fuel is consumed depends on the number and efficiency of new vehicles sold and how rapidly older, less efficient, less safe vehicles are retired. Reducing the stringency of the CAFE standards would lower the price of new vehicles compared to the No-Action Alternative and would lead to a relative increase in sales of newer, safer vehicles, which in turn would decrease the price of used vehicles leading to the quicker retirement of the oldest, least safe, and less fuel-efficient vehicles on the road.
The analysis accompanying the proposal dynamically simulates changes in the vehicle fleet's size, composition, and usage as manufacturers and consumers respond to regulatory alternatives, fuel prices, and macroeconomic conditions. The analysis of fleet composition is composed of two forces: how sales of new vehicles and their integration into the existing fleet change in response to each regulatory alternative, and how economic and regulatory factors influence the retirement of used vehicles from the fleet (scrappage). NHTSA models sales and scrappage independently.
CAFE standards have been rising every year for nearly two decades. This constant increase in standards has been accompanied by a rise in both the costs of new vehicles and the age of the on-road fleet. The average selling price for new cars and light trucks rose nearly 50 percent between 2012 and 2024 and now approaches $50,000, while U.S. households' average income increased only about half as much over that same period. As the financial burden on households to purchase a new vehicle has increased substantially, recent annual sales of new cars and light trucks have been slightly lower than they were immediately before and after the 2008 recession. Meanwhile, the total number of cars and light trucks in use rose by about 30 million, with the entire increase representing used vehicles, while their average age rose from 10.6 to 12.6 years.
Below are brief descriptions of how the agency models sales and scrappage; for full explanations, readers should refer to Chapter 4.2.1 of the Draft TSD.
By reducing the regulatory costs of complying with fuel economy standards, the proposal would lead to an increase in new vehicle sales relative to the No-Action Alternative. For the purposes of regulatory evaluation, the relevant metric is the
The first component of the sales response model is the nominal total new vehicle sales forecast, which is based on a small set of macroeconomic inputs that together determine the size of the new vehicle market in each future year under the baseline alternative. This statistical model is intended to provide only an initial forecast of light-duty vehicle sales; it does not incorporate the effect of prices on sales and is not intended to be used for analysis of the response to price changes in the new vehicle market. NHTSA's projection oscillates in the early model years
The agency's baseline sales forecast assumes that total new vehicle sales are driven primarily by conditions in the U.S. economy that are outside the influence of the automobile industry. Over time, new vehicle sales have been cyclical—rising when prevailing economic conditions are positive (periods of growth) and falling during periods of economic contraction. While changes to vehicles' designs and prices that occur as consequences of manufacturers' compliance with earlier standards (and with regulations on vehicles' features other than fuel economy) exert some influence on the volume of new vehicle sales, they are far less influential than macroeconomic conditions. The effects of compliance are not large enough to reverse broader cyclical trends in sales; instead, they produce the marginal differences in sales among regulatory alternatives that the agency's sales module is designed to simulate. Increases in new models' prices caused by higher regulatory costs reduce sales below the cyclical trend, and slow fleet turnover, while decreases in prices have the opposite effect.
NHTSA is statutorily barred from considering the fuel economy of dedicated automobiles (
The second component of the sales response model captures how price changes affect the number of vehicles sold. NHTSA estimates the change in sales from its initial forecast during future years under each regulatory alternative by applying an assumed price elasticity of new vehicle demand to the percent difference in average price between the regulatory alternatives and the No-Action Alternative. This price change does not represent an increase or decrease from the previous model year, but rather the percent difference in the average price of new vehicles between the baseline and each regulatory alternative for that particular model year. The average new vehicle price in the baseline is defined as the observed price in 2024 (the last historical data year before the simulation is run) plus the average regulatory cost associated with the No-Action Alternative for each future model year.
Within the CAFE Model's logic, there is an implicit assumption that new vehicle models within the same regulatory class (
NHTSA has previously invested considerable resources in developing a discrete choice model of the new automobile market that would (1) enable the agency to incorporate the effect of additional vehicle attributes on buyers' choices among competing models; (2) reflect consumers' differing preferences for specific vehicle attributes; and (3) provide the capability to simulate responses, such as strategic pricing strategies by manufacturers intended to alter the mix of models they sell and enable them to comply with new CAFE standards. However, those efforts have not yet produced a satisfactory and operational model.
Because the price elasticity that is applied in the Model assumes no perceived change in the quality of the product, and the vehicles produced under different regulatory scenarios have inherently different operating costs, the price metric must account for this difference. The price change to which the elasticity is applied in this analysis represents the residual price difference
The price elasticity is also specified as an input, and for the proposal, the agency assumed a value of -0.4, meaning that a 5-percent increase in the average price of a new vehicle produces a 2-percent decrease in total sales.
The third and final component of the sales model is the dynamic fleet share module (DFS). This analysis uses the DFS developed during the previous rulemaking. The baseline fleet share projection is derived from the agency's own compliance data for the 2024 fleet and from the 2025 AEO projections for subsequent model years. These shares are applied to the total industry sales derived in the first stage of the total sales model to estimate sales volumes of car and light truck body styles. NHTSA determines individual model sales using the following sequence: (1) individual manufacturer shares of each regulatory class (either passenger cars or light trucks) are multiplied by total industry sales of vehicles in that regulatory class and then (2) each vehicle within a manufacturer's volume of that regulatory class is assigned the same percentage share of that manufacturer's sales as in MY 2024. This assumes that consumer preferences for particular styles of vehicles are determined in the aggregate (
This approach also implicitly assumes that manufacturers are currently pricing individual vehicle models within market segments in a way that maximizes their profit. Without more information about each manufacturer's true cost of production, including its fixed and variable components and its target profit margins for its individual vehicle models, there is no basis to assume that strategic shifts within a manufacturer's portfolio will occur in response to standards.
Similar to the second component of the sales module, the DFS applies an elasticity to the change in price between each regulatory alternative and the No-Action Alternative to determine the change in fleet share from its baseline value. NHTSA uses the net regulatory cost differential (costs minus fuel savings) in a logistic model to capture the changes in fleet share between passenger cars and light trucks, with a relative price coefficient of −0.000042. NHTSA selects this methodology and price coefficient based on a review of academic literature.
As discussed in preamble Section VI, the agency proposes to modify its regulatory definitions for vehicle classification starting with MY 2028. The agency takes account of this reclassification after it simulates the aggregate sales and dynamic fleet share responses to changes in vehicle prices. NHTSA assigns vehicles both an “initial” classification based on how they are classified under the current regulations and a “revised” classification for how they would be classified under the proposed regulations. The aggregate sales response is calculated at the fleetwide level, so regulatory classification only affects changes in sales insofar as a reclassified vehicle model incurs a different regulatory cost to comply with the requirements of its new regulatory class. For the dynamic fleet share model, the regulatory costs are borne by a vehicle's “initial” classification, so an SUV that is reclassified from the light truck fleet to the passenger car fleet has its regulatory costs for the dynamic fleet share analysis attributed to the light truck fleet throughout the analysis. This method assumes that each individual model's sales shares within the “initial” regulatory class remain constant. This may cause the counterintuitive effect of an increase in a vehicle's price, leading to an increase in that vehicle's sales. NHTSA considered applying its existing model to sales shares determined by the “revised” classification but decided against this due to the cross-elasticities used in this analysis being estimated based on the current classification system. NHTSA includes several sensitivity cases to explore different approaches, as presented in PRIA Chapter 9. NHTSA seeks comment on this approach and whether it is appropriate to apply the dynamic fleet share's price coefficient to the “revised” regulatory classes, and if not, if there is an alternative elasticity or methodology the agency could employ in its analysis.
New and used vehicles can substitute for each other within broad limits. When the price of a good increases, so does the demand for its substitutes, causing the equilibrium price and quantity of substitutes supplied to rise. Because the proposal would lower the price of new vehicles, demand for used vehicles would decrease, causing the equilibrium market price for used vehicles to decrease and simultaneously increasing the rate at which used vehicles are retired. Because used vehicles are not manufactured, their supply only can be increased by keeping more of those that would otherwise be retired in use longer, which corresponds to a reduction in their scrappage or retirement rates. As older vehicles are used longer, the average age of the fleet rises and the safety risk to all road users likewise increases, because older vehicles are less safe than newer ones.
When new vehicles become more expensive, demand for used vehicles increases. Because used vehicles are more valuable in such circumstances, they are scrapped at a lower rate, and just as rising new vehicle prices push some prospective buyers into the used vehicle market, rising prices for used vehicles force some prospective buyers to acquire even older vehicles or models with fewer desired attributes. The effect of fuel economy standards on scrappage is partially dependent on how consumers value future fuel savings; NHTSA assumes consumers values only the first 36 months of fuel savings when making a purchasing decision.
Many competing factors influence the decision to scrap a vehicle, including the cost to maintain and operate it, the
While scrappage decisions are made at the household level, NHTSA is unaware of sufficiently detailed household data to capture scrappage at that level. Instead, NHTSA uses aggregate data measures that capture broader market trends. In addition, the aggregate results are consistent with the rest of the CAFE Model, as the Model does not attempt to project manufacturers' pricing strategies; the Model assumes instead that all regulatory costs to make a particular vehicle compliant are passed on to the purchaser who buys the vehicle.
The dominant source of scrappage is “engineering scrappage,” which is largely determined by the age of a vehicle and the durability of the specific model year or vintage it represents. NHTSA uses proprietary vehicle registration data from S&P Global to estimate vehicle age and durability. Other factors affecting owners' decisions to retire used vehicles or retain them in service include fuel economy and new vehicle prices; for historical data on new vehicle transaction prices, NHTSA uses National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) data.
Vehicle survival rates, which are determined over time by scrappage, follow a roughly logistic function with age—that is, when a vintage is young, few vehicles in the cohort are scrapped; as they age, more and more of the cohort are retired each year, and the annual rate at which vehicles are scrapped reaches a peak. Scrappage then declines as vehicles enter their later years, as fewer and fewer vehicles in the cohort remain on the road. The analysis uses a logistic function to capture this trend of vehicle scrappage with age. The data shows that the durability of successive model years generally increases over time; put another way, historically, newer vehicles last longer than older vintages. However, this trend is not constant across all vehicle ages—the instantaneous scrappage rate of vehicles is lower generally for more recent vintages up to a certain age, but must increase thereafter so that the final share of vehicles remaining converges to a similar share remaining for historically observed vintages.
The final source of vehicle scrappage is from cyclical effects, which the Model captures using forecasts of GDP and fuel prices. The macroeconomic conditions variables discussed above are included in the logistic model to capture cyclical effects. Finally, the change in new vehicle prices projected in the Model (technology costs minus 36 months of fuel savings and any tax credits passed through to the consumer) is included, and changes in this variable are the source of differing scrappage rates among regulatory alternatives. NHTSA seeks comment on its scrappage module and asks that commenters with any suggested revisions provide resources with sufficient detail to analyze alternative methodologies.
In addition to the variables included in the scrappage module, NHTSA considers several other potential variables that likely either directly or indirectly influence scrappage in the real world, including maintenance and repair costs, the value of scrapped metal, vehicle characteristics, the quantity of new vehicles purchased, higher interest rates, and unemployment. These variables are excluded from the scrappage module either because of difficulties in obtaining data to measure them accurately or other modeling constraints. Their exclusion from the module is not intended to diminish their importance but rather highlights the practical constraints of modeling intricate decisions like scrappage. NHTSA seeks comments on whether it should include any of these variables and, if so, requests that commenters suggest specific methodologies that would produce robust and unbiased estimates that could be used in a regulatory analysis setting.
NHTSA expects that the proposed reset would accelerate the retirement of older vehicles compared to the No-Action Alternative. Because the proposed standard would reduce the regulatory burden on manufacturers and by extension the price of new vehicles, the demand and price for used vehicles would decrease, which would incentivize households to replace the older vehicles that are costly to maintain with newer, cheaper options—including newer used vehicles.
As described in the fleet turnover section, fuel economy standards influence the quantity of new vehicles sold and how quickly older vehicles are retired. Model years of different vintages possess distinguishable characteristics, with newer vehicles typically being more fuel efficient and safer than their older contingents. While the decision itself to buy a new vehicle or retire an older vehicle may confer certain costs and benefits to their owners, most of the effects are realized only through the use of those vehicles. The agency's proposal to lower standards would accelerate fleet turnover compared to the baseline, which would result in more miles being driven in newer, safer vehicles compared to older, less safe vehicles. As a result, fewer miles would be driven in the oldest, least safe vehicles on the road, and the number of fatal accidents would be expected to decrease as well.
Deciphering which vehicles are being driven is just as important as how many miles are being driven. Any shift in miles driven by older vehicles to newer vehicles creates a corresponding shift in societal benefits, which include both safety and environmental benefits. To capture how CAFE standards influence the distribution of miles across the fleet, NHTSA estimates VMT based on the average use of vehicles at different ages, the total number of vehicles in use, and the composition of the fleet by ages.
VMT is determined by how much households want to drive and how much they can afford to do so. NHTSA believes that a significant portion of light-duty VMT is unaffected by fuel economy standards. Households have some basic level of travel demand that needs to be met such as driving to work or school, and those households will drive those miles regardless of the imposition that fuel economy standards may impose. NHTSA's perspective is that the total demand for VMT should not vary excessively across alternatives. To prevent large differences from arising among the regulatory alternatives, the agency constrains the aggregate amount of VMT—besides VMT attributable to the “rebound effect”—across alternatives to be equal with the No-Action Alternative.
In prior rules, the agency used the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) VMT Forecasting Model to project total VMT in future calendar years and then adjusted alternatives based on fleet composition. NHTSA employed this methodology because it used a reliable, external projection of annual VMT as a starting point. However, since the FHWA model includes miles that will be driven in dedicated automobiles, NHTSA reconsidered for this analysis how to calculate VMT.
The No-Action Alternative's projection of VMT for this proposal uses the simulated projections of the gas-powered fleet produced by the sales and scrappage models and applies it to estimates of VMT per vehicle. Vehicles of different ages and body styles have different costs to own and operate, and usage changes across vehicle ages independent of CAFE standards. To account properly for the average value of consumer and societal costs and benefits associated with vehicle usage under various alternatives, it is necessary to partition miles by age and body type. Using S&P Global odometer data, NHTSA creates “mileage accumulation schedules” as an initial estimate of how much a vehicle is expected to drive at each age throughout its life. The mileage accumulation schedules also account for differences in driving habits based on body style. Multiplying the numbers of each vehicle projected to be in the fleet by the per-vehicle VMT estimates from the mileage accumulation schedules creates a forecast of VMT in each calendar year.
The methodology to allocate miles within the regulatory alternatives is similar. NHTSA uses the forecasts of the fleet produced by the sales and scrappage models and multiplies those by mileage accumulation schedules to create a total estimate of VMT. NHTSA then scales the alternative's VMT to match the No-Action Alternative's aggregate VMT, preserving the percentage of VMT driven by each model.
NHTSA seeks comments on whether it should remove the VMT constraint and allow alternatives to have differing levels of VMT. While much of household VMT is likely inelastic, it may be reasonable to assume that fleets with differing sizes, age distributions, and inherent cost of operation may have marginally different annual VMT (even without considering VMT associated with rebound miles). In previous rules, NHTSA elected to continue to constrain VMT across alternatives in part because of the difficulty of determining whether VMT would shift to other modes of transportation and, if so, how to account for the impacts of any such mode shift. NHTSA seeks comments on whether it is appropriate to consider mode shifts if the agency removes the VMT constraints and asks commenters to provide either any data or suggested modeling approaches that could assist the agency.
An example of a portion of household travel that
NHTSA has employed several different rebound effect estimates through the years. Until recently, the agency had historically used an estimate between 15 and 20 percent. The agency lowered its estimate in the 2022 final rule to 10 percent, a value that was also carried forward in the 2024 final rule. To support this proposal, NHTSA re-reviewed the literature related to the fuel economy rebound effect, which is extensive and covers multiple decades and geographic regions.
When NHTSA reviewed the literature for both the 2022 and 2024 rules, the agency arrived at a similar result. However, NHTSA chose to use an estimate at the lowest end supportable by the academic literature. NHTSA argued that both economic theory and empirical evidence suggested that the rebound effect was declining over time due to factors such as increasing income (which increases the value of travelers' time), progressively smaller reductions in fuel costs in response to continuing increases in fuel economy, and slower growth in car ownership and the number of license holders. The agency also noted that certain studies with lower estimates of the rebound effect were associated with recently published studies that rely on U.S. data, measure vehicle use using actual odometer readings, control for the potential endogeneity of fuel economy, and—critically—estimate the response of vehicle use to variation in fuel economy itself rather than to fuel cost per distance driven or fuel prices. The agency gave greater weight to these studies, which suggested a rebound effect in the 5-15 percent range.
Consistent with NHTSA's surveys of the latest available data for each successive CAFE analysis, as discussed above, the agency reconsidered for this analysis its prior assumptions about rebound effect trends discussed in the 2022 and 2024 final rules—in particular assumptions about the rebound effect declining over time—and concluded that a rebound estimate of 15 percent is appropriate. In particular, a meta-analysis of 74 recently published studies of the rebound effect noted that “the magnitude of the rebound effect in
In order to calculate total VMT after allowing for the rebound effect, the CAFE Model applies the price elasticity of VMT (taken from the FHWA forecasting model) to the change in fuel cost per mile resulting from higher fuel economy and uses the result to adjust the initial estimate of each model's annual use accordingly. The CAFE Model applies this adjustment after the reallocation step described previously, because that adjustment is intended to ensure that total VMT is identical among alternatives
To summarize, because the proposed standards would lower the cost of newer vehicles, more of the base household travel demand will be satisfied by safer, newer vehicles, and simultaneously, newer vehicles will have lower fuel economy, leading to fewer miles being driven and resulting in a further reduction in fatalities and fuel expenditures.
Chapter 4.3 of the Draft TSD provides more information on how NHTSA accounts for and models VMT.
NHTSA uses the fuel economy, age, and VMT estimates to determine changes in fuel consumption. NHTSA divides the expected vehicle use by the anticipated mpg to calculate the gallons consumed by each simulated vehicle, and when aggregated, the total fuel consumed in each alternative.
Changes in fuel consumption because of changes in CAFE standards (and resulting technology application) will result in changes in emissions of various pollutants.
This section provides a brief overview of how the agency estimates the resulting changes in emissions and associated effects from emissions of those pollutants.
For the proposed rule, the agency updated upstream petroleum emission factors using R&D GREET 2024, a lifecycle emissions model developed by Argonne.
The agency estimated downstream emission factors for gasoline and diesel fuels for the majority of pollutants using EPA's MOVES5 model, a regulatory highway emissions inventory model developed by that agency's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.
Currently, the MOVES5 methodology for projecting future emission inventories includes estimated effects from Federal emissions standards for light-duty vehicles, including EPA's CO
Another update to the analysis that NHTSA is exploring is the methodology for applying downstream emission factors to vehicle classes within the CAFE Model. MOVES regulatory classes no longer directly map to the CAFE Model vehicle classes beginning in MY 2028, at which time NHTSA is proposing to subject vehicles to the amended vehicle classification definitions. Adjusting the downstream emission factors requires an understanding of the implications of reclassification on mapping regulatory and vehicles classes between MOVES and the CAFE Model. It is NHTSA's expectation that any modification of downstream emission factors will result in only minor changes in the magnitude of the relative differences among alternatives. Draft TSD Chapter 5.3 contains additional detail about how the agency generated the downstream emission factors used in this analysis, and Section VI presents additional information about NHTSA's proposals for vehicle reclassification beginning in MY 2028.
As with downstream emission factors, the agency generated BTW emission factors using the latest version of EPA's MOVES5 model.
The CAFE Model computes select health impacts resulting from localized population exposure to PM
The following sections describe NHTSA's approach for measuring the economic costs and benefits that would result from amending previously established CAFE standards. OMB Circular A-4 states that benefits and costs reported in regulatory analyses must be defined and measured consistently with economic theory and also should reflect how alternative regulations are anticipated to change the behavior of producers and consumers from a baseline scenario without the regulation.
Most of the agency's rulemakings have established standards for future model years that are above their hypothetical baseline level, so the costs of meeting them have consisted primarily of manufacturers' outlays to increase the fuel economy of their car and light truck models to meet those higher standards, while benefits have consisted primarily of fuel savings for buyers and subsequent owners of models offering higher fuel economy. In rulemakings, such as this one, where the agency is proposing to
Thus, the estimated costs of meeting the revised standards are reported as negative values—representing regulatory cost savings—while vehicle buyers' increased costs for fuel are similarly reported as negative benefits. When the agency has historically raised CAFE standards, it has assumed that manufacturers' costs to increase fuel economy would be passed on to buyers as increased purchase prices for new models, and the analysis supporting this proposed rule assumes that reduced costs to manufacturers for meeting less demanding CAFE standards will be reflected in lower prices for new cars and light trucks.
NHTSA's approach to estimating the economic impacts of regulatory alternatives it considers in this rulemaking, including the assumptions it relies upon and the methodologies it employs, is discussed in detail in Chapter 6 of the Draft TSD and throughout the PRIA (particularly Chapter 5). The safety implications of the proposed rule, including monetary measures of those impacts, are covered in Section II.H below.
Regulatory analysis needs to express costs and benefits that occur at different future times in comparable terms, which is done by discounting each future year's impacts to their present values. Following guidance presented in OMB Circular A-4 (2003), NHTSA presents the current values of all economic impacts quantified in its regulatory analysis discounting using the recommended rates of 3 and 7 percent.
The categories of economic costs and benefits resulting from NHTSA's proposed amendment to its previously established CAFE standards are described in Chapter 5 of the PRIA (see in particular Table 5-1). Monetary values of those estimates are presented in Chapter 8 (for the central analysis) and Chapter 9 (showing the results of various sensitivity analyses around key parameters and assumptions) of the accompanying PRIA.
Table II-8 below lists the economic benefits and costs analyzed in conjunction with this proposal and identifies where to find explanations of how they were estimated. The organization of the table shows how individual elements of the analysis are grouped together to produce NHTSA's estimates of each alternative's private and external costs and benefits.
The remainder of this section briefly describes the key economic impacts of the proposed amendment and explains how they are categorized within the PRIA (with the exception of safety costs, which as noted earlier are covered in Section II.H).
Manufacturers' efforts to meet CAFE standards consist primarily of adding new technology to their car and light truck models, and together with any necessary design or engineering modifications, this increases their production costs. NHTSA assumes manufacturers pass these costs on to buyers of models that offer higher fuel economy by raising their selling prices.
Resetting prevailing CAFE standards would reduce the cost of technology that manufacturers would need to add to their car and light truck models in order to comply with CAFE standards, and NHTSA assumes that this reduction in regulatory costs would be passed through to vehicle buyers in the form of lower prices. Relaxing standards would reduce the regulatory burden on manufacturers and enable them to produce models that offer combinations of fuel economy, other features, and prices that align more closely with consumer demand, resulting in higher vehicle sales compared to the No-Action Alternative. The CAFE reset would improve consumer welfare for consumers who are able to purchase vehicles at lower prices, and their collective welfare gain is measured by the increase in consumer surplus from higher sales of new cars and light trucks. Consumer surplus represents the value a good or service provides to consumers (the maximum they would have been willing to pay for it) over and above its market price, and OMB guidance states that it should be accounted for in regulatory analysis.
Generally, NHTSA's CAFE rulemaking analyses include estimates of benefits to consumers from improving fuel economy, measured by the resulting reduction in vehicles' fuel costs. However, while improved fuel economy reduces vehicles' fuel cost throughout their lifetimes, new car buyers and subsequent owners do not appear to value those savings fully. If they did, manufacturers would presumably offer the levels of fuel economy that buyers demand, and market-determined fuel economy levels would balance the costs of improving it against the private benefits from saving fuel. To the extent regulating fuel economy does not improve the welfare of vehicle owners, regulation can only be justified if it produces additional benefits that are not experienced by buyers themselves. As discussed in II.E, NHTSA assumes that consumers are only willing to pay for fuel economy improvements that repay the higher prices of models offering those improvements within 36 months.
In past rulemakings, the agency has described its assumption that buyers will forgo purchasing vehicles with higher fuel economy, even when they appear to offer future savings exceeding their price premiums, as an example of what is often termed an “energy paradox” or “energy-efficiency gap.” Although there has been extensive debate about whether and why such a gap might arise, NHTSA has recently justified stricter standards partly by assuming that potential car and light truck buyers act shortsightedly when they refuse to purchase models whose lower fuel costs would more than repay their higher purchase prices. This rationale is fundamentally different from the agency's traditional justification that fuel economy standards are necessary to remedy some “externality”—whereby buyers' choices cause economic harm to others—that arises from producing and consuming fuel.
Without clear evidence of such “myopia,” continuing to raise CAFE standards distorts the market by constraining manufacturers to provide levels of fuel economy above those consumers demand, causing manufacturers to raise prices to recover their higher costs for producing those vehicles or to sacrifice improvements in their models' other features. Instead, the agency increasingly believes a more likely explanation for buyers' reluctance to purchase higher mpg models is that their unsatisfactory combinations of price and other features offset the attraction of lower fuel costs, and recent
NHTSA includes an estimate of the extent to which relaxing standards will reduce the opportunity cost of meeting previously established standards in its primary analysis of this proposed rule. The agency assumes that this cost must be sufficient to account for buyers' apparent unwillingness to purchase models whose higher fuel economy would repay their higher purchase prices. NHTSA estimates the opportunity cost as the value of fuel savings consumers are unwilling to pay for voluntarily that accrues between years 4 and 10 of a vehicle's life.
Resetting previously established CAFE standards will permit lower fuel economy for some new cars and light trucks, thus increasing their fuel consumption and raising their owners' fuel costs accordingly. The difference between fuel consumption in the No-Action Alternative and in each regulatory alternative represents that alternative's effect on total fuel use, and the cost of this additional consumption is estimated using forecasts of retail fuel prices. The agency's assumptions about future fuel prices are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.1.2 of the Draft TSD.
Lowering existing standards will lead to relatively shorter driving ranges of models that achieve lower fuel economy in the action alternatives, requiring their users to refuel more frequently than under the No-Action Alternative. Drivers (and passengers) of future new cars and light trucks will economize on refueling stops as fuel economy increases over time under each regulatory alternative. However, their savings will be more modest than under the No-Action Alternative, so it appears as an incremental increase in the frequency of refueling stops in the analysis. NHTSA estimates the cost of more frequent fill-ups by calculating the amount of time it takes to locate a retail outlet, refuel one's vehicle, and pay, accounting for the typical number of passengers traveling with the driver, and multiplying by DOT's recommended value of travel time. For a full description of the agency's methodology, refer to Chapter 6.1.5 of the Draft TSD. The agency seeks comment on whether, and the extent to which, a reasonable manufacturer may simply install a larger fuel tank—potentially eliminating any refueling time savings.
Under the regulatory alternatives, new car and light truck models that achieve lower fuel economy would be driven slightly less than in the No-Action Alternative, as their higher fuel cost reduces the fuel economy rebound effect described in preamble Section II.E.1.c. Again, the proposed rule would continue to raise fuel economy standards but at a slower rate than under the No-Action Alternative. For example, while vehicle use would continue to increase under each regulatory alternative, it would increase more slowly than under the No-Action Alternative. Additional driving enables buyers of new cars and light trucks to travel more frequently or reach more desirable destinations, but because vehicle use would grow more slowly, these benefits would be more modest when CAFE standards are reset.
In addition to the private costs and benefits described above, Table II-8 includes maintenance and repair cost savings as a line item without an associated dollar value; the agency expects the proposed reset of CAFE standards to reduce technology requirements for meeting the new standards and thus to lower buyers' costs to repair and maintain new vehicles. However, the agency does not currently possess robust data to quantify maintenance and repair costs in the analysis. NHTSA requests comments on whether the agency should include estimates of repair and maintenance costs—and that interested commenters provide sufficiently robust data to support an informed analysis.
NHTSA also is aware that alternative approaches based on revealed preference have been used to estimate the implicit compliance cost of similar vehicle regulations.
In general, NHTSA's CAFE rulemakings set standards for which there are no existing standards and require manufacturers to improve fuel economy. Higher fuel economy standards increase vehicle use via the rebound effect and contribute to increased traffic congestion and highway noise. These impacts are largely felt by other road users (and nearby residents) rather than the drivers generating additional mileage. Conversely, resetting previous CAFE standards will reduce fuel economy levels compared to the No-Action Alternative, and the resulting reduction in travel will lower the external costs that congestion and noise impose on others. NHTSA estimates these impacts by updating per-mile congestion and noise costs from increased automobile and light truck use originally reported in FHWA's 1997 Highway Cost Allocation Study to account for changes in congestion levels, travelers' value of time, and inflation, an approach it also used for the 2020, 2022, and 2024 final rules.
Part of the change in new car and light truck buyers' costs for fuel represents changes in tax revenue received by Federal, state, and some local government agencies. Any variation in the fuel tax burden on drivers is exactly offset by changes in tax revenues, so this transfer does not affect net benefits from changing CAFE standards. However, NHTSA estimates those offsetting changes in drivers' fuel tax payments and tax revenue received by government agencies to highlight this transfer and show its potential impact on government finances.
Fuel production, distribution, and use generate emissions of certain “criteria” or regulated pollutants, and the population's exposure to these pollutants causes adverse effects on public health. Raising or lowering CAFE standards affects these emissions by changing the volume of fuel produced and consumed, and NHTSA estimates these changes in emissions and their economic consequences for public health. The CAFE Model estimates monetized health effects associated with population exposure to fine particulate matter, which is emitted directly by refineries and vehicles and also formed in the atmosphere via physical and chemical reactions involving other regulated pollutants emitted by refining and using fuel.
NHTSA does not include monetized estimates of changes in so-called greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the central analysis.
Due to the many uncertainties related to monetizing impacts of changes in GHG emissions, NHTSA does not monetize these impacts in the central analysis. Monetizing these impacts could potentially result in flawed decision-making due to overreliance on highly uncertain values. To confirm that NHTSA's exclusion of this value does not bias the cost-benefit analysis that informs NHTSA's determination of maximum feasible standards, and in accord with the decision in
Resetting CAFE standards would increase domestic consumption of gasoline compared to the regulatory baseline, producing a corresponding increase in the Nation's demand for crude petroleum. The U.S. accounts for a significant share of global oil consumption, so the resulting increase in global petroleum demand will exert some upward pressure on worldwide prices, but the financial consequences of higher prices are transfers that do not affect economic welfare. Unlike in decades past, when the U.S. was heavily dependent upon foreign petroleum and therefore broadly exposed to price shocks attributable to supply disruption, the U.S. is now an established net exporter of petroleum. Accordingly, while domestic petroleum production does not completely insulate the U.S. from international disruptions in petroleum generation, any transfer from global consumers to petroleum producers becomes a financial benefit to the U.S. economy.
Higher U.S. petroleum consumption increases all domestic consumers' exposure to the risks of potential rapid increases in oil prices and interruptions in petroleum imports, although rising domestic production cushions the latter's effect. Individual petroleum users are unlikely to consider the effect of their own consumption on such economy-wide risks, so they may unwittingly impose costs on others that increase with domestic petroleum use. NHTSA includes this effect as a cost of the proposed standards, and Chapter 6.2.4.4 of the Draft TSD explains how the agency estimates its magnitude.
Some analysts assert that raising or lowering petroleum imports may also influence U.S. military spending, but most careful studies conclude that
NHTSA is also monitoring the availability of critical minerals used in electrified powertrains and whether any shortage of such materials could emerge as an additional energy security concern. While nearly all electricity in the United States is generated through the conversion of domestic energy sources and thus its supply does not raise security concerns, EVs (as well as hybrids and plug-in hybrids) also require batteries to store and deliver that electricity. Currently, the most common EV battery chemistries include relatively scarce materials (compared to other automotive parts) which are sourced, in large part, from foreign adversaries or potentially insecure or unstable overseas sites. While all mined materials (including those in vehicles powered by ICEs) can pose environmental challenges during extraction and conversion to usable material, this is particularly true with minerals used in battery production. Known supplies of some of these critical minerals are also highly concentrated in a few countries and therefore face similar market power concerns to petroleum products.
NHTSA is restricted from considering the fuel economy of alternative fuel sources in determining CAFE standards, so the agency only considers the gasoline powered fleet in simulating compliance with fuel economy regulatory alternatives and determining their effects. While the cost of critical minerals may affect the cost to supply both plug-in and non-plug-in hybrids that require larger batteries, this would apply primarily to manufacturers whose voluntary compliance strategy emphasizes hybridization. NHTSA does not include costs or benefits related to these emerging energy security considerations in its analysis for its proposal because, as noted above, pursuant to its statutory authority to set CAFE standards, NHTSA cannot consider alternative fueled vehicles when setting standards.
The analysis considers the direct labor effects that the proposed standards would have across the automotive sector. The effects include: (1) dealership labor related to new light-duty sales; (2) assembly labor for new vehicles, engines, and transmissions; and (3) labor for developing and producing technologies that improve fuel economy but exclude any broader implications of fuel economy standards for economy-wide employment. NHTSA has used this approach in several recent rulemakings but has not highlighted its results because of its limited scope and the uncertainty introduced by rapidly changing labor inputs for vehicle assembly and technology development. NHTSA seeks comment on alternative approaches to the labor analysis that the agency could consider, including approaches that could supplement the agency's current approach or succeed it in future rulemakings. Chapter 6.2.5 of the Draft TSD describes the current process NHTSA uses to estimate labor impacts in additional detail.
Fuel economy standards have the potential to lead manufacturers to alter the vehicles they produce in ways that may have unintended consequences for motor vehicle safety. The analysis accompanying the proposal includes a comprehensive measure of safety impacts from three sources:
NHTSA calculates the safety impact of changes in vehicle mass made to reduce fuel consumption to comply with the standards. Statistical analysis of historical crash data indicates reducing mass in heavier vehicles generally improves safety for occupants in lighter vehicles and other road users such as pedestrians and cyclists, while reducing mass in lighter vehicles generally reduces safety.
Vehicles have become safer over time through a combination of new safety regulations and voluntary safety improvements. NHTSA expects this trend to continue as emerging technologies, such as advanced driver assistance systems, are incorporated into new vehicles. Safety improvements will continue regardless of changes in the standards. Vehicle technologies added to comply with increased fuel economy standards increase vehicle prices, slowing the acquisition of newer vehicles and retirement of older ones.
The standards also influence the composition of the new light-duty sales mix. As the safety of light trucks, SUVs, and passenger cars is affected by technologies that manufacturers employ to meet the standards differently—particularly MR—fleets with different compositions of body styles have varying safety risks. Therefore, changing the share of each type of light-duty vehicle in the projected future fleet impacts safety outcomes.
The “rebound effect” predicts consumers will drive more when the cost of driving declines. More stringent standards reduce vehicle operating costs, and in response, some consumers may choose to drive more. Additional driving increases exposure to risks associated with motor vehicle travel, and this added exposure translates into higher fatalities and injuries. Slowing vehicle turnover results in an older fleet on average. As a result, this slowing turnover exacerbates the safety costs of additional driving resulting from the “rebound effect.”
Resetting the CAFE standards as proposed would improve safety overall. Setting less stringent standards would accelerate fleet turnover, limit the amount of rebound driving, and reduce the need to apply MR across the fleet.
The contributions of the three factors described above generate the differences in safety outcomes among regulatory alternatives. NHTSA's analysis makes extensive efforts to allocate the differences in safety outcomes between the three factors. Fatalities expected during future years under each alternative are projected by deriving a fleetwide fatality rate (fatalities per VMT) that incorporates the effects of differences in each of the three factors from the reference baseline and then multiplying it by that alternative's expected VMT. Fatalities are converted into a societal cost by multiplying estimated fatalities by the DOT-recommended value of a statistical life (VSL), supplemented by additional economic costs not considered in VSL measurements. Traffic injuries and property damage are also modeled directly using the same process and valued using costs specific to each injury severity level.
All three factors influence predicted fatalities, but only two of them—changes in vehicle mass and in the composition of the light-duty fleet in response to changes in vehicle prices—impose increased risks on drivers and passengers not compensated for by accompanying benefits. In contrast, increased driving associated with the rebound effect is a consumer choice that reveals the benefits of additional travel. Consumers who choose to drive more have decided that the utility of additional driving exceeds the additional costs for doing so, including the crash risk that they perceive additional driving involves. As discussed in Chapter 7 of the Draft TSD,
NHTSA's analysis considers the safety impact to both vehicle occupants and non-occupants, such as pedestrians and cyclists. The agency categorizes safety outcomes through three measures of light-duty vehicle safety: fatalities occurring in crashes, serious injuries, and the amount of property damage incurred in crashes with no injuries. Counts of fatalities among occupants of automobiles and non-occupants are obtained from NHTSA's Fatal Accident Reporting System for 1975-2022. Estimates of the number of serious injuries to drivers and passengers of light-duty vehicles are tabulated from NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES) for 1990-2015, and from its Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) for 2016-2021. Both GES and CRSS include annual samples of motor vehicle crashes occurring throughout the United States. Weights for different types of crashes were used to expand the samples of each type to estimates of the total number of crashes occurring during each year. Finally, estimates of the number of automobiles involved in property damage-only crashes each year were also developed using CRSS.
NHTSA does not anticipate, and does not model, any changes in safety from the proposed changes in vehicle classification. A vehicle's safety performance is unrelated to its CAFE vehicle classification; instead, the safety risk is dependent on its physical attributes, the safety technologies incorporated, and how the vehicle is used.
Vehicle MR can be one of the more cost-effective means of improving efficiency, particularly for makes and models built with less high-strength steel or aluminum closures or low-mass components. Manufacturers have stated that they would continue to reduce mass of some of their models to meet more stringent standards (such as those currently in place), and therefore, this expectation is incorporated into the modeling analysis supporting the proposal. Safety trade-offs associated with MR have occurred in the past, particularly before standards were attribute-based, because manufacturers chose, in response to standards, to build smaller and lighter vehicles; these smaller, lighter vehicles did not fare as well in crashes as larger, heavier vehicles, on average. Although NHTSA now uses attribute-based standards, in part to reduce or eliminate the incentive to downsize vehicles to comply with the standards, NHTSA is mindful of the possibility of related safety trade-offs. For this reason, NHTSA accounts for how the application of MR to meet standards affects the safety of a specific vehicle given changes in GVWR.
For this proposed rule, the agency employed the modeling technique, developed in the 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report, to analyze the updated crash and exposure data by examining the cross sections of the societal fatality rate per billion VMT by mass and footprint, while controlling for driver age, gender, and other factors, in separate logistic regressions for five vehicle groups and nine crash types. NHTSA utilized the relationships between weight and safety from this analysis, expressed as percentage increases in fatalities per 100-pound weight reduction (which is how MR is applied in the technology analysis; see Section II.D.2.e), to examine the weight impacts applied in this analysis. The effects of MR on safety were estimated relative to (incremental to) the regulatory baseline in the analysis, across all vehicles for MY 2024 and beyond. The analysis of MR includes two opposing impacts.
Research has consistently shown that MR affects “lighter” and “heavier” vehicles differently across crash types. The 2016 Puckett and Kindelberger report found MR concentrated among the heaviest vehicles is likely to have a beneficial effect on overall societal fatalities, while MR concentrated among the lightest vehicles is likely to have a detrimental effect on occupant fatalities but a slight benefit to pedestrians and cyclists. This represents a relationship between the dispersion of mass across vehicles in the fleet and societal fatalities: decreasing dispersion is associated with a decrease in fatalities. For collisions with large mass disparities, MR in heavier vehicles would be more beneficial to the occupants of lighter vehicles than it would be harmful to the occupants of the heavier vehicles. MR in lighter vehicles is more harmful to the occupants of lighter vehicles than it is beneficial to the occupants of the heavier vehicles.
To capture the differing effect on lighter and heavier vehicles accurately, NHTSA splits vehicles into lighter and heavier vehicle classifications in the analysis. However, this poses a challenge to creating statistically meaningful results. There is limited relevant crash data to use for the analysis. Each partition of the data reduces the number of observations per-vehicle classification and crash type and thus reduces the statistical robustness of the results. The methodology employed by NHTSA was designed to balance these competing forces as a trade-off to capture the impact of mass-reduction across vehicle CWs and crash types while preserving the potential to identify robust estimates.
While the mass-size-safety coefficients employed in the analysis are not statistically significant at the 95th-percent confidence level, multiple coefficients are significant at the 85th-percent confidence level, and, to NHTSA's best knowledge, represent the most robust and accurate representation of the safety impact of MR. It is essential for NHTSA, as a safety agency, to consider potential safety impacts of its regulations using the best available estimates. As the agency believes that the point estimates still represent the best available data, NHTSA continues to include a measurement of mass-safety impacts in its analysis.
While the agency does not attempt to model safety impacts on a vehicle model-level basis, resetting the standards as proposed would lessen the need to apply MR broadly across the fleet and would allow manufacturers to incorporate MR more tactfully within its fleet. In addition, the agency's proposed vehicle reclassification could incentivize manufacturers to apply MR to larger vehicles, which would provide other road users tangible safety benefits.
A more detailed description of the mass-safety analysis can be found in Chapter 7.3 of the Draft TSD.
As described in Section II.E.1.b, resetting CAFE standards would have important safety consequences because of the resulting acceleration in fleet turnover. Less stringent standards would allow manufacturers to sell more vehicles demanded by consumers at cheaper prices, which would increase the rate at which newer vehicles, and their associated safety improvements, enter the on-road population. The sales response also influences the mix of vehicles on the road based on the relative net price increases caused by CAFE standards. Setting less stringent standards also removes distortionary effects, pushing consumers into less preferred body styles, which may have different intrinsic safety risks. Similarly, as the price of new vehicles decreases, the fleet turnover compared to the baseline increases, meaning more newer, safer vehicles would replace older, less safe vehicles on the road. These effects would reduce the safety risk not only for both the occupants of newer vehicles but also for other road users who benefit from newer vehicles
Any effect of sales and scrappage on fleet composition will affect the distribution of both ages and model years present in the on-road light-duty fleet. Because each of these vintages carries with it inherent rates of fatal crashes, and newer vintages are generally safer than older ones, changing that distribution will change the safety performance of the fleet, affecting the total number of on-road fatalities under each regulatory alternative. Similarly, the dynamic fleet share model captures the changes in the light-duty fleet's composition of cars and light trucks. As cars and trucks have different fatality rates, differences in fleet composition across the alternatives will affect fatalities.
At the highest level, NHTSA calculates the impact of the sales and scrappage effects by multiplying the VMT of a vehicle by the fatality risk of that vehicle. For this analysis, NHTSA uses the distribution of miles calculated in Chapter 4.3 of the Draft TSD. The fatality risk measures the likelihood that a vehicle will be involved in a fatal accident per mile driven. NHTSA calculates the fatality risk of a vehicle based on the vehicle's model year, age, and style, while controlling factors that are independent of the intrinsic nature of the vehicle, such as behavioral characteristics. Using this same approach, NHTSA designed separate models for fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and property damaged vehicles.
The vehicle fatality risk described above captures the historical evolution of automotive safety. Given that modern technologies are proliferating faster than ever and offer greater safety benefits than traditional safety improvements through crash avoidance, NHTSA augmented the fatality risk projections with knowledge about forthcoming safety improvements. NHTSA applied estimates of the market uptake and improving effectiveness of crash avoidance technologies to estimate their effect on the fleetwide fatality rate, including incorporating both the direct effect of those technologies on the crash involvement rates of new vehicles equipped with them, as well as the “spillover” effect of those technologies on improving the safety of occupants of vehicles that are not equipped with these technologies.
NHTSA's approach to measuring these impacts first derives effectiveness rates for these advanced crash avoidance technologies from safety technology literature. NHTSA then applies these effectiveness rates to specific crash target populations for which the crash avoidance technology is designed to mitigate, which are then adjusted to reflect the current pace of adoption of the technology, including any public commitment by manufacturers to install these technologies or recent regulatory actions. These technologies include Forward Collision Warning (FCW), Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB), Lane Departure Warning (LDW), Lane Keep Assist (LKA), Blind Spot Detection (BSD), Lane Change Assist (LCA), and Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB). The products of these factors produce a fatality rate reduction percentage that is applied to the fatality rate trend model discussed above, which projects both vehicle and non-vehicle safety trends. The combined model produces a projection of impacts of changes in vehicle safety technology as well as behavioral and infrastructural trends. A much more detailed discussion of the methods and inputs used to make these projections of safety impacts from advanced technologies is provided in Chapter 7 of the Draft TSD.
The additional VMT demanded due to the rebound effect is accompanied by more exposure to risk. However, rebound miles are not imposed on consumers by regulation, but rather are a freely chosen activity resulting from reduced vehicle operational costs. As such, NHTSA has long believed that a large portion of the safety risks associated with additional driving are offset by the benefits drivers gain from added driving. The level of risk internalized by drivers is uncertain. This analysis assumes that drivers internalize 90 percent of this risk, which mostly offsets the societal impact of added fatalities from this voluntary consumer choice. However, by resetting the standards, NHTSA would expect fewer rebound miles and therefore fewer crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Additional discussion of internalized risk is contained in Chapter 7.5 of the Draft TSD. NHTSA seeks comment on this assumption. In particular, the agency asks commenters for any evidence that could be used to bolster a higher or lower estimate of how much consumers internalize the risk of driving an additional mile.
Fatalities, nonfatal injuries, and property damage crashes are valued as a societal cost within the CAFE Model's cost and benefit accounting. Their value is based on the comprehensive value of a fatality, which includes lost quality of life and is quantified in the VSL, as well as economic costs related to medical and emergency care, insurance administrative costs, legal costs, and other economic impacts not captured in the VSL. These values were first derived from data in Blincoe et al. (2015), updated in Blincoe et al. (2023), adjusted to 2024 dollars, and updated to reflect DOT guidance on the VSL.
Nonfatal injury costs, which differ by severity, were weighted according to the relative incidence of injuries across the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). To determine this incidence, NHTSA applied a KABCO/MAIS translator to CRSS KABCO based injury counts from 2017-2019. This produced the MAIS-based injury profile. This profile was used to weight nonfatal injury unit costs derived from Blincoe et al. (2023), adjusted to 2024 price and income levels and updated consistently with DOT guidance on the VSL. Property-damaged vehicle costs were also taken from Blincoe et al. (2023) and adjusted to 2024 economics.
For the analysis, NHTSA assigns a societal value of $14.1 million for each fatality, $338,000 for each nonfatal injury, and $9,700 for each property damaged vehicle. As discussed in the previous section, NHTSA discounts 90 percent of the safety costs associated with the rebound effect. The remaining 10 percent of those safety costs are not considered to be internalized by drivers and appear as a cost of the standards that influence net benefits. Similarly, the effects on safety attributable to changes in mass and fleet turnover are not offset by additional benefits since manufacturers are responsible for deciding how to design and price vehicles. However, 90 percent of these costs are also treated as private costs since they are borne by owners of vehicles rather than society more broadly. The safety costs not internalized by drivers are equal to 10 percent of the sum of the mass-safety effects, fleet turnover effects, and rebound-related fatality and non-fatal injuries, plus the cost of any property damage.
NHTSA considers regulatory alternatives in rulemaking analyses as a way of evaluating the comparative
For this proposal, NHTSA developed separate alternatives for two distinct periods of time (MYs 2022-2026 and MYs 2027-2031) and two distinct fleets (passenger cars (PC) and light trucks (LT)). Alternatives analysis begins with a “No-Action” Alternative, typically described as what would occur in the absence of any regulatory action by the agency—in other words, the baseline.
Each action alternative sets fuel economy stringency levels for each model year that can be defined in terms of percentage changes in stringency from one model year to the next, which may be different for passenger cars and light trucks.
For passenger cars, NHTSA is defining final fuel economy targets as shown in Equation III-1.
Here, MIN and MAX are functions that take the minimum and maximum values, respectively, of the set of included values. For example, MIN[40, 35] = 35 and MAX(40, 25) = 40, such that MIN[MAX(40, 25), 35] = 35.
The resulting functional form is depicted in graphs displaying the passenger car target function in each model year for each regulatory alternative in Sections III.B.1 and III.B.3 below.
For light trucks, NHTSA is defining fuel economy targets as shown in Equation III-2.
The exception to defining action alternatives in terms of yearly stringency changes occurs in the transition from MYs 2027-2028, where NHTSA is proposing to change the regulatory classifications for non-passenger automobiles. Because NHTSA is using a different set of initial footprint curve parameters (
Here “
Here “η
NHTSA then performed an analogous calculation using Equation III-5 to determine the predicted average standard for each regulatory class under the proposed reclassification condition. The alternative classification and the initial parameter estimates are described in Chapter 1 of the Draft TSD. To calculate the average standard, the agency uses the MY 2024 fleet data with the new reclassification criteria applied in each class.
Here “η
The class averages are used to generate a ratio, which is used as a scaling factor to generate the final target function coefficients in each alternative as shown in Equation III-6:
This process ensures that a change in target function shape preserves the year-to-year change in stringency “
For this proposal, NHTSA applies individual rates of change to the passenger car and the light truck fleet standards in different model years in some of the action alternatives. In the Preferred Alternative, the respective standards for both fleets change at the same rate starting in MY 2028. However, the two remaining action alternatives evaluated for this proposal have passenger car fleet rates-of-change in fuel economy that differ from the rates-of-change in fuel economy for the light truck fleet in MY 2028. NHTSA has discretion to set CAFE standards that increase at different rates for passenger cars and light trucks, because NHTSA, by law, must set maximum feasible CAFE standards separately for passenger cars and light trucks.
NHTSA's analysis resets the passenger and non-passenger automobile fuel economy target functions in 2022 and increases them through 2026 at levels consistent with the available data for that timeframe and the context for those years, as discussed in more detail in Section V. Unlike past rules that set CAFE standards, in which the last model year for which standards are currently set serves as the base year for describing the regulatory alternatives considered in terms of annual percentage increases in standards, NHTSA analyzed reset standards for this proposed rule using MY 2022 as the base year, consistent with the Secretary's memorandum titled “Fixing the CAFE Program” (Jan. 28, 2025).
The agency relied in large part on the observed capabilities of the gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleets over the model years covered by the standards. While NHTSA always examines manufacturer capabilities (also referred to as “achieved” fuel economy values for each manufacturer's fleet in each model year) relative to the proposed standards as part of its evaluation of maximum feasible standards, this analysis is unique in that the data-based projections that NHTSA would generally rely on to estimate manufacturer behavior are not necessary because, by definition, there cannot be projections for MYs 2022-2025 (and likely for MY 2026, by which time a final rule will be issued), but only observed data. That said, as discussed in Section V, NHTSA believes the appropriate qualitative context exists for giving meaning to the section 32902(f) factors related to manufacturer compliance for model years that have already passed or are currently underway.
NHTSA defined a potential standards range using the mean fit curve and the mean fit curve minus one standard deviation,
On the opposite end, the high-level function considered for MY 2022 represents a balancing that still weighs economic practicability, but recognizes that some manufacturers have been able to apply technology that improves the fuel economy levels of their gasoline- and diesel-powered fleets at a cadence that, if applicable to the rest of the fleet had the model year not already passed, would have pushed the fleet to higher average fuel economy levels, thereby saving more fuel and placing more weight on energy conservation. That said, the fact that a large number of manufacturers' gasoline- and diesel-based fleets cannot comply with that standard—some by a significant amount—is evidence that such a standard is beyond maximum feasible for the gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger and non-passenger automobile fleets for MY 2022. Under these standards, about 30 percent of passenger cars and 50 percent of light trucks, by sales volume, failed to meet their target function values for MY 2022.
The MY 2022 mid-level functions that NHTSA is proposing as the Preferred Alternative for passenger and non-passenger automobiles reflect a standard that the agency tentatively concludes is maximum feasible, based on the exclusion of factors prohibited from consideration by section 32902(h) and a subsequent balancing of the section 32902(f) factors considering the real-world context for this action. The mid-level functions represent NHTSA's consideration of the actual, measured gasoline- and diesel-based fleet average
Some manufacturers have chosen to respond to prior standards—which NHTSA has determined were set in contravention of EPCA's prohibition against consideration of EVs or plug-in hybrids using the battery to facilitate propulsion—by producing electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles and applying or acquiring credits generated by such vehicles to achieve compliance. That said, the mid-level functions for MY 2022 represent NHTSA's best judgment in establishing maximum feasible standards, recognizing that inclusion of section 32902(h) factors in prior rulemakings has pushed standards beyond maximum feasible levels. The agency has tentatively concluded that the proposed standard for MY 2022 provides the most reasonable weighting of the section 32902(f) factors as an appropriate reformed starting point upon which to base increases in the stringency of standards for subsequent model years. Under these proposed standards, about 75 percent of passenger cars and 70 percent of light trucks, by sales volume, would have met or exceeded their target function values for MY 2022—but 25 percent of passenger cars and 30 percent of light trucks would have failed to do so.
For MYs 2023-2026, NHTSA considered a range of standards based on the low-, mid-, and high-range functions all increasing at the same rate—a relatively modest rate of 0.5 percent per year—from each alternative's MY 2022 starting point. This is a different approach than NHTSA has taken in previous standard-setting actions, but it is an approach that better effectuates NHTSA's reset of the CAFE standards to maximum feasible levels beginning in MY 2022. In reaching this tentative conclusion, NHTSA examined both real-world data and input on the capabilities of manufacturers' gasoline- and diesel-powered fleets to improve consistently over time. Critically, this was done while excluding consideration of prohibited technology and policy factors for the first time since alternative fueled vehicles have worked their way into the light-duty fleet in appreciable numbers.
Using data from EPA's 2024 Automotive Trends Report, the latest report available at the time this NPRM was drafted, NHTSA analyzed recent yearly improvements in ICE efficiency using data categorized by engine package.
NHTSA is proposing the 0.5 percent rate of increase for MYs 2023-2026 in part because the agency believes that higher rates of increase were driven by standards set by NHTSA or other agencies that either unlawfully considered prohibited statutory factors or exceeded statutory authority. In addition, to the extent that prior unrealistically high standards induced technology application that was either not ready or not attractive to the market, the proposed stringency rates afford automakers the opportunity to determine the most economically practicable and technologically feasible paths forward for their individual product mixes, while still ensuring that the gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicle fleet sees real-world improvements in fuel economy.
While fuel-economy-improving technologies applicable to the gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleet certainly exist, much of that technology has been applied to vehicles over the past 15 years—a period of rapidly increasing fuel economy standards. With a baseline fleet inclusive of EVs and plug-in hybrids using battery propulsion, manufacturers seeking to comply with standards solely using gasoline- and diesel-based powertrain efficiency improvements, cannot continually add additional technology to gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles at a reasonable cost. Table III-1 shows that as basic naturally aspirated engine technology penetration rates decreased sharply, there was a concurrent increase in rates of advanced powertrain technology, including the addition of mild and strong hybrid technology. As discussed in Section II above, it is unreasonable to assume that all technologies can be applied to all vehicle types, depending on vehicle functionality and capability, and technology that increases fuel economy at more than incremental levels on vehicles where it could feasibly be applied is available only at significant cost. NHTSA anticipates that the proposed rates of annual increase would allow technology penetration rates to propagate across the fleet in a cost-effective manner.
While
Consistent with NHTSA's approach for MYs 2022-2026, the agency endeavored to reset future model years' standards at levels that reflect the technological and economic capabilities of the gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleets, but also in a manner that reflects how proposed compliance provisions (discussed in more detail in Section VI) would impact manufacturers' ability to comply. NHTSA performed an analysis, similar to its analysis of feasible per-year rates of stringency increase for gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicle improvements for MYs 2022-2026 discussed above, to establish a range of regulatory alternatives that encompassed the ways the agency believes manufacturers could improve their fleet fuel economies year-over-year.
The agency began by using MY 2024 market data as a starting point for characterizing the technology and compliance levels of the vehicle fleet, and then relied on the CAFE Model to simulate the fleet's expected evolution under the current regulatory fleet classifications in future years in the No-Action Alternative and using the proposed alternative classification regulations starting in MY 2028 in the action alternatives. NHTSA's proposed action alternatives are consistent with footprint curves estimated using the current classification for MY 2027, and consistent with footprint curves estimated using the alternative classification for MY 2028 onward.
NHTSA developed alternatives to produce class average target function values that reflected different rates of growth from MYs 2022-2028, with MY 2027 acting as a “bridge” year between MYs 2026-2028, when NHTSA proposes to use updated regulatory classification definitions. Class average target functions were computed by taking the production-weighted harmonic mean of the target function values for vehicles in each class as shown in Equation III-4. To produce estimates of the class average target function values in MY 2022 and MY 2026, NHTSA used the MY 2022 fleet under current classification regulations and the proposed standards in each year. This produced a value for each fleet in MY 2022 and MY 2026. For MY 2027, NHTSA used the MY 2024 fleet under the pre-existing classification regulations and using the relevant proposed standards for each alternative. This produced a value for each class in each alternative. For MY 2028, NHTSA used the MY 2024 fleet under the proposed reclassification regulations and using the relevant proposed standards for each alternative. This once again produced a value for each class in each alternative. NHTSA followed this approach to determine class averages using standard coefficients, classifications, and fleets consistent with how the underlying footprint curves were estimated for each model year.
For Alternative 1, NHTSA set the 2028 standards such that the class average target function values were equal to those computed for 2022 using this approach. For MY 2027, standards for Alternative 1 were set such that the class average equaled the midpoint between class averages calculated for MY 2026 and those proposed for MY 2028. In this way MY 2027 acts as a link between the 2026 standards, which were developed using the MY 2022 fleet and initial classification, and the proposed MY 2028 standards, which were developed using the MY 2024 fleet and the proposed reclassification.
NHTSA used a similar approach to develop Alternative 3. For Alternative 3, NHTSA set standards in MY 2028 such that the class average target function values were equal to those obtained by applying a 1.5-percent annual increase to the MY 2022 standards. NHTSA then used the same approach as in Alternative 1 to determine the midpoint of the average target function values in MY 2026 and MY 2028 and set standards that would achieve that level of stringency based on the MY 2024 fleet and the initial classification. NHTSA estimated the 1.5-percent annual increases as an upper bound for Alternative 3 stringency based on the agency's assessment, using the EPA Automotive Trends report of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fuel
For Alternative 2, NHTSA proposed MY 2027 standards such that the class average target function values were equal to those obtained by applying a 0.5-percent annual growth rate to the MY 2022 standards. For MY 2028, NHTSA determined the class average target function values by applying a 0.25-percent adjustment to the class averages for 2027. While both years' standards were determined using these growth rates, the rate of change year to year between the coefficients does not exactly equal these factors due to the change in fleet and classification used to compute these averages. NHTSA estimated that these were appropriate mid-range annual increases based on the agency's assessment of feasible annual increases for gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleet and because manufacturers would likely require time in MY 2028 and beyond to recalibrate production decisions based on the combination of reset stringency levels and vehicle classification updates.
For MYs 2029-2031, NHTSA applied simple year over year percentage increases to its proposed 2028 standards. For Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, NHTSA used a rate of 0.25 percent per year, while for Alternative 3, NHTSA used a rate of 1 percent per year. Alternative 3's higher rate of increase supposes that manufacturers could respond to standards that increase more rapidly in the later years, while for the other alternatives 0.25 percent was chosen to illustrate how manufacturers would be able to adjust compliance to a more moderate rate of increase following the adjustment to reclassification mentioned above and described in more detail in Section VI.
The projected levels of fuel economy under each of the three regulatory alternatives for MYs 2027-2031 continually push manufacturers to improve real-world fuel economy, and even the least stringent option would exceed fuel efficiency merely driven by market demand.
NHTSA recognizes that the process for creating regulatory alternatives for this proposal is different in some ways from how the agency has created regulatory alternatives in past rules; however, the process used was necessary to effectuate a reset to bring the CAFE program into compliance with the law and require a significant reclassification of the passenger car and light truck fleets to reflect better the intent of the CAFE program established by Congress. Previously, NHTSA evaluated regulatory alternatives based on varying levels of stringency increases from the last year of the previously established standards. Since NHTSA considered the fuel efficiency of EVs in establishing those previous standards, in contravention of the law, a stringency increase from the last year of those standards is on its face higher than the maximum feasible standards NHTSA could establish if only considering gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles. In fact, as discussed in more detail in Section V, NHTSA is proposing to set standards that are, on their face, lower in MY 2022 than MY 2021 in part because actual compliance data clearly demonstrated that manufacturers were unable to achieve the MY 2022 standards with their gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleets. Additional information on how NHTSA's development of these regulatory alternatives comports with the agency's requirements to set maximum feasible standards is discussed in Section V. Like for MYs 2022-2026, the alternatives considered for MYs 2027-2031 include a range of stringency options to allow the agency to analyze or select an alternative in its final rule from any stringency level within that range. NHTSA seeks comment on the range of alternatives presented, in addition to any other alternatives that the agency should consider.
EPCA, as amended by EISA, requires that any manufacturer's domestically manufactured passenger car fleet must meet the greater of either 27.5 mpg on average or 92 percent of the average fuel economy projected by the Secretary for the combined domestic and non-domestic passenger automobile fleets manufactured for sale in the United States by all manufacturers in the model year. Along with calculating each regulatory alternative, NHTSA must calculate a minimum standard for domestically manufactured passenger automobiles in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(4)(B). Since the 2020 final rule, NHTSA has calculated the “minimum domestic passenger car standard” (MDPCS) using an offset to account for the fact that the agency's model cannot predict any shift in vehicle designs (as opposed to technology application) that manufacturers might make in response to CAFE standards. Additional information about the origin of the MDPCS and the related offset calculation can be found in Section V.
NHTSA reviewed the analysis it uses to calculate the MDPCS offset, which accounts for differences between the passenger car standards the agency forecasts in its rulemaking analyses and the actual passenger car standards EPA calculates for CAFE final compliance in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32904(a). In support of its 2020 final rule, NHTSA used forecasted data from its 2009, 2010, and 2012 final rule analyses and actual CAFE final compliance data for MYs 2011-2018 to develop the initial MDPCS offset of 1.9 percent. NHTSA developed the original offset value for use in its 2020 final rule; however, the agency continued to use that same offset value in its 2022 and 2024 final rules without updating the underlying analysis. In addition to promulgating two final rules since it developed the initial MDPCS offset, NHTSA has also collected five additional model years of final compliance data—with two of those model years having been verified by EPA in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32904(a). For this rulemaking, NHTSA updated the analysis to add new data sources and refine the methodology used to calculate the value of the offset.
NHTSA supplemented the original analysis with additional data, such as estimated passenger car standards from subsequent rulemaking analyses and calculated passenger car standards from newer CAFE final compliance data. NHTSA began with the Market Data Input File containing the MY 2017
Next, NHTSA added the following CAFE final compliance data for additional model years to the analysis: MYs 2012-2021, which have been verified by EPA in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32904(a), and MYs 2022-2023, which have yet to be verified. As a proxy for individual model types of dedicated AFVs, NHTSA identified and removed the manufacturers that produce only dedicated AFVs from the compliance data and calculated the passenger car standard for MYs 2012-2023.
Next, NHTSA modified the methodology it uses to calculate the offset. In the original offset analysis, NHTSA included comparisons between actual passenger car standards calculated from final model year compliance data to passenger car standards projected in proposed rules, in addition to those projected in final rules. For CAFE compliance, manufacturers are required to meet only those standards estimated and published in final rules, not those estimated and published in proposed rules. Consequently, including comparisons to proposed rules may skew the results from the offset analysis. NHTSA included comparisons to passenger car standards forecasted only in final rules in the updated analysis.
NHTSA compared the MDPCSs estimated from CAFE Model outputs from MYs 2017-2050 to the MDPCSs calculated from actual compliance data from MYs 2012-2023 and calculated the relative change (in percent) between them for each model year. NHTSA then calculated the offset by taking the average of the relative changes in MDPCS for MYs 2017-2023, which are those model years where the CAFE Model outputs (excluding all individual model types of dedicated AFVs) overlapped with CAFE compliance data that excluded manufacturers that produced only dedicated AFVs. The updated MDPCS offset analysis shows that the passenger car standards projected with the MY 2017 baseline fleet and the 2020 final rule version of the CAFE Model were more stringent than the actual passenger car standards calculated for CAFE final compliance by an average of 0.7 percent, less than half of the offset calculated previously.
The MYs 2027-2031 proposed MDPCSs presented in this Table III-2 include the 0.7-percent offset. NHTSA believes that the basis for the offset, which is based on the agency's inability to project the precise mix of vehicles sold in the future, is inapplicable to the proposed MYs 2022-2026 standards because those standards incorporate the most up-to-date data available to the agency for vehicle sales volume and footprint sizes in MY 2022. The agency's proposed MDPCSs for MYs 2027-2031 include this offset to ensure that the standard is sufficiently reflective of industry capabilities while still considering the original intent behind the MDPCS.
The proposed MDPCS for each model year is as follows:
The regulatory alternatives considered by the agency in this proposed rule are presented in Table III-3 as percentage changes in stringency over the preceding model year. In the sections that follow, NHTSA presents the literal coefficients that define the standards curves in each model year for each alternative that corresponds to these percentage rates.
The following subchapters define the regulatory alternatives (including the No-Action Alternative) by time period and provide details on how NHTSA developed them.
The analysis of the No-Action Alternative assumes that the following CAFE standards remain in place: the CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2023 that were finalized in the 2020 final rule,
The No-Action Alternative standards for the existing MYs 2022-2026 passenger car and light truck fleets are defined by the following coefficients:
These equations are represented graphically below, where the x-axis represents vehicle footprint and the y-axis represents fuel economy.
For the No-Action Alternative for MYs 2022-2026, the MDPCS is applied as it was established in the 2020 and 2022 final rules, including the offset originally calculated in those rules to account for recent projection errors as part of estimating the total passenger car fleet fuel economy standard.
The analysis of the No-Action Alternative assumes the following CAFE standards remain in place: the CAFE standards for MYs 2024-2026 that were finalized in the 2022 final rule
The No-Action Alternative standards for the existing MYs 2027-2031 passenger car and light truck fleets are defined by the following coefficients, which (for the purposes of this analysis) are assumed to persist without change in subsequent model years:
These equations are represented graphically below:
For
In addition to the No-Action Alternative, NHTSA has considered three action alternatives for passenger cars and light trucks. These action alternatives are specified below and demonstrate different possible approaches to balancing the statutory factors applicable for setting fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks, as discussed in more detail in Section V.
Alternative 1 begins with a MY 2022 set of target function parameters with which 80 percent of the passenger car fleet complied in MY 2022, and with which 80 percent of light trucks complied in MY 2022. From there, Alternative 1 would increase CAFE stringency by 0.5 percent per year for MYs 2022-2026 for passenger cars and light trucks.
These equations are represented graphically below:
Under this alternative, the MDPCS is as follows:
The Preferred Alternative begins with a MY 2022 set of target function parameters with which 75 percent of the passenger car fleet complied in MY 2022, and with which 70 percent of light trucks complied in MY 2022. From there, the Preferred Alternative would increase CAFE stringency by 0.5 percent per year for MYs 2022-2026 for passenger cars and light trucks.
These equations are represented graphically below:
Under this alternative, the MDPCS is as follows:
Alternative 3 begins with a MY 2022 set of target function parameters with which 70 percent of the passenger car fleet complied in MY 2022, and with which 50 percent of light trucks complied in MY 2022. From there, Alternative 3 would increase CAFE stringency by 0.5 percent per year for MYs 2022-2026 for passenger cars and light trucks.
These equations are represented graphically below:
Alternative 1 would increase CAFE stringency for passenger cars by 0.1 percent from MYs 2026-2027, by 0.3 percent from MYs 2027-2028, and 0.25 percent per year for MYs 2029-2031. Alternative 1 would increase CAFE stringency for light trucks by 0.8 percent from MYs 2026-2027, by 0.6 percent from MYs 2027-2028, and by 0.25 percent year over year for MYs 2029-2031.
These equations are represented graphically below. Note that the shapes of the curves for MY 2027 are also different from the shapes of the curves for MYs 2028-2031 due to the proposed reclassification in MY 2028.
For this rulemaking, NHTSA has updated the analysis it uses to estimate the offset and calculated an offset of 0.7 percent, which will be applicable to the MDPCS for each action alternative in MYs 2027-2031. Under this alternative, the MDPCS is as follows:
The Preferred Alternative would increase CAFE stringency for passenger cars by 0.35 percent from MYs 2026-2027, by 0.25 percent from MYs 2027-2028, and 0.25 percent per year for MYs 2029-2031. The Preferred Alternative would increase CAFE stringency for LTs by 0.7 percent from MYs 2026-2027, by 0.25 percent from MYs 2027-2028, and by 0.25 percent per year for MYs 2029-2031.
These equations are represented graphically below. Note that the shapes of the curves for MY 2027 are also different from the shapes of the curves for MYs 2028-2031 due to the proposed reclassification in MY 2028.
For this rulemaking, NHTSA has updated the analysis it uses to estimate the offset applied to the MDPCS, which is now calculated at 0.7 percent and is applied to each action alternative in MYs 2027-2031. Under this alternative, the MDPCS is as follows:
Alternative 3 would increase CAFE stringency for passenger cars by 1.4 percent from MYs 2026-2027, by 1.5 percent from MYs 2027-2028, and 1.0 percent year over year for MYs 2029-2031. Alternative 3 would increase CAFE stringency for LTs by 0.4 percent from MYs 2026-2027, by 0.2 percent from MYs 2027-2028, and by 1.0 percent year over year for MYs 2029-2031.
These equations are represented graphically below. Note that the shapes of the curves for MY 2027 are also different from the shapes of the curves for MYs 2028-2031 due to the proposed reclassification in MY 2028.
Under this alternative, the MDPCS is as follows:
NHTSA does not estimate any impacts from changes to the MY 2022-2026 standards other than the difference between the estimated achieved compliance value and the proposed standard for each manufacturer's fleet. At the time of the proposal, manufacturers have already produced fleets for MYs 2022-2025, either partially or completely. Furthermore, manufacturers have already made vehicle design decisions related to their MY 2026 fleets, leaving them limited options to adjust their production for that year in response to the proposed standards. As a result, NHTSA's proposed standards are expected to have no impact on manufacturers' production decisions. Similarly, new vehicles produced for MYs 2022-2024 have already been purchased, as have, at the time of this proposal, most new vehicles produced in MY 2025. While manufacturers may adjust prices for vehicles produced in MYs 2025-2026 in response to the proposed standards, modeling such price changes would require significant speculation about how manufacturers will make decisions regarding their pricing strategies.
Table IV-1 through Table IV-9 present compliance gaps for domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars, and non-passenger automobile fleets for MYs 2022-2024, comparing the fuel economy levels that have been achieved to those that would have been achieved under the standards contemplated by NHTSA.
Unlike
Table IV-10 through Table IV-13 show the estimated required CAFE level for MYs 2025-2026. Table IV-10 shows these values for passenger cars, light trucks, and the fleet as a whole for the Preferred Alternative. Tables Table IV-11through Table IV-13 show these values by regulatory class (domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars, and light trucks) for each manufacturer in each alternative. It is important to note that these values are projections of the average mpg that the fleets will need to achieve. The actual level of performance that each manufacturer would need to meet varies and is calculated for each manufacturer's compliance fleet based on the footprint of each vehicle in the fleet and the corresponding footprint curve.
Each regulatory alternative considered in this proposed rule, aside from the No-Action Alternative, would change the stringency of both passenger car and light truck CAFE standards during MYs 2027-2031. To estimate the potential effects of each of these alternatives, including effects beyond these years, NHTSA has, as it has done with all recent CAFE rulemakings, assumed that standards would continue unchanged after the last model year to be covered by CAFE targets (in this case, after MY 2031).
The estimated required average fuel economy values for the passenger car, light truck, and total fleets for each action alternative that NHTSA considered alongside values for the No-Action Alternative are presented in Table IV-14 below. NHTSA recognizes that the size and composition of the fleet (
Manufacturers' achieved average fuel economy does not always exactly match each CAFE standard in each model year, and some manufacturers have tended to exceed at least one requirement.
The SHEV share of the fleet initially (
The PHEV share of the fleet in MY 2024 is around 3.4 percent for light trucks and 1.7 percent for passenger cars. While their market shares do not increase to the levels seen for SHEVs, PHEVs are estimated to make up around 13 percent of the light truck fleet for all the regulatory alternatives by MY 2031, and around 10 percent for the No-Action Alternative. In the passenger car fleet, PHEV penetration stays under 3 percent for all regulatory alternatives across MYs 2027-2031.
Variation in penetration rates across regulatory alternatives generally results from differences in the number of vehicles or models a manufacturer would need to add technology to comply with each alternative. For example, a certain technology pathway could be the most cost-effective pathway if a manufacturer is just shy of its fuel economy target, but the pathway likely becomes ineffective if there's a larger gap, which may necessitate pursuing broader changes in powertrain technology across the manufacturer's fleet. For more detail on the technology application by regulatory fleet, see PRIA Chapter 8.2.2.1.
The PRIA also presents NHTSA's estimates of manufacturers' potential application of fuel-saving technologies, including advanced transmissions, aerodynamic improvements, and reduced vehicle mass, in response to each regulatory alternative. The accompanying PRIA Appendix provides more detailed and comprehensive results, and the underlying CAFE Model Output File provide all the information used to construct these estimates, including the specific combination of technologies estimated to be applied to every vehicle model/configuration in each of MYs 2024-2050.
NHTSA's analysis estimates manufacturers' regulatory costs for compliance with the CAFE standards. As summarized in Table IV-22, NHTSA estimates manufacturers'
NHTSA assumes that technology costs are reflected in vehicle prices. NHTSA's estimates of the average costs to new vehicle purchasers from MYs 2027-2031 are summarized in Table IV-23 and Table IV-24.
Table IV-25 shows how these costs could vary among manufacturers. See Chapter 8.2.2 of the PRIA for more details of the effects on vehicle manufacturers, including compliance and regulatory costs.
Fuel savings and regulatory costs act as countervailing forces on new vehicle sales. All else being equal, as fuel savings increase, the CAFE Model projects higher new vehicle sales, but as regulatory costs increase, the CAFE Model projects lower new vehicle sales. Both fuel savings and regulatory costs increase with stringency. The magnitude of these fuel savings and vehicle price increases depend on manufacturer compliance decisions, especially technology application. Draft TSD Chapter 4.2.1.2 discusses NHTSA's approach to estimating new vehicle sales. For all scenarios modeled in this analysis, vehicle sales stay constant relative to the No-Action Alternative through MY 2026, after which the CAFE Model begins applying technology differently in response to the standards that would be set under the various regulatory alternatives. The three regulatory alternatives result in essentially the same vehicle sales for all model years. The No-Action Alternative, which has higher projected regulatory costs starting in MY 2027, results in approximately 0.1 to 0.4 percent lower vehicle sales in each model year for MY 2027 and beyond, compared to the regulatory alternatives. Figure IV-1 shows the estimated annual light-duty industry sales by regulatory alternative.
Differences in sales and the cost of technology applied to vehicles in turn tend to affect projected automobile industry labor utilizations. Because the action alternatives produce similar levels of technology costs and sales volumes, the related changes in labor predicted by the CAFE Model across these alternatives are also negligible. For the No-Action Alternative, since the CAFE Model directly translates costs into labor hours, the additional technology costs convert to a higher labor impact than decreased sales volumes, resulting in a level of automotive employment, measured in person years, that is about 1 percent higher than the regulatory alternatives by MY 2031. Figure IV-2 shows the estimated number of person years under each alternative.
The accompanying Draft TSD Chapter 6.2.5 discusses NHTSA's approach to estimating automobile industry employment, and the accompanying PRIA Chapter 8 (and its Appendix I) and CAFE Model Output File provide more detailed results of NHTSA's light-duty analysis.
NHTSA accounts for the effects of the standards on society using a benefit-cost framework. The categories considered include private costs borne by manufacturers and passed on to consumers; external costs, which include government costs and costs pertaining to emissions, congestion, noise, and energy security; and costs associated with safety impacts. In this accounting framework, the CAFE Model records costs and benefits related to vehicles in the fleet throughout the lifetime of a particular model year and also allows for the accounting of costs and benefits by calendar years. Examining program effects through this lens illustrates the temporal differences in major cost and benefit components and allows NHTSA to examine costs and benefits tied only to those vehicles that are directly impacted by this proposal.
NHTSA splits effects on society into private costs, external costs, private benefits, and external benefits. Table IV-26 and Table IV-27 present NHTSA's estimates of the costs and benefits of changing CAFE standards in each alternative considered in this proposal, as well as the party (private interests or society as a whole) to which they accrue. Manufacturers are directly regulated under the program and incur additional production costs when they apply technology to their vehicle offerings to improve fuel economy. NHTSA assumes that those costs are fully passed through to new car and truck buyers in the form of higher prices (and conversely, that decreases in technology costs pass through as lower prices for consumers).
While incremental maintenance and repair costs and benefits would change for buyers of new cars and trucks affected by modified CAFE standards, NHTSA does not include these impacts in the analysis because they are difficult to estimate, and NHTSA does not currently have sufficient data to estimate them accurately. NHTSA may include estimates of the impact that CAFE standards have on lifetime maintenance and repair costs in future analyses if sufficient data become available.
The analysis's estimates also take into account the rebound effect, in which vehicles are driven more as increased fuel economy reduces the cost of driving. NHTSA also assumes that drivers of new vehicles internalize 90 percent of the risk associated with increased exposure to crashes when they engage in additional travel.
The value of fuel savings,
Benefits to new vehicle buyers are also expected to be reduced as the regulatory alternatives increase the cost of driving relative to the No-Action Alternative (
In addition to private benefits and costs—those borne by manufacturers, buyers, and owners of cars and light trucks—there are other benefits and costs from resetting CAFE standards that are borne more broadly throughout the economy or society, which NHTSA refers to as external benefits and costs.
Table IV-26 and Table IV-27 below present NHTSA's estimates of the benefits and costs of each regulatory alternative at different discount rates and from both model year and calendar year perspectives. Estimated net benefits are positive for all regulatory alternatives at both the 3- and 7-percent discount rates and for each perspective, with higher costs and benefits estimated in the calendar year analysis.
NHTSA estimates various physical and environmental effects associated with the standards. These include quantities of fuel consumed, non-criteria and criteria pollutant emissions, and health and safety impacts. Table IV-28 shows the average annual impacts, including the on-road fleet sizes, vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), fuel consumption, and CO
In the No-Action Alternative, the decreasing size of the overall ICE fleet results in ICE VMT decreases in the later decades, with the lowest average VMT per year occurring between 2041 and 2050. Similarly, on an annual basis fuel consumption (measured in gallons of gasoline gallon equivalents) and non-criteria emissions decline in the later decades due to reduced VMT and new, more efficient vehicles replacing older, less efficient vehicles in the fleet. Relative to the No-Action Alternative, all regulatory alternatives considered
NHTSA's analysis
NHTSA estimates the non-criteria emissions attributable to the light-duty on-road fleet, from both vehicles and upstream energy sector processes (
NHTSA estimates criteria pollutant emissions attributable to the light-duty on-road fleet from both vehicles and upstream energy sector processes (
Health impacts quantified by the CAFE Model include various instances of hospital visits due to respiratory problems, minor restricted activity days, non-fatal heart attacks, acute bronchitis, premature mortality,
NHTSA also quantifies safety impacts in its analysis. These include the estimated numbers of fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and property damage crashes occurring over the lifetimes of the light-duty vehicles considered in the analysis. The following table shows the changes in these projected outcomes under the action alternatives relative to the reference baseline.
Decreasing fuel economy stringency leads to a reduction in adverse safety outcomes from rebound-related reductions in VMT (motorists choosing to drive less as driving becomes more expensive), and the increase in scrappage causing newer vehicles with more safety features to enter the fleet sooner. The impacts of mass changes are nonlinear and depend on the specific fleet receiving those changes, with mass increases in passenger cars causing a reduction in adverse safety outcomes and mass increases for light trucks causing an increase in adverse safety outcomes. Though the point estimates applied suggest a marginal increase under the regulatory alternatives, NHTSA notes that none of these safety outcomes due to mass changes can be distinguished statistically from zero. Chapter 7.1.5 of the PRIA accompanying this document contains an in-depth discussion of the effects of the various alternatives on these safety measures, and Chapter 7 of the Draft TSD contains information regarding the construction of the safety estimates.
The regulatory impact analysis conducted to support this rulemaking relies on many different inputs, parameters, and other analytical assumptions that reflect the agency's best judgments regarding a variety of factors relevant to the anticipated outcomes of the proposed CAFE standards reset, which are all applied within an analytical framework using the CAFE Model. NHTSA recognizes that the values of many analytical inputs are uncertain, and some to a significant degree, which in turn results in uncertainty for some estimates of the benefits, costs, and other outcomes. Some of the uncertain input parameters have a considerable influence on specific types of estimated impacts, and some are likely to do so for the bulk, while others may affect the results of the analysis more broadly. To understand the effect that particular assumptions have on the estimated outcomes, NHTSA conducted a sensitivity analysis by running the CAFE Model using alternative assumptions (referred to as “sensitivity cases”). The results allow NHTSA to explore a range of potential analytical inputs and to understand the sensitivity of estimated impacts to changes in these specified model inputs. The sensitivity cases developed for this analysis span assumptions related to technology applicability and cost, economic conditions, consumer response, externality values, and safety assumptions, among others.
A sensitivity analysis can identify two critical pieces of information:
Chapter 9
Overall, NHTSA finds that, for light-duty vehicles, the Preferred Alternative in this proposal, Alternative 2, produces positive estimated net benefits under all sensitivity cases, at both 3- and 7-percent discount rates. Societal net benefits are highest in the “Mass-size-safety (high)” case ($46.7 billion) and lowest in the “Mass-size-safety (low)” case ($1.3 billion), when applying a 3-percent social discount rate.
In this section, NHTSA discusses the statutory and other factors, data, and analysis that the agency has considered in the selection of the proposed CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2026 and MYs 2027-2031.
Under EPCA, NHTSA is required to set separate average fuel economy standards for new passenger cars and light trucks produced or imported for sale in the United States at the “maximum feasible” levels NHTSA determines manufacturers can achieve in each model year to which the standards apply.
Consistent with the terms of the CAFE program, fuel economy standards are designed based on light-duty vehicles powered by “fuel,” which is defined in EPCA to include gasoline, diesel fuel, or other liquid or gaseous fuels with similar combustion properties as identified by NHTSA.
In addition to these considerations, section 32902 includes several provisions specifying how NHTSA must prescribe CAFE standards, including the form that the CAFE standards must take and the manner and timing of setting such standards and any subsequent amendments. The following subsections discuss in greater detail these requirements, including the requirement to set maximum feasible fuel economy standards.
EPCA requires that NHTSA prescribe new CAFE standards at least 18 months before the beginning of each model year.
NHTSA is aware that this is a change in its previous interpretation of the statute, with respect to generally applicable standards.
EISA also requires NHTSA to “issue regulations . . . prescribing average fuel economy standards for at least 1, but not more than 5, model years.”
In addition, NHTSA stated that the statute allows NHTSA to revisit existing standards and separately the statute allows NHTSA to prescribe new standards “for at least 1, but not more than 5, model years” when it “issue[s] regulations.” NHTSA also explained that it was not clear whether the statute precluded multiple concurrent or quickly sequential rulemakings “issuing regulations” for different periods of time. NHTSA provided as an example that it could issue two separate rulemakings, one amending a single model year's standard and one setting new standards for the five immediately ensuing model years, but this would be an unnecessary waste of resources that could be saved by consolidating agency (and commenter) work into a single rulemaking. For these reasons, NHTSA concluded that its interpretation was reasonable and appropriate.
Consistent with the 2020 interpretation, NHTSA continues to believe that the 5-year maximum applies only to rulemakings establishing new standards, and not to—as in this case—the amendment of existing standards. Unlike a situation when NHTSA must be cautious about setting new standards for distant future years, the agency is proposing amended standards to rectify placing
EPCA requires NHTSA to set separate standards for passenger automobiles and non-passenger automobiles for each model year.
Since 2012, NHTSA has at times proposed or finalized standards for passenger and non-passenger automobiles that increase at different numerical rates year over year.
The 2007 EISA CAFE amendments also required NHTSA to begin setting a separate standard for domestically manufactured passenger automobiles.
Since the first post-EISA CAFE rules establishing the MDPCS (the 2008 proposal for MYs 2011-2015 standards and the subsequent 2009 final rule for MY 2011 standards), NHTSA has interpreted “92 percent of the average fuel economy projected by the Secretary” to mean 92 percent of the average fuel economy standard projected by the Secretary.
As in the 2020, 2022, and 2024 final rules, NHTSA continues to recognize industry concerns that actual total passenger car fleet standards have differed significantly from past projections, perhaps more so when NHTSA projects into the future. In the 2020 final rule, the compliance data showed that the standards projected in the 2012 final rule were consistently more stringent than the actual standards as calculated at the end of the model year, by an average of 1.9 percent. NHTSA stated that this difference indicated that in rulemakings conducted in 2009 through 2012, NHTSA's and
In the 2020 final rule, NHTSA concurred with industry concerns over the impact of changes in consumer demand (especially when contrasted against what was assumed in the 2012 rulemaking about future consumer demand for greater fuel economy) on manufacturers' ability to comply with the MDPCS, particularly for those manufacturers that produce larger passenger cars domestically. Some of the largest civil penalties for noncompliance in the history of the CAFE program have been paid based on noncompliance with the MDPCS.
NHTSA continued to apply the 1.9-percent offsets in calculating the MDPCS for the 2022 and 2024 final rules after additional quantitative and qualitative analysis showing the offset, and specifically the 1.9 percent-value, was still appropriate and reasonable. NHTSA noted in the 2022 final rule its concern with the stringency in overall standards for MYs 2024-2026 and the increase in the civil penalty rate as reasons why the agency should continue to employ the 1.9-percent offset, specifically if automakers struggling to meet the MDPCS would choose to import their passenger cars rather than produce them domestically.
For this rulemaking, NHTSA reviewed the analysis it used to calculate the MDPCS offset and updated the analysis to add new data sources and refine the methodology used to calculate the offset value. NHTSA describes the updated analysis in more detail in Section III. The MYs 2027-2031 proposed MDPCS presented in this NPRM accordingly includes a recalculated 0.7 percent-offset. NHTSA believes that the basis for the offset, the inability to project precisely the mix of vehicles sold in the future, is inapplicable to the proposed MYs 2022-2026 standards because those standards incorporate the most up-to-date data available to the agency for vehicle sales volume and footprint sizes in MY 2022. NHTSA's proposed MDPCS for MYs 2027-2031 include this offset to ensure that the standard sufficiently reflects industry capabilities while still considering the original intent behind the MDPCS.
The proposed MDPCS for each model year is as follows:
EISA requires NHTSA to set CAFE standards “based on 1 or more vehicle attributes related to fuel economy and express[ed] . . . in the form of a mathematical function.”
While CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks must be specified as a mathematical function dependent on one or more attributes related to fuel economy, NHTSA has the authority to select
In setting attribute-based standards, NHTSA has sought to reflect the trade-off (
Historically, NHTSA has based standards on vehicle footprint, and the agency is proposing to continue to do so in this rulemaking. As in previous rulemakings, NHTSA is proposing to define the standards in the form of a constrained linear function that sets higher (more stringent) targets for smaller footprint vehicles and lower (less stringent) targets for larger footprint vehicles. These footprint curves are discussed in more detail in Section II and Draft TSD Chapter 1.
As discussed above, EPCA requires NHTSA to consider four factors in determining what levels of CAFE standards would be maximum feasible. In the sections below, NHTSA presents its understanding of the meanings of those four factors, in addition to other statutory requirements the agency must consider.
Under EPCA, “[t]echnological feasibility” refers to whether a particular method of improving fuel economy is available for deployment in commercial application in the model year for which a standard is being established. Though NHTSA is not limited in determining the level of new standards to technology already being commercially applied at the time of the rulemaking, NHTSA is not required to attempt to account for every technology that might conceivably be applied to improve fuel economy and has considered it unnecessary to do so given that many technologies address fuel economy in similar ways. It is also important to note that technological feasibility and economic practicability are often conflated. The question of whether a fuel-economy-improving technology does or will exist (technological feasibility) is a different question from what economic consequences could ensue if NHTSA effectively requires that technology to become widespread in the fleet in the absence of sufficient consumer demand for such technologies (economic practicability). Accordingly, it is possible for standards to be technologically feasible but still beyond the level that NHTSA determines to be maximum feasible due to consideration of the other relevant factors.
NHTSA has long rejected interpretations of the technological feasibility factor that would require NHTSA to set “technology-forcing” standards. NHTSA has recognized that “[i]t is important to remember that technological feasibility must also be balanced with the other of the four statutory factors. Thus, while `technological feasibility' can drive standards higher by assuming the use of technologies that are not yet commercial, `maximum feasible' is still also defined in terms of economic practicability, for example, which might caution the agency against basing standards (even fairly distant future standards)
NHTSA continues to believe that the crucial question on the technological feasibility factor is not whether technologies exist to meet the standards. Rather, the question is how much existing technology should be required to be added to new cars and trucks to conserve fuel, and how appropriately to balance any additional fuel conserved against the additional cost the mileage requirements will impose on new vehicles. Regardless of whether technological feasibility allows the agency to set technology-forcing standards, technological feasibility does not require, by itself, NHTSA to set technology-forcing standards if other statutory factors would point the agency in a different direction. NHTSA has applied this moderating interpretation of technological feasibility over the course of multiple rulemakings.
NHTSA has long interpreted “[e]conomic practicability” to focus on whether a standard is one “within the financial capability of the industry, but not so stringent as to” lead to “adverse economic consequences, such as a significant loss of jobs or the unreasonable elimination of consumer choice.”
NHTSA's consideration of economic practicability depends on a number of elements. These include expected availability of capital to make investments in new technologies and production facilities; manufacturers' expected ability to sell vehicles with certain technologies; likely consumer choices; and other elements. NHTSA's
The effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy involves analysis of the effects of compliance with emission, safety, noise, or damageability standards on fuel economy capability and thus on average fuel economy. From the CAFE program's earliest years until recently,
In addition, as discussed further below in the section titled “Factors That NHTSA Is Prohibited from Considering” and at length in the final rule titled “Resetting the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program,”
Under EPCA's blanket preemption provision, states may not adopt or enforce regulatory requirements related to fuel economy standards.
In addition, regardless of the status of the CARB standards given EPA's proposed repeal, NHTSA believes that the best interpretation of the text of EPCA rebuts the conclusion that CARB's standards are appropriately considered under this section 32902(f) factor. The statute uses the singular “the Government,” which refers to the Federal Government, consistent with the 1994 recodification discussed below. This reference likely reflects that only the Federal Government has authority to set standards “on fuel economy,” as EPCA itself provides. Under this reading, even if California were held to have authority to set vehicle emission standards pursuant to a waiver under the CAA, for purposes of the maximum feasibility determination, such standards could not be considered because they are not standards of “the Government,” as that term is used in EPCA. Again, the use of the definite article “the” in reference to the relevant Government suggests that Congress limited consideration to standards set by the Federal Government. Congress easily could have referred to standards set by “a government” if it sought to authorize NHTSA to consider state standards in the maximum feasible determination. Congress did not do so.
EPCA's history buttresses the plain meaning of the text. As initially passed in 1975, EPCA mandated average fuel economy standards for passenger cars beginning with MY 1978. The law required the Secretary of Transportation to establish, through regulation, maximum feasible fuel economy standards for MYs 1981-1984 with the intent to provide steady increases to achieve the standard established for 1985 and thereafter authorized the Secretary to adjust that standard. For the statutorily established standards for MYs 1978-1980, EPCA provided each manufacturer with the right to petition for changes in the fuel economy standards applicable to that manufacturer, based on the application of other Federal standards.
In 1994, Congress recodified several laws related to transportation. As part of this recodification, the CAFE provisions were moved to title 49 of the United States Code. In doing so, unnecessary provisions were deleted. Specifically, the recodification eliminated subsection (d). The House report describing the recodification declared that the subdivision was already “executed,” and described its purpose as “[p]rovid[ing] for modification of average fuel economy standards for model years 1978, 1979, and 1980.”
Accordingly, consistent with the statutory intent and text, NHTSA has limited its consideration to the effect of other Federal motor vehicle standards on fuel economy.
NHTSA has historically interpreted “the need of the United States to conserve energy” to mean “the consumer cost, national balance of payments, environmental, and foreign policy implications of our need for large quantities of petroleum, especially imported petroleum.”
With regard to NHTSA's consideration of the need for energy conservation, fuel purchases for vehicles are costly to vehicle owners and operators. Projections of future fuel prices help NHTSA to determine the value of fuel savings both to new vehicle buyers and to society and the amount of fuel economy that the new vehicle market is likely to demand in the absence of new standards. Future fuel prices also inform NHTSA about “the consumer cost9 . . . of our need for large quantities of petroleum.”
The need of the United States to conserve energy has historically included consideration of the “national balance of payments” because of concerns that importing large amounts of oil created a significant wealth transfer to oil-exporting countries and left the U.S. economically vulnerable.
Although total energy independence is not possible for any country that participates in the global energy market, the fact that the U.S. is now a net oil exporter necessarily reduces risks from global price fluctuation. Even if the U.S. consumed only domestically produced petroleum and continued to export, the U.S. economy would still be subject to oil price fluctuations due to external events and situations. But changes in the oil market mean that the risk of damage to the U.S. economy and of additional pain for U.S. drivers is lower than it was in previous decades. To be sure, risk still exists, and both production and consumption of oil are relevant to how big that risk might be. But the risk is much lower than it would have been in the absence of the rapid growth in U.S. oil production, and this diminished risk means that the need of the U.S. to conserve energy is significantly less than it was at earlier points in the history of the program.
Beginning with the outset of the CAFE program, NHTSA has consistently considered environmental issues, mindful of the need to conserve energy under EPCA, of its statutory authority to set CAFE standards, and of the National
NHTSA seeks comment on whether Congress has given it authority under EPCA to consider environmental effects when setting fuel economy standards. EPCA's charge is for the agency to set maximum feasible fuel economy standards to reduce national vulnerability to supply shocks while balancing statutory factors—none of which includes environmental effects. Among those statutory considerations is the effect of other Federal government standards on fuel economy. NHTSA has traditionally considered the fact that the vehicles NHTSA regulates are also subject to compliance obligations under the Environmental Protection Agency's criteria emission standards (
U.S. consumption and imports of petroleum products can impose costs on the domestic economy that are not reflected in the market price for crude petroleum or in the prices paid by consumers for petroleum products such as gasoline. These costs include the risk of disruptions to the U.S. economy caused by sudden increases in the global price of oil and its resulting impact on fuel prices faced by U.S. consumers.
While these costs are considerations, the United States has significantly increased oil production capabilities in recent years and has become a net energy exporter.
EPCA also provides that in determining the level at which NHTSA should set CAFE standards for a particular model year, the agency may not consider the fuel economy of dedicated automobiles; must consider dual-fueled automobiles to be operated only on gasoline or diesel fuel; and may not consider, when prescribing a fuel economy standard, the trading, transferring, or availability of credits under section 32903.
On June 11, 2025, NHTSA published in the
As originally enacted, EPCA did not limit the Secretary's consideration of factors when setting maximum feasible standards. Limitations in section 32902(h) first appeared in the AMFA.
The conferees specifically noted their intent to ensure that the Secretary of Transportation did not erase the AMFA incentives by setting the CAFE standards for passenger or non-passenger automobiles “at a level that assumes a certain penetration of alternative fueled vehicles.”
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 expanded the section 32902(h) limitations to include all dedicated alternative-fueled vehicles.
There have been no subsequent substantive changes to the language in 49 U.S.C. 32902(h),
There are additional considerations relevant to NHTSA's determination of maximum feasible standards that the agency evaluates in conjunction with its analysis of the four enumerated section 32902(f) factors mentioned above.
NHTSA has historically considered the potential for adverse safety consequences in setting CAFE standards, both independently and in the context of the section 32902(f) factors.
NHTSA also considers consumer demand, which is “not specifically designated as a factor, but neither is it excluded from consideration; the factors of `technological feasibility' and `economic practicability' are each broad enough to encompass the concept.”
In concert with E.O. 12866, NHTSA considers net benefits as relevant to determining maximum feasible CAFE standards. EPCA does not mandate that NHTSA set standards at the point at which net benefits are maximized, and NHTSA does not believe it is compelled to do so.
In addition, NHTSA has historically considered that some manufacturers may choose to pay a civil penalty rather than meet their applicable CAFE standard if the cost of paying the civil penalty is less than the cost of adding fuel economy technology. NHTSA did so through an option in the CAFE Model's Market Data Input file that provided that, if “Y” for “yes” was selected for a specific manufacturer's fine payment preferences, then the algorithm would stop applying additional technology to this manufacturer's product line when cost-effective technology solutions were exhausted.
In July 2025, Congress eliminated CAFE civil penalties, resetting the penalty rate to $0. In this rulemaking, and notwithstanding the change in the CAFE penalty rate, NHTSA has assumed, based upon its review and analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, that manufacturers will make the maximum practicable effort to comply with the proposed standards. “Practicable” in this context means subject to real-world constraints on technology application such as refresh and redesign cycles and technology applicability, concepts discussed in detail in Section II. This reading of all of EPCA's provisions best effectuates the statute's command that NHTSA establish maximum feasible standards that achieve industry-wide fuel economy improvements.
NHTSA's modeling assumption that manufacturers will make maximum practicable efforts to comply with CAFE standards despite the $0 penalty rate is supported by longstanding real-world experience. For example, the 1979 “Automotive Fuel Economy Program Third Annual Report to the Congress” issued by DOT stated in its recommendation that the statutory scheme be amended to allow a longer period for credit carry forward and carry back that “[a] number of manufacturers have raised the point that failure to meet the fuel economy standards involves a violation of the law, regardless of whether the short fall involves a penalty or involves the use of credits being carried forward or backward. The manufacturers have expressed strong reluctance to engage in any corporate planning that would involve violations.”
Today and more recently, many manufacturers have formal corporate policies committing themselves to complying with applicable legal standards. For example, Jaguar Land Rover states in its Code of Conduct that the products and services that they offer “shall comply with applicable laws, including emissions and safety standards.”
The APA governs agency rulemaking generally and provides the standard of judicial review for agency actions. To be upheld under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of judicial review under the APA, an agency rule must be rational, based on consideration of the relevant factors, and within the scope of authority delegated to the agency by statute. The agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action, including a “rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.”
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
EPCA and EISA require that the Secretary of Transportation determine the maximum feasible levels of CAFE standards in a manner that disregards the potential use of CAFE credits or application of alternative fuel technologies toward compliance in model years for which NHTSA is issuing new standards.
NHTSA's Draft SEIS describes the reasonably foreseeable impacts across a variety of environmental resources, including energy, air quality, emissions effects, and historic and cultural resources. The impacts of the Proposed Action and alternatives are discussed in proportion to their significance, qualitatively and quantitatively, as applicable.
The Draft SEIS is one input among many to NHTSA's decision-making process to set CAFE standards. In preparing the Draft SEIS, NHTSA has considered and taken into account the Supreme Court's recent opinion in
NHTSA has determined that analyses of such effects are not necessary for reasoned decision-making with respect to setting CAFE standards, because Congress has not given NHTSA authority under EPCA to take those effects into account when setting CAFE standards. NHTSA includes a discussion of these effects in the Draft SEIS solely for informational purposes.
Additionally, in light of the
The following discussion contains NHTSA's explanation of how the agency has considered the analysis in this preamble and the accompanying Draft TSD and PRIA and other relevant information in tentatively determining that the proposed standards are maximum feasible for MYs 2022-2031 passenger cars and light trucks. As discussed in detail throughout the section below, NHTSA believes the proposed small, steady, incremental increases in fuel economy standards over time, which preserve the ability for manufacturers to focus on safety, affordability, and consumer choice, are reasonable and appropriate, and appropriately balance the four EPCA factors.
The fuel economy standards NHTSA has promulgated in recent years have failed to satisfy faithfully EPCA's requirements in 49 U.S.C. 32902(h) because the prior standards considered the fuel economy of dedicated vehicles and dual-fueled vehicles in charge-depleting mode. Consequently, they do not advance and, indeed, have come to undermine the goals established in EPCA for the CAFE program. In accordance with its authority to reconsider and modify past policy decisions,
As summarized in NHTSA's final rule published on June 11, 2025,
As NHTSA concluded in the June 2025 final rule and reaffirms here, its prior consideration of the factors prohibited in section 32902(h)—even if in response to reasons other than NHTSA's standards and even if in non-standard setting years—is inconsistent with a plain reading of section 32902(h) and with the most faithful approach to standard setting in furtherance of the design and purposes of EPCA.
As discussed below, the large increases in the stringency of standards applicable to the succeeding model years through MY 2026 were not feasible or practicable, within the meaning of EPCA, for new gas-powered cars and trucks likely to be produced in those years. The inclusion of EVs inherently impacted the agency's determination of maximum feasible standards because EVs are generally imputed to have significantly higher fuel economy than ICE vehicles.
The following chart shows the stringency of the existing CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2026 passenger cars and light trucks as estimated in the 2020 and 2022 final rules and compares those standards to the provisional (
The gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleet—the only fleet that NHTSA is allowed to consider in setting standards—is unable to comply with the previously estimated standards in all model years and all regulatory classes for which the agency has provisional gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fuel economy performance data; the noncompliance increases in each successive model year because the baseline fleet upon which the current standards continuously apply stringency increases is inclusive of EVs that inflate overall fleet fuel economy performance. Indeed, compared to the provisional performance data for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 passenger car fleets, the 2022 standards are 12.9 percent, 15.3 percent, and 19.4 percent higher, respectively. Compared to the provisional performance data for the 2022, 2023, and 2024 light truck fleet, the 2022 standards are 7.0 percent, 9.1 percent, and 15.1 percent higher, respectively. While some may argue that such an analysis is not relevant when conducted across the entire U.S. fleet, because fuel economy standards apply to individual manufacturer fleets, the conclusion that the 2022 standards exceeded maximum feasibility is confirmed on a manufacturer-by-manufacturer fleet level analysis as well. On an individual manufacturer basis, only a single manufacturer's passenger car fleet can meet the MY 2022 standard with gasoline- or diesel-fueled vehicles (Hyundai's domestic passenger car fleet), and only a single manufacturer's gasoline- or diesel-fueled light truck fleet meets their standard (Subaru). This information confirms that the existing standards were set in a way that considered factors beyond the capability of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleets at the time the standards were promulgated.
NHTSA also recognizes that its tentative conclusion that MYs 2022-2023 standards are legally impermissible differs from NHTSA's and EPA's joint 2020 final rule.
The same faults apply to the existing standards for MY 2027 and beyond. For passenger cars, based on NHTSA's updated estimates of manufacturer compliance with the No-Action Alternative, approximately 77 percent of the MY 2027 fleet will not be able to comply with the standard and only three individual manufacturers' fleets will comply.
It is apparent that the existing standards depended upon the imputed fuel economy performance of EVs and PHEVs that NHTSA assumed would be manufactured in the relevant model years in contravention of both section 32902(h) and of the design and purposes of the CAFE program to avoid setting standards that cannot be met feasibly with gasoline- and diesel-fueled vehicles as part of a push toward alternative powertrains. The above results confirm that automakers are unable to meet the current standards without shifting significant capacity to EVs or purchasing credits from EV manufacturers, and without producing at volume the full range of ICE-driven passenger cars and light trucks that American consumers continue to want and need. Many of the gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle models most popular with American families would be unsustainable for manufacturers to produce under the existing standards, and it is unlikely that an EV alternative could provide the same performance, utility, or recreational value at a comparable price (or at all). Thus, the existing CAFE standards do not preserve market demand, consumer choice, and the economic realities of the auto industry. Of course, automakers are free to invest in the production of EVs in response to market demand, but they should not be compelled to do so by NHTSA's fuel economy standards; such industry-transforming regulatory compulsion is inconsistent with EPCA.
In the analyses supporting the existing standards, NHTSA also failed to consider countervailing costs to manufacturers, consumers, and society that may have led the agency to conclude that such stringent standards were in fact not feasible. NHTSA substantially underestimated the technological costs the standards are expected to impose on manufacturers, including the direct expenditures made to redesign and reconfigure gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles attributable to the acceleration in EV production caused by the regulatory forcing of the CAFE standards.
Additional costs to society more generally (not borne just by EV purchasers) include the costs associated with the massive and rapid national buildout of charging infrastructure and electricity generation and transmission capacity necessary to accommodate the anticipated ramp up in EV sales,
For the reasons laid out above, the existing fuel economy standards promulgated by NHTSA for each of the model years covered by these proposed rules do not comply with the requirements of EPCA and the goals in EPCA for the CAFE program. Indeed, the existing standards have undermined those goals, harming the freedom and economic interests of America's
EPCA conferred on the Secretary of Transportation (and NHTSA by delegation) the authority to prescribe maximum feasible fuel economy standards for the light-duty vehicle fleet, and to exercise discretion in weighing the factors of technological feasibility, economic practicability, the need of the Nation to conserve energy, and the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy. In exercising its authority, NHTSA has examined three regulatory alternatives that represent different ways the agency could balance the four section 32902(f) factors, consistent with the section 32902(h) prohibition on considering certain factors when setting maximum feasible standards.
NHTSA has also considered other contextual aspects of the statutory scheme in formulating the three regulatory alternatives the agency examined for this proposal. One original aspect of the CAFE program that was abandoned thematically in the development of existing standards is the concept of “steady progress.” EPCA's original provision for the MYs 1981-1984 standards included a requirement that the agency's standards “will result in steady progress toward meeting” the statutorily established “standard . . . for model year 1985.”
As in all recent fuel economy rules, technological feasibility and the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy are considered in NHTSA's balancing of the relevant factors, but they continue to play a less significant role.
Regarding technological feasibility, that factor continues to be less constraining than in the past: manufacturers can comply with standards under each regulatory alternative by applying existing technology to their vehicles. Whether that technology can be applied to vehicles in the rulemaking timeframe and at what cost is a question of economic practicability; as NHTSA stated in 2020, all alternatives could be considered technologically feasible, but that does not mean that any of them could be maximum feasible.
Regarding the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, NHTSA has considered both the agency's own safety standards and EPA's criteria pollutant emissions standards in various aspects of the technical modeling. Neither presents a barrier nor a reason why the agency would select a different regulatory alternative than the proposed alternative. In addition, as discussed above, to the extent that non-Federal vehicle standards played a role in the agency's prior consideration of the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, NHTSA now proposes to reject such consideration. NHTSA also recognizes that EPA has recently proposed to rescind all greenhouse gas emission standards for all categories of new motor vehicles and engines, including light-duty vehicles, to effectuate its reading of CAA section 202(a).
Economic practicability remains a complex yet critical factor to consider and balance. As discussed above, NHTSA's consideration of economic practicability encompasses several elements, including the available technology and cadence for each manufacturer to apply that technology in the rulemaking timeframe, manufacturers' compliance shortfalls due to constraints that limit their ability to apply the required technology, increases in vehicle costs attributable to technology application that consumers may see, and the resulting consumer demand for those technologies. As such, NHTSA considered how manufacturers might weigh offering and improving vehicle attributes that consumers want against how manufacturers may change different attributes in response to fuel economy standards. In accordance with EPCA's purpose and design, and with case law affirming NHTSA's consideration of consumer demand as an element of economic practicability,
NHTSA discussed above that technological feasibility is not a limiting factor for this proposal, as manufacturers can comply with standards under each regulatory alternative by applying to their vehicles technology that currently exists. However, “whether a fuel-economy-improving technology does or will exist (technological feasibility) is a different question from what economic consequences could ensue if NHTSA effectively requires that technology to become widespread in the fleet and the economic consequences of the absence of consumer demand for technology that are projected to be required (economic practicability).”
In the face of increasing fuel economy standards under the existing rules, vehicle manufacturers have taken different approaches to adding fuel-economy-improving technology to their vehicles. Some manufacturers that invested heavily in early deployment of EVs to meet the technology forcing (rather than performance-based) standards set in 2024 likely conserved scarce resources by not investing in improvements to their ICE fleets and will find themselves with gasoline- and diesel-fueled fleets with lower fleet fuel economy values. Manufacturers that invested heavily in bridge technologies like non-plug-in hybrid powertrains and complied only marginally with 2024's technology-forcing standards presumably have ICE fleets with higher fleet fuel economy values. EPCA's command—to set maximum feasible fleet average fuel economy values for vehicles that run on “fuel” as defined in the statute—becomes somewhat more difficult as the fleet bifurcates and manufacturers find themselves in very different competitive postures. Analyzing whether technology can feasibly be applied to vehicles during the rulemaking timeframe, and at what cost, requires careful consideration of each individual manufacturer's technology levels and the potential economic consequences resulting from manufacturers efforts to comply with different levels of standards.
Although, as discussed above, manufacturers have used a range of technologies to improve the fuel economy of their gasoline and diesel vehicles, only one manufacturer's gasoline- and diesel-based passenger automobile fleet met the existing MY 2022 standard (Hyundai's domestic passenger automobile fleet), and only one manufacturer's gasoline- and diesel-based non-passenger automobile fleet met that standard (Subaru). While manufacturers are free to use any available compliance solutions to meet CAFE standards, NHTSA is subject to statutory constraints when setting standards, which, therefore, should not drive the use of particular compliance solutions. Because the prior rules violated EPCA's prohibition on considering these factors, NHTSA is resetting standards based only on consideration of what is achievable with gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles; necessarily, the starting point for setting these new standards is the most recently produced fleet of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles for which the agency has data.
The amount of under-compliance in the gasoline- and diesel-based fleet relative to the standards shown above indicates that the prior standards exceeded maximum feasibility. While NHTSA is not considering the availability of dedicated vehicles, dual-fuel vehicles operating with electric propulsion, or credit transfers or trading, one would reasonably expect the real-world gasoline- and diesel-powered fleet to under-comply relative to the standards, to the extent that manufacturers apply compliance flexibilities the agency cannot consider when setting standards (
NHTSA does not intend for its proposed reset standards to penalize manufacturers that increased their fleet fuel economy values using EV technology. Rather, NHTSA recognizes that resetting standards at a level where all manufacturers can respond to market demand, consider affordability, and consider safety, would effectuate EPCA's structure and purpose by letting technology equalize as a baseline for further increases that better reflect consumer needs and preferences.
Besides the obvious effects of considering the section 32902(h) technologies in the prior standards, the stringency and pace of prior standards may have driven technology application in other ways that the agency's analysis could not capture. To the extent that NHTSA previously overestimated manufacturers' abilities to apply technologies based on incongruent product design cycles and manufacturing capabilities, or underestimated manufacturers' needs to deploy capital for necessary reasons unrelated to fuel economy (like safety technology) the agency believes it is reasonable to reset standards at levels that do not artificially inflate vehicles' fuel economy capabilities.
Consistent with the above discussion, NHTSA recognizes that vehicle manufacturers have had to incur significant costs from adding technology to vehicles subject to prior standards for MYs 2022-2026; however, it is impossible for the agency to quantify those costs. What the agency
The relevant questions for the agency then become whether these increases in technology penetration rates would have occurred absent unlawfully stringent vehicle fuel economy standards and what sacrifices manufacturers and consumers had to make in response. While NHTSA cannot know whether manufacturers would have, for example, created such things as 4-cylinder turbocharged pickup trucks absent regulatory obligations, NHTSA does know that for some vehicle technologies ostensibly applied solely in response to increasing regulatory requirements, like stop-start technology (referred to in the agency's analysis as SS12V technology), consumers frequently opt to deactivate the technology when able to do so,
For MYs 2027-2031, the CAFE Model estimates a significant amount of technology application in the vehicle fleet in all simulated scenarios by assuming the prior MYs 2024-2026 standards exist in the regulatory baseline. The CAFE Model does not remove technology from vehicles in the face of less stringent standards, meaning that any technology applied by the model to reach the existing stringent MYs 2024-2026 standards modeled as such in accordance with Circular A-4's definition of a “no-action baseline” will continue to exist in the fleet in the model for MYs 2027-2031. While manufacturers invest significant capital in developing new vehicle technologies and may try to recoup their investments, it is entirely possible that manufacturers may choose to discontinue employing particular technologies earlier than anticipated or may price their vehicles in a way that would shift sales from a vehicle model using one technology to a vehicle model using another when faced with the proposed standards. NHTSA presents technology penetration rates for MYs 2027-2031 below but recognizes that manufacturers' responses to standards will be different in ways that the simulated analysis likely cannot capture.
As the table shows, the analysis projects that manufacturers attempting to meet the No-Action Alternative standards without the use of EVs or PHEVs in charge-depleting mode results in a significant penetration of strong hybrid vehicles. Even then, the CAFE Model shows that manufacturers will fail to comply with the No-Action Alternative standards at the fleet level by more than 1 mile per gallon. Under all three alternatives, manufacturers can continue using gasoline engines throughout the years covered by the standards compared to the baseline, and the strong hybrid vehicle penetration rate drops by almost 28 percent by 2031 compared to the baseline. There is still some PHEV penetration by 2031, as those vehicles' gas-only (charge-sustaining) fuel economy values essentially amount to a strong hybrid vehicles' fuel economy value, but the penetration rate decreases marginally in each regulatory alternative compared to the baseline. NHTSA expects that the penetration of SS12V technology will drop from its high in MY 2024 as more effective hybridization technology can be applied in response to the standards and as manufacturers respond to revised standards set without considering OC technologies.
Given that NHTSA's analysis shows significant penetration rates for strong hybrid vehicles by MY 2031, the agency also believes it is appropriate to consider not just potential consumer acceptance issues associated with that technology, but also the technologies that may be set aside by manufacturers to pursue additional technology that consumers would prefer. NHTSA has performed this same analysis in prior rules. Because NHTSA has again determined that no consumer choice model satisfactorily predicts future behavior for the agency's purposes (see the detailed discussion of this in Section II.E), the following analysis remains a qualitative one.
It is important to note that NHTSA's consideration of consumer demand as relevant to economic practicability has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit in
NHTSA's last assessment of consumer demand for strong hybrid vehicles occurred in the 2020 final rule, when the agency determined that demand for
Since 2020, the production share of strong hybrid vehicles has more than doubled,
While the differences in technology penetration rates between the alternatives are small compared to changes between the baseline and alternatives, examining the effect of the technology required by different regulatory alternatives on manufacturers' compliance positions is more instructive. In terms of how this technology application in response to standards influences manufacturer compliance positions, this action is unique in that the 2022 and 2024 standards incorporated into the baseline result in excessive fuel economy technology application in years prior to the standard setting years, and that technology carries through to MY 2031. This results in over-compliance for some manufacturers' fleets; however, over-compliance for some manufacturers' fleets is not indicative that the proposed standard is not maximum feasible. NHTSA must set industry-wide standards, considering the capabilities of all manufacturers. All manufacturers struggle to comply with the baseline MYs 2024-2026 standards that increase at rates of 8 percent and 10 percent per year with their gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleets. That is because those rates of increase are significantly higher than historic rates of gasoline- and diesel-powered technology improvement and is significantly higher than the gasoline- and diesel-based fleet can manage based on the most up-to-date data available for those years. On an industry-wide basis, NHTSA's MY 2024 analysis fleet used as an input to the CAFE Model show the MY 2024 gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger car fleet under-complying by over 6 miles per gallon with the baseline standard, and the gasoline- and diesel-powered light truck fleet under-complying by 2.7 miles per gallon with the baseline standard. NHTSA proposes to reset the CAFE program consistent with EPCA to address this significant, industry-wide compliance concern. Leaving in place standards for which compliance is not possible does nothing to improve the fuel economy of gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.
This action is also unique in that, in MY 2028, NHTSA is proposing to update the regulatory definitions for passenger cars and light trucks (referred to as passenger automobiles and non-passenger automobiles in EPCA), which would result in moving many models of what are currently considered lower fuel economy light trucks into the passenger car fleet, leaving the light truck fleet to consist of vehicles with attributes originally contemplated by the statute to be put towards non-passenger capabilities, thereby reducing the overall average fuel economy levels of the non-passenger fleet accordingly. This reclassification will have the effect of significantly lowering the average fuel economy values of both fleets, leaving all else equal, but maintaining the overall combined fleet fuel economy standards at the same level as MY 2027. This will have a dramatic effect on all manufacturers with both passenger cars and light truck fleets. To anticipate the reclassification change, NHTSA proposed to set MY 2027 standards in such a way as to bridge the gap between the amended MY 2026 standards (reflecting technology decisions that have been locked in at the time of publication), and the MY 2028 reclassification.
Consistent with the above discussion, the tables show most manufacturers under-complying significantly in each fleet under the baseline standards. And manufacturers that seemingly comply with baseline standards do so at an extreme cost, as discussed in more detail below. Under the regulatory alternatives, different manufacturers would have difficulties complying depending upon fleet. While NHTSA proposes to amend the baseline standards to a lower level, several manufacturers fail to meet the standards in particular model years with their gasoline- and diesel-powered fleets. In somewhat of a reversal of historical trends, when the proposed fleet reclassification occurs in MY 2028, the manufacturers' fleets with projected achieved fuel economy values closest to the standards include Toyota's light truck fleet, which just complies with the proposed standards in Alternative 2 yet under-complies in Alternative 3. On the other hand, the GM, Ford, and Stellantis light truck fleets range from higher over-compliance to slight over-compliance between the three regulatory alternatives considered in this proposal.
NHTSA also considered with the MY 2028 reclassification proposal that manufacturers may comply with the new standards by changing product offerings or vehicle attributes, which NHTSA's analysis cannot capture. Manufacturers may choose to optimize their compliance pathway by making changes to the mix of vehicles they produce in several ways: instead of adding fuel economy-improving technology, a manufacturer could instead choose to change their product offerings to sell more vehicles that meet or exceed the new fuel economy targets while discontinuing other, less efficient vehicles. Alternatively, they may change a vehicle's attributes (
The CAFE Model does not simulate changes in product offerings or changes in particular vehicle attributes in response to CAFE standards because NHTSA does not intend for manufacturers to need to change those offerings or attributes to comply with standards. However, to the extent that NHTSA's standards may disincentivize the production of particular types of vehicles, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to consider this factor when considering economic practicability. Specifically, NHTSA believes that past CAFE standards may have disincentivized the production of passenger automobiles in favor of non-passenger automobiles.
EPCA's CAFE framework recognizes that certain automobiles inherently have features that make them less fuel efficient, such as high ground clearances for off-highway operation, 4WD, reinforced frames, suspensions, and axles for transporting heavy loads, or certain cargo-transporting body styles and configurations, as in cargo vans or pickup trucks. By separating the automobiles into two categories, CAFE standards aim to avoid penalizing automobiles with these non-passenger features, thus preserving consumer choice. However, because non-passenger automobiles and passenger automobiles are subject to different fuel
Available information indicates that past CAFE standards have caused a market distortion by disincentivizing the production of passenger automobiles relative to non-passenger automobiles.
While consumer preferences change over time, the CAFE program should not set standards that drive changes in market offerings, particularly if it drives changes that decrease market offerings that are more affordable to consumers. NHTSA tentatively concludes that the proposed standards would neither limit manufacturers' product offerings inconsistent with market demand, nor provide a reduction in attributes that consumers value.
Returning to the results of the analysis, at the individual manufacturer level, the No-Action Alternative imposes large annual technology cost increases on manufacturers but still leads to significant under-compliance with their gasoline- and diesel fueled fleets. Under each of the action alternatives, all manufacturers see a significant reduction in vehicle technology costs. Given fierce price competition in the automotive industry, NHTSA expects these cost reductions will be passed on to consumers. With a few outliers (
One of the most important aspects of resetting CAFE standards is to reduce the up-front costs that consumers must pay for new vehicles due to CAFE standards. NHTSA assumes that technology costs due to increased or decreased CAFE standards are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher or lower new vehicle prices. For this proposed reset, all regulatory alternatives considered reduce the technology costs attributable to CAFE standards by half compared to the baseline. These technology cost reductions result in reducing the average price of a vehicle by more than $900 by MY 2031, which represents a significant up-front cost savings for consumers and results in significant cascading cost savings for insurance, registration, taxes, and finance charges. NHTSA believes that vehicle affordability is an important aspect to consider when setting CAFE standards under the economic practicability factor; while the agency attempts to quantify multiple aspects related to vehicle affordability in its analysis both quantitatively and qualitatively, NHTSA seeks comment on additional ways that affordability could be included in the agency's assessment of maximum feasible standards. Aside from the cascading benefits mentioned above, consumers also would receive a benefit from reset standards in the form of manufacturers' ability to improve vehicle attributes that they were not able to improve given the former overly aggressive imperative to improve vehicle fuel economy. That value is a tangible monetized benefit for each regulatory alternative compared to the baseline and is quantified as an opportunity cost in this analysis.
Consumers would see marginally higher fuel costs in all alternatives relative to the baseline, with a difference of approximately $200 between the lowest and highest stringency alternatives, spread out over the life of the vehicle. However, large up-front vehicle cost savings can make the purchase of a new vehicle affordable for more consumers in the nearer term, while higher fuel costs likely are realized over the decades-long life of the vehicle and depend on future fuel prices, which are uncertain. Manufacturers are also free to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles for those consumers who wish to purchase them. Accordingly, NHTSA seeks comment—as discussed in more detail in Section IV—on alternative presentations of the fuel savings that accrue to the different owners over a vehicle's life.
Another intended benefit of the proposed reset standards is that vehicle sales will increase as a result of lower vehicle prices, getting Americans into newer, safer, and less polluting vehicles more quickly. While the regulatory alternatives do not differ meaningfully in projected sales effects, they all increase vehicle sales relative to the baseline standards. NHTSA recognizes that there are several macroeconomic factors that influence vehicle purchasing decisions and that changes in vehicle prices are based on significantly more factors than the lowering or increasing of CAFE standards and a subsequent addition or re-evaluation of technology applications. Regardless, any standards set by the agency should not impede the ability of manufacturers and dealers to sell vehicles.
NHTSA also estimates employment effects as a result of the different regulatory alternatives. The agency's model for estimating labor impacts in the parts supply space is fairly simplistic: any reduction in costs translates directly to an assumption of reduced labor hours into a metric called “person years.” The agency's methodology does not account for a diversion of such labor into development or production of different technologies. Based on the agency's method for calculating labor effects, NHTSA's analysis shows a decrease in cumulative person years from less stringent standards relative to the baseline, in part because of the decreased need for development and application of additional fuel-economy-improving technology. However, as Table V-8 shows, the relative changes between the No-Action and Action Alternatives are less than 1 percent.
While NHTSA's quantitative estimates of changes in employment effects capture some factors related to how the automotive industry may respond to lower fuel economy standards, there are a number of potential employment impacts from lower fuel economy standards that have not been captured in the analysis. As an example, the analysis does not capture the effects of manufacturers' shifting vehicle and powertrain production to the United States in response to factors other than the agency's CAFE standards.
NHTSA also considers safety effects in determining maximum feasible CAFE standards, both because of its expertise as a safety agency and also as an element of economic practicability.
Safety issues related to vehicle size and mass existed prior to the introduction of attribute-based CAFE standards. Manufacturers' responses to the early one-dimensional mpg-based standards included dramatic reductions in vehicle size and mass in a way that resulted in lighter vehicles that failed to protect occupants in crashes as effectively as larger, heavier vehicles. Under attribute-based standards, NHTSA's modern CAFE safety assessment has since evolved to include three elements: changes in vehicle mass, the impacts of vehicle prices on fleet turnover, and changes in exposure to risks associated with motor vehicle travel due to changes in VMT because of the standards, which are associated in this case primarily with changes due to the rebound effect. NHTSA examines how the proposed standards could impact fatalities, non-fatal injuries, and property damage from crashes for both vehicle occupants and non-occupants (
Table V-9 and Table V-10 show the following trends relevant to inform NHTSA's standard-setting decision. First, effects from mass changes are expected to increase incrementally compared to the No-Action Alternative, as less MR is expected to be applied in the heaviest vehicles in response to lower standards, negating some of what would otherwise result in a lessening of mass disparity between the smallest and largest vehicles in the fleet. Appropriate caveats about the safety module's confidence with regards to projecting results are discussed in Draft TSD Chapter 7 and PRIA Chapter 8 and warrant discussion here as well. While the mass-safety parameters estimated from the statistical models used in the CAFE analysis are statistically indistinguishable from zero, the point estimates are in expected directions based on the agency's own safety studies and other outside studies, which helps support the agency's conclusions about the general levels of effects between the No-Action Alternative standards and the alternatives. In addition, to the extent vehicle manufacturers can adopt updated approaches to their product offerings better in line with market demand, once the proposed reclassification diminishes manufacturers' incentives to add features to place passenger-oriented vehicles in the light truck regulatory class (with its lower fuel economy standards), there may be additional lessening of the mass disparity between vehicles, and consequently the associated effects, in the light-duty fleet.
Next, NHTSA acknowledges that, as has been the case for the past several rulemakings, the magnitude of the rebound effect on vehicle safety dominates the overall safety picture across the three alternatives. For this rulemaking, the projected decrease in VMT under the reset standards leads to a significant projected decrease in fatalities, injuries, and property damage only (PDO) crashes.
Finally, regarding safety, NHTSA estimates an increase in safety effects in the action alternatives compared to the No-Action Alternative as newer, safer vehicles enter the fleet more quickly than they would have in the No-Action Alternative because of reduced vehicle prices. As vehicles become safer, many crashes that would otherwise result in death or injury do not result in such harms, leading to an increase in PDO crashes and the related sales/scrappage cost estimates but a decrease in the more severe types of crashes and an overall safety benefit for the proposal in terms of lives saved and injuries avoided.
To conclude, NHTSA's safety analysis reinforces that the reset standards (and all regulatory alternatives considered) would improve safety outcomes relative to the No-Action Alternative. While the magnitude of positive benefits may be small in terms of measurability with NHTSA's current modeling capabilities, the directionality is consistent with what NHTSA's research shows: getting Americans into newer, safer vehicles is beneficial for safety.
In the past decade, the consumer costs (via fuel prices), national balance of payments, and foreign policy implications of the need for large quantities of petroleum in the United States, especially imported petroleum, have shaped the consideration of this factor in ways that Congress could not have foreseen in the 1970s when EPCA was originally passed. As NHTSA acknowledged in the 2020 final rule, there are two approaches to increasing petroleum independence: the first is simply to use less petroleum, and the second is for the United States to produce more of its own petroleum and to use less petroleum purchased from abroad. The United States has recently excelled at the second approach; our Nation became a net exporter of petroleum on an annual basis in 2020 (and on a monthly basis for the first time in September 2019) for the first time since at least 1949 and continued to export more petroleum than it imported in 2021, 2022, and 2023.
NHTSA's quantitative analysis of energy security benefits estimates that the level of standards the agency is proposing as maximum feasible to change the costs of petroleum market externalities only modestly relative to the No-Action Alternative. Specifically, the largest incremental change in energy security externalities is approximately 1.3 percent of the total petroleum market externality costs in the No-Action Alternative.
At the same time, even though fuel economy standards have increased dramatically over the past 15 years, fuel use has not decreased appreciably. Since the agency began setting fuel economy standards in the early 2010s that increased at significant rates, motor gasoline consumption in the United States has hovered in the realm of the upper 8 million to low 9 million barrels per day (with a brief decrease in 2020 to just 8 million barrels per day).
Whether CAFE standards remain the most effective way to accomplish the goal of using less gasoline in the light-duty motor vehicle fleet to increase energy security is a decision for Congress, but for now, EPCA's directive to NHTSA is to set CAFE standards in each model year, and that is what the agency will continue to do. Within this framework, however, accounting for particular realities—specifically that oil consumption in the United States has remained steady or increased even in the face of significantly increased fuel economy standards while the country has simultaneously become a net petroleum exporter and the world's largest oil producer—leads the agency to conclude tentatively that the weight of these three facets of the need of the United States to conserve energy do not lead the agency to consider higher CAFE standards as maximum feasible.
Regarding environmental concerns, another factor historically considered as part of the need of the United States to conserve energy, the proposed reset standards decrease vehicle costs compared to the baseline, which results in incrementally more vehicle sales, particularly of vehicles that are modestly less fuel efficient compared to vehicles under the baseline standards. This would result in a modest increase in fuel consumption but also results in less driving demand than the baseline because the total cost-per-mile of driving is higher. The net result of these countervailing factors—increased vehicle sales of less fuel-efficient vehicles but subsequently fewer miles driven in those vehicles due to decreased rebound driving—is more fuel consumed from vehicles regulated under the proposed reset standards compared to the baseline standards. Emissions of various pollutants would increase relative to the No-Action Alternative as a result of both increased upstream emissions from the various fuel production processes and increased downstream emissions from fuel combustion as vehicles are driven commensurate with the fuel consumption increases. However, in the context of total emissions compared to the baseline, the incremental increases would be marginal. In addition, non-criteria emissions (NCEs) in all three action alternatives decrease over time, as newer vehicles enter the fleet. Criteria pollutant emissions similarly increase relative to the No-Action Alternative, but all three action alternatives result in decreased criteria pollutant emissions over time. PRIA Chapter 8 provides additional detail on the changes in emissions and, for criteria emissions specifically, associated calculated health outcomes. NHTSA's NEPA analysis similarly shows only marginal differences between the baseline and alternatives considered in this proposal. The results of that analysis are summarized below and in the Draft SEIS.
NHTSA does not believe that the magnitude of fuel consumption and emission increases over the baseline would lead the agency to conclude that standards set at higher levels than the agency analyzed are maximum feasible. The fact that the agency's proposed reset standards are so significantly different than the baseline standards and yet result in only marginal increases in fuel consumption as shown in Table V-11 (and associated emissions metrics, as shown in PRIA Chapter 8 and the Draft SEIS) confirms NHTSA's tentative conclusion that the environmental elements of the need of the Nation to conserve energy do not weigh heavily enough against the countervailing factors of technological feasibility and economic practicability to merit the adoption of more stringent standards. The following table shows the difference between the baseline and alternatives for changes in fuel consumption for the gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicle fleet; emissions outcomes are generally commensurate with these levels and are discussed further in PRIA Chapter 8 and the Draft SEIS.
Regardless of the level of standards that NHTSA tentatively concludes is maximum feasible in this proposal, light-duty vehicle fuel consumption is still forecast to decline substantially in the long run as shown above in Table V-11, both as a result of NHTSA's standards and fleet turnover. The environmental effects related to fuel consumption, both because of NHTSA's standards and other light-duty transportation trends, will decrease proportionally based on effect or pollutant. NHTSA has accordingly determined that, at the time of this proposed rule, the need of the United States to conserve energy weighs in favor of fuel economy standards' acting as an insurance policy against risk, with standards that increase at steady, incremental, manageable rates for the light-duty gasoline- and diesel-powered fleets following their reset to align more closely with EPCA.
In sum, NHTSA has tentatively determined that a proper consideration of “the need of the United States to conserve energy” should result in fuel economy standards that become
Finally, as discussed above, NHTSA considers estimated net benefits as relevant to determining maximum feasible CAFE standards. The agency's analysis shows that all three regulatory alternatives would result in positive net benefits at both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, with the Preferred Alternative, Alternative 2, resulting in $24.0 billion in estimated net benefits using a 3-percent discount rate and $22.2 billion in net benefits using a 7-percent discount rate.
Balancing all factors and issues identified above, NHTSA is proposing to increase fuel economy standards from the newly proposed MY 2022 standards at a rate of 0.5 percent per year through MY 2026 followed by 0.25 percent per year through the remainder of the 10 model years covered by this proposal. NHTSA's preliminary conclusion is that this decision to increase the stringency of the standards at annual rates achievable by gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, coupled with a re-examination of the shape of the fuel economy target functions and the vehicle classification definitions, best comports with the substantive textual requirements of EPCA. Moreover, the level, shape, and applicability of the standards to the passenger and non-passenger automobile fleets, as reclassified under this proposal, is justified by the extraordinary distortions the existing regulations have caused in the marketplace. Imposing such market distortions is inconsistent with a proper application of EPCA and results only in unnecessary regulatory burden without insulating the United States from major disruptions in the global oil market. Consistent with the discussion above, NHTSA believes that small, steady, incremental increases in fuel economy standards over time, while preserving the ability of manufacturers to focus on
NHTSA described above that the agency's NEPA-related obligation is to “take a `hard look' at the environmental consequences” of an action, as appropriate.
Per DOT Order 5610.1D, NHTSA considers a “no action” alternative in its NEPA analyses and presents the environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, in comparative form.
Reasonably foreseeable energy impacts from the Proposed Action include changes in vehicle fuel consumption. All three action alternatives would increase fuel consumption compared to the No-Action Alternative,
The relationship between CAFE standards and criteria pollutant and air toxics emissions is less straightforward than the relationship between CAFE standards and energy use, because the criteria pollutant and air toxics relationship reflects the complex interactions among many factors. In general, emissions of criteria air pollutants decrease with increasing stringency. However, the analysis shows that the action alternatives would result in different levels of emissions when measured against projected trends under the No-Action Alternative. These reductions and increases in emissions would vary by pollutant, calendar year, and action alternative. The differences in national emissions of criteria air pollutants among the action alternatives compared to the No-Action Alternative would range from less than 1 percent to about 4 percent. Adverse health outcomes from criteria pollutant emissions are expected to increase nationwide in 2035 and 2050 under all action alternatives relative to the No-Action Alternative. This is due primarily to increases in downstream emissions, particularly of PM
Toxic air pollutant emissions would remain the same or increase in 2035 and 2050 for all action alternatives relative to the No-Action Alternative. The increases stay the same or get larger from Alternatives 1 and 2 to Alternative 3 for acetaldehyde (in 2050), acrolein (in 2035 and 2050), 1,3-butadiene (in 2035 and 2050), and formaldehyde (in 2050), but get smaller for acetaldehyde (in 2035), benzene (in 2035 and 2050), DPM (in 2035 and 2050), and formaldehyde (in 2035). The largest relative increases in emissions generally would occur for formaldehyde for which emissions would increase by as much as 3.8 percent under Alternatives 1 and 2 in 2050 compared to the No-Action Alternative. Percentage increases in emissions of acetaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and DPM would be less. The smaller increases are not expected to lead to measurable changes in concentrations of toxic air pollutants in the ambient air. For such small changes, the impacts of those action alternatives would be essentially equivalent. The larger increases in emissions could lead to changes in ambient pollutant concentrations.
Overall changes in health effects due to air pollution are expected to be consistent with any resulting emissions trends. Higher emissions would be expected to lead to an overall increase in adverse health effects while lower emissions would be expected to lead to a decrease in adverse health effects. The changes in health effects due to changes in emissions also are dependent on geographic population distribution, meteorological and topographical conditions, and people's proximity to roadways and upstream facilities.
The Proposed Action and alternatives would result in slight increases in CO
In cases where quantitative impacts assessment was not possible, NHTSA presented the findings of a literature review of scientific studies for
The SEIS is one factor in NHTSA's decision-making process to set CAFE standards. NHTSA evaluated the range of reasonable alternatives in the Draft SEIS, along with other factors during the rulemaking process and tentatively determined that Alternative 2 is the Preferred Alternative because it is maximum feasible. NHTSA is informed by the Draft SEIS in arriving at its conclusion that Alternative 2 is maximum feasible.
For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA believes that its authority to propose and implement CAFE standards for the MYs 2022-2026 and 2027-2031 is well-supported in law and practice and should be upheld in any legal challenge. NHTSA also believes that its exercise of authority reflects sound policy.
However, in the event that any portion of the proposed rule is declared invalid, NHTSA intends that the various aspects of the proposal be severable and, specifically, that each set of proposed standards, for MYs 2022-2026 and MYs 2027-2031, is severable, as well as the various compliance proposals discussed in the following section of this preamble. The proposed standards for MYs 2027-2031 could be implemented independently if any of the other proposed standards were struck down, and NHTSA firmly believes that it would be in the best interests of the Nation for the standards to be applicable to support EPCA's overarching purpose of energy conservation. Each proposed standard is justified independently on both legal and policy grounds and could be implemented effectively by NHTSA.
NHTSA is proposing changes to its CAFE enforcement program for light-duty automobiles. These changes include: (1) modifying the criteria for classification as a non-passenger automobile; (2) removing credit trading from the CAFE program beginning with MY 2028; (3) removing references to EPA's regulations regarding manufacturers' ability to generate AC efficiency and OC FCIVs; (4) modifying manufacturer reporting requirements; and (5) making other technical amendments. To provide context for these changes, Section VI.A first provides an overview of NHTSA's CAFE enforcement program. Section VI.B then discusses and explains the proposed changes to the CAFE program.
NHTSA's CAFE enforcement program is largely established by EPCA, as amended by EISA, and is prescriptive regarding enforcement. EPCA and EISA also establish a number of flexibilities and incentives that are available to manufacturers to help them comply with the CAFE standards. The statute also authorizes NHTSA to establish, at its discretion, additional flexibilities by regulation. The light-duty CAFE program includes all vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds or less as well as vehicles between 8,501 and 10,000 pounds that are classified as medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs).
In general,
At the end of each model year, EPA determines the fleet average fuel economy performance for the individual fleets as determined by procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 600. NHTSA then confirms whether a manufacturer's fleet average fuel economy performance for each of its compliance categories of light-duty vehicles meets the applicable target-based fleet standard. NHTSA makes its final determination of whether a manufacturer has met its CAFE compliance obligation based on official reported and verified CAFE data received from EPA. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32904(e), EPA is responsible for calculating manufacturers' CAFE values so that NHTSA can determine compliance with its CAFE standards. A manufacturer's final model year report must be submitted to EPA no later than May 1st following the end of the model year.
If one of a manufacturer's compliance categories fails to meet its fuel economy standard, NHTSA will provide written notification to the manufacturer that it has not met the standard. The written notification will also include the shortfall amount for each compliance category, which is calculated using the following equation: (Fuel Economy Achieved−Fuel Economy Standard) × 10 × Production Volume. To determine the civil penalty amount, NHTSA multiplies the total shortfall (in credits) by the applicable civil penalty rate.
Consistent with the overall reset of the CAFE program discussed earlier in Section V, NHTSA is proposing two changes intended to align NHTSA's regulations with EPCA in a manner that will better effectuate the statutory purpose of the CAFE program. First, NHTSA is proposing to amend the criteria for classification as a non-passenger automobile to align NHTSA's regulations with the best reading of the statue.
NHTSA is proposing to amend the criteria for non-passenger automobiles. This proposal is informed by an examination of how NHTSA's vehicle classification criteria in 49 CFR part 523,
This is not the first time NHTSA has examined this issue. In its 2010 and 2012 final rules, NHTSA considered amending its vehicle classification regulations but ultimately decided to monitor and revisit them in future rulemakings.
The starting point of NHTSA's analysis was a recognition of the market shift from passenger automobiles to non-passenger automobiles (as currently classified) in the light-duty vehicle market. In 1975, non-passenger automobiles represented 19.3 percent of the light-duty automobile market,
Leading up to the 2010 and 2012 final rules there was no clear year-over-year trend in the share of each fleet, but the fleet composition has since steadily and sharply continued the long-term trend towards non-passenger automobiles. As discussed in Draft TSD Chapter 1, multiple factors likely have contributed to this trend, including, of particular relevance, NHTSA's vehicle classification criteria. Based on its new analysis, NHTSA believes that the criteria it uses to delineate between the fleets need to be changed to ensure that the classification of the fleets meets the intent by Congress when it enacted EPCA. These changes and the processes by which they were evaluated are described in detail in the subsequent paragraphs and sections.
To assess how the current criteria in section 523.5 of NHTSA's regulations align with the statutory definitions and intent, NHTSA conducted an analysis beginning with the compiled classification data from manufacturers' MY 2024 mid-model year fuel economy compliance reports.
Based on this analysis, NHTSA is proposing to amend the criteria for non-passenger automobiles to align with the best reading of the statute. These changes are discussed in detail in the following sections.
EPCA requires NHTSA to set separate maximum feasible standards for “passenger automobiles” and “non-
The third pathway for classification as a non-passenger automobile includes automobiles “capable of off-highway operation” that NHTSA decides by regulation: (1) “has a significant feature (except 4-wheel drive) designed for off-highway operation” and (2) “is a 4-wheel drive automobile or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.”
First, beginning in MY 2028, NHTSA proposes to eliminate axle clearance as a characteristic used to define a vehicle with high ground clearance, which is currently set 2 centimeters below the running clearance threshold. The objective of high ground clearance as an off-highway feature is to describe automobiles capable of off-highway operation. The axle configuration most impacted by the axle clearance characteristic is the solid axle, where the differential must be housed and vertically centered along a linear path between the center of the wheels on either side of the axle. In contrast, independent axles can vertically center the differential gears above the same linear path, effectively making running clearance the only constraining vertical measurement. Solid axles excel in off-highway operation at the expense of on-highway ride quality. NHTSA finds that creating an additional clearance characteristic that typically applies only to this axle type does not align with the statutory intent that the significant feature would indicate off-highway capability, and the agency therefore proposes to remove it.
Second, also beginning with MY 2028, NHTSA proposes that vehicles classified as non-passenger automobiles under the off-highway criteria meet the given thresholds for all four of the remaining characteristics that comprise the high ground clearance feature. NHTSA is not proposing to change the thresholds themselves, and they would thus remain the same. Using the MY 2024 fleet classification data, NHTSA determined the manufacturing volumes of vehicles that qualified as non-passenger automobiles based on the vehicle's having a high ground clearance, as determined by meeting at least four of the five factors, as well as the angle and clearance values of each of those vehicles. Of particular importance was determining the subset of vehicles that met both the GVWR or 4WD off-highway criteria described in 49 CFR 523.5(b)(1) and exactly four of the five existing off-highway criteria described in 49 CFR 523.5(b)(2). NHTSA found that within this subset of current off-highway classified automobiles:
• 98.9 percent do not meet the approach angle minimum threshold of 28 degrees.
• The remaining 1.1 percent of vehicles are from a single nameplate.
• 66.2 percent have an approach angle of less than the required departure angle of 20 degrees.
After reviewing this data, NHTSA took a closer look at why so few vehicles in this category meet the approach angle requirement and whether this vehicle feature is necessary for off-highway operation. The vehicle attributes outlined in 49 CFR 523.5(b)(2) include approach angle, breakover angle, departure angle, and running clearance, which work together to define what NHTSA believes represents a vehicle designed with an off-highway capability intent, without having to define the off-highway environment explicitly. The approach angle attribute is of particular importance because it is the first feature of a vehicle to engage
As part of its evaluation of the criteria for off-highway capability, NHTSA also investigated the statute's “4-wheel drive” off-highway feature, specifically with regard to the differences between 4WD (4x4) and AWD drivetrains. Currently, 4WD and AWD technologies are both considered to meet the 4WD statutory directive in regulation.
A passenger automobile is defined, in part, as an automobile that is “manufactured primarily for transporting not more than 10 individuals.”
Under this interpretation, NHTSA created five different criteria of functional performance, any one of which would qualify the vehicle as a non-passenger automobile. The first, and most obvious type, is an automobile designed for transporting more than 10 individuals.
After conducting an analysis of the fleet and vehicle characteristics, NHTSA no longer believes that the criteria in
As referenced above, automobiles with at least three rows of designated seating positions as standard equipment qualify as non-passenger automobiles under section 523.5(a)(5) if the removal or stowing of foldable seats creates a flat, leveled cargo surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. The original version of this provision in the 1977 final rule was for automobiles that had removable seats, such that the automobile permits expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes. In explaining the rationale for creating the criteria, the 1977 preamble stated:
[I]t is not the convertibility factor alone which results in passenger vans being classified as non-passenger automobiles. It is that factor together with the derivative nature of those vans . . . . [S]ince a passenger van is designed with the same chassis, springs, and suspension system as a cargo van, it is treated in the same way as a cargo van.
When 49 CFR 523.5(a)(5) was applied to the original CAFE reference fleet, it achieved its intended objective of identifying those derivative vehicles, where purchasers could have instead opted for a “cargo” version of that vehicle. However, unlike the other regulations in section 523.5(a), the regulation at 523.5(a)(5) does not directly describe a chief non-passenger characteristic, but rather a passenger-based design feature that does not reveal, describe, or quantify a chief non-passenger characteristic when applied to the current automobile fleet. The automobile fleet of the late 1970s was fundamentally different from the automobile fleet being manufactured and sold today as there are no “cargo van” derivatives “designed with the same chassis, springs, and suspension system” in the present-day light-duty fleet. The regulatory text at 523.5(a)(5) applied to the late-1970s fleets accommodated the derivative vehicles as they existed at the time, but that same regulatory text applied to today's fleet misaligns with the statutory intent and text. Meeting the criterion in section 523.5(a)(5) is simply not enough to indicate that the automobile is not “manufactured primarily” for carrying passengers. In fact, the presence of at least three rows of designated seating positions indicates the opposite, as having three rows of designated seating positions is a significant feature indicating that a primary purpose of that automobile is for carrying numerous passengers. Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to remove 49 CFR 523.5(a)(5) as a non-passenger classification criterion beginning with MY 2028.
With the proposal to remove the expanded use criterion for vehicles with three or more rows of seating, NHTSA recognizes that some automobiles that have significant functional characteristics for the transportation of property would be classified as passenger automobiles unless NHTSA were to make further amendments to the criteria in section 523.5. To address this, NHTSA is proposing a new criterion for classification as a non-passenger automobile, beginning in MY 2028. While the criterion NHTSA is proposing to remove for vehicles with three or more rows of seating is based primarily on a passenger-carrying design element (three rows of seats), NHTSA is proposing a new non-passenger automobile pathway that can be described independent of vehicle construction, platform, equipment, materials, or passenger-based metrics (such as rated cargo load
NHTSA developed an analysis fleet specifically for the LDWF analysis, referred to as the LDWF analysis fleet. Beginning with the full MY 2024 non-passenger fleet, NHTSA created the LDWF analysis fleet by removing vehicles that qualified as non-passenger automobiles via any of the following pathways:
• Transport more than 10 persons.
• Provide temporary living quarters.
• Transport property on an open bed.
• Provide, as sold to the first retail purchaser, greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume.
• Has either 4WD or a GVWR of more than 6000 lbs., and meets all four of the following criteria:
The agency opted to omit vehicles that qualified via these alternative non-passenger pathways due to their designs' containing other non-passenger characteristics or off-highway features that could skew the results of an analysis intended to evaluate whether a vehicle was designed chiefly for enhanced property-transporting utility. The remaining vehicles were subject to the LDWF analysis to evaluate an appropriate formula and threshold for the work factor.
In performing the fleet analysis to determine at what threshold of LDWF a vehicle would qualify as a non-
NHTSA is proposing to calculate LDWF as the weighted sum of a vehicle's payload and towing capacities and is proposing a minimum threshold for this non-passenger criterion based on extensive analysis. In determining appropriate weighting for payload and towing capacity in the LDWF calculation, NHTSA is considering the vehicle design considerations and property-transporting capabilities of payload capacity versus towing capacity. Designing for a higher payload capacity includes considerations for axle, frame, suspension, wheel, and tire capacities. These higher capacity components add weight to the vehicle and, when combined with the additional payload capacity, may require only modest enhancements to the powertrain and driveline to maintain performance and utility characteristics. In contrast, designing for a higher towing capacity includes considerations for pulling, including frame reinforcements to resist trailer forces acting opposite the direction of motion, increases to powertrain torque and power, and reinforcing driveline components to handle the additional torque. There is also a modest consideration for payload increases when considering increases to towing capacity due to a trailer's tongue weight.
In connection with the proposed addition of the LDWF, NHTSA is proposing to update its definition of curb weight and add two additional definitions for “nominal tank capacity” and “optional equipment” which would be used in determining curb weight. NHTSA is changing the definition of curb weight and defining the additional terms to provide clarity regarding how NHTSA would test a vehicle to determine whether it meets the LDWF or off-road criteria for non-passenger automobiles. The update to the curb weight definition is intended to ensure that every vehicle a manufacturer reports as a non-passenger automobile meets the criteria as configured at the time of first retail purchase (
Under EPCA, as amended by EISA, manufacturers are afforded several compliance flexibilities that can be used to achieve compliance with CAFE standards. While some of these flexibilities are provided to manufacturers by statute, such as the ability to carry forward and backward credits earned from over-complying with a CAFE standard in a given model year, others are provided by regulations issued at NHTSA's discretion. Credit trading among manufacturers is one flexibility that the statute authorizes but does not mandate. Credit trading refers to the ability of manufacturers or persons to sell credits to, or purchase credits from, another manufacturer. EISA gave NHTSA discretion to establish by regulation a CAFE credit trading program to allow credits to be traded between vehicle manufacturers.
NHTSA has observed, in recent years, that credit trading increasingly has been used by manufacturers of ICE vehicles to purchase credits from manufacturers of alternative fueled vehicles. As fuel economy standards increase, manufacturers generally look for the most cost-effective means of compliance. As standards increased to levels unattainable for ICE vehicles, credit trading has become an increasingly more attractive means of satisfying CAFE requirements. This situation is due, in part, to EV manufacturers' earning credits that are not representative of real-world fuel savings. The fuel economy values for EVs have been artificially high, resulting from the multiplier in the PEF
NHTSA is proposing to end credit trading by MY 2028, with MY 2027 being the last year in which manufacturers can use traded credits for CAFE compliance. Because NHTSA, as required by statute, is proposing standards in this rulemaking without considering alternative fueled vehicles or the use of compliance credits, NHTSA believes that manufacturers of ICE vehicles will be able to meet CAFE standards without credit trading, thus minimizing any impacts that this would have on manufacturers' decisions about what vehicles and technologies to offer in the marketplace. As shown in Section IV.B.1 Effects on Vehicle Manufacturers, NHTSA's standard-setting analysis indicates that manufacturers at both the individual fleet level and total fleet level exceed the standards year over year from MY 2028 to MY 2031. This demonstrates that NHTSA's proposed CAFE standards are achievable with ICE technologies without consideration of the factors NHTSA is prohibited from considering pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32902(h), namely, alternative fueled vehicles and the availability of credits. The inputs for the compliance simulations that inform NHTSA's standard-setting analysis are discussed further in Section II.C.2. In addition, while NHTSA's analysis indicates that manufacturers will be able to meet the proposed standards by applying a diverse set of technologies available in the market now, manufacturers will continue to be able to transfer credits between their own fleets, subject to the 2-mpg statutory limit on how much a manufacturer can improve a fleet's average fuel economy using transferred credits.
The agency recognizes that manufacturers have made investments in fuel-saving technologies, which they have factored into their future design and compliance plans. Or, instead of investing in potential technology application, NHTSA recognizes that manufacturers may have reliance interests in the credit trading program to fulfill their current CAFE compliance obligations. However, NHTSA believes that its proposal to end credit trading within the CAFE program by MY 2028 provides manufacturers adequate transition time before trading ends. NHTSA has also proposed standards in this notice that explicitly do not account for manufacturers' use of credits to comply with standards. These adjustments to the fuel economy standards also should limit any potential impacts manufacturers will experience because of NHTSA's proposed programmatic changes. NHTSA seeks comment on this proposal, including on its assumptions about manufacturers' compliance pathways exclusive of credit trading as an compliance option. NHTSA also seeks comment on the extent to which the presence of credits changed manufacturer compliance behavior, and on the value of credits now that the civil penalty rate has been updated by law.
In its 2012 final rule, NHTSA issued regulations to align with EPA's provisions that allowed manufacturers to generate FCIVs for the adoption of AC efficiency and OC technologies beginning in MY 2017. EPA established the AC efficiency and OC programs to account for technologies that are not fully captured in the 2-cycle test procedures (FTP and HFET) that EPA uses to measure fuel economy for the CAFE program. Under EPA's provisions, FCIVs generated by manufacturers are factored into each manufacturer's calculation of its average fuel economy for purposes of CAFE compliance. As explained in Section II, NHTSA is now proposing to remove FCIVs from its standard-setting analysis starting in MY 2028. NHTSA is making this change to ensure that it sets maximum feasible standards that are achievable without consideration of technology-specific standards. Upon examination of NHTSA's existing regulations, NHTSA has identified technical changes to remove references to EPA regulations pertaining to AC efficiency and OC FCIVs.
AC efficiency technologies are technologies that reduce the operation of or the loads on the vehicle engine by reducing AC usage. For example, the less frequently the AC compressor operates or the more efficiently it operates, the less load the AC compressor places on the engine, resulting in better fuel efficiency. AC efficiency technologies can include, but are not limited to, blower motor controls, internal heat exchangers, and improved condensers/evaporators. OC technologies are technologies that also reduce the operation of ICE engines, but they cover other areas of vehicle operation. Examples of OC technologies include thermal control technologies, high-efficiency alternators, and high-efficiency exterior lighting.
Under EPA's current regulations, manufacturers are eligible to earn AC efficiency and OC FCIVs for all types of automobiles equipped with those technologies in their fleet through MY 2026. Starting in MY 2027, only automobiles powered by ICEs are eligible to generate FCIVs, and the OC FCIV program is currently being phased out between MYs 2031-2033, with manufacturers no longer being able to generate OC FCIVs for MY 2033 and beyond.
NHTSA is proposing to remove the references to EPA's regulations regarding FCIVs from 49 CFR 531.6 and 49 CFR 533.6 because such references are unnecessary and create a potential for confusion. As noted above, fuel economy is calculated pursuant to testing and calculation procedures prescribed by EPA. Accordingly, NHTSA is proposing to remove the references to EPA regulations.
In support of the proposed modifications to vehicle classification, including the new light-duty work factor (LDWF), NHTSA is proposing to make gross combined weight rating (GCWR) a required reporting element for all non-passenger automobiles in the pre-model year and mid-model year reports beginning in MY 2028. GCWR is the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a combination vehicle. Currently, GCWR is one option that manufacturers may use to support a vehicle's classification as a full-sized pickup. NHTSA is proposing to require GCWR due in part to the proposed introduction of the LDWF, as GCWR information would be needed to determine whether an automobile qualifies as a non-passenger automobile under the LDWF criteria. NHTSA is also proposing to require GCWR for all non-passenger automobiles because it will allow NHTSA to understand fleet characteristics better, as non-passenger automobiles may qualify under multiple criteria. NHTSA is proposing that this
NHTSA is also proposing to remove 49 CFR 523.5(a)(5) and 49 CFR 523.5(b)(2)(v) beginning with MY 2028. Additional details regarding their removal can be found in Section VI.B.1.b and in Draft TSD Chapter 2.7. Due to these changes, starting in MY 2028 manufacturers will no longer be required to provide information related to these two regulations, which are described in 49 CFR 537.7(c)(5), paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(E) and (c)(5)(ii)(D), respectively.
NHTSA is proposing to make certain technical amendments through this rulemaking, which include amendments removing residual mentions of fuel efficiency standards for trailers; technical amendments removing reference to civil penalties for non-compliance with fuel economy standards; removing provisions applicable only to model years before MY 2022; and technical amendments correcting regulatory citations and incorporating minor spelling, grammatical, and formatting edits to 49 CFR parts 523, 531, 533, 536, and 537. NHTSA has included in the docket redline text highlighting all of the proposed changes to the regulations. Instructions for accessing the docket can be found in Section VII Public Participation.
In November 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia “vacate[d] all portions of the [2016 joint NHTSA and EPA] rule that apply to trailers.”
On March 15, 2024, NHTSA published the final rule titled “Improvements for Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Test Procedures, and Other Technical Amendments.” (89 FR 18808). In that final rule, NHTSA removed portions of its regulations that were vacated by that decision. While that final rule removed all the fuel efficiency standards for trailers and most of the mentions of those standards from its regulations, a residual mention of those standards remains in NHTSA's vehicle classification regulations at 49 CFR 523.10(a)(3). NHTSA is proposing to amend 49 CFR 523.10(a)(3) by deleting the sentence that mentions fuel efficiency standards for trailers.
On June 24, 2024, NHTSA published the final rule titled “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks for Model Years 2027 and Beyond and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Pickup Trucks and Vans for Model Years 2030 and Beyond.” (89 FR 52540, June 24, 2024). In Section VII.C.8.e of that final rule,
NHTSA is proposing to remove the mention of civil penalty payments for manufacturers that do not meet their fuel economy standards in the CAFE program from 49 CFR part 536. These amendments are to remove the mention of civil penalties from 49 CFR 536.5(d)(2) and (6), § 536.9(e), § 536.10(b); and to remove § 536.7(b) through (d).
NHTSA is proposing to incorporate minor technical amendments to 49 CFR parts 523, 531, 533, 536, and 537. These amendments are to correct regulatory citations and incorporate minor spelling, grammatical, and formatting edits. Specifically, NHTSA is proposing to incorporate the following technical amendments.
NHTSA is proposing to add and remove text, correct spelling errors, and incorporate other grammatical edits to clarify several definitions, including
NHTSA is proposing to correct regulatory citations in § 531.5(b), (c), and (e) and Table 14 to § 531.5(e)(10); to correct capitalization errors in § 531.5(a) through (c) and Table 16 to § 531.5(e)(12); to correct spelling errors in Table 8 to § 531.5(e)(4), Table 11 to § 531.5(e)(7), Table 12 to § 531.5(e)(8), Table 13 to § 531.5(e)(9), Table 14 to § 531.5(e)(10), Table 15 to § 531.5(e)(11), Table 16 to § 531.5(e)(12), Table 21 to § 531.5(e)(17), Table 22 to § 531.5(e)(18), Table 23 to § 531.5(e)(19), and Table 24 to § 531.5(e)(20); to add clarifying text to § 531.5(c); to incorporate other grammatical edits in Table 8 to § 531.5(e)(4), Table 16 to § 531.5(e)(12), Table 19 to § 531.5(e)(15), Table 20 to § 531.5(e)(16), Table 21 to § 531.5(e)(17), Table 22 to § 531.5(e)(18), Table 23 to § 531.5(e)(19), and Table 24 to § 531.5(e)(20); and to incorporate grammatical edits in § 531.6(b)(4)(ii)(C).
NHTSA is proposing to correct formatting errors in the text supporting Figure 1 to § 533.5; to correct capitalization errors in § 533.5(j); and to incorporate a grammatical edit in § 533.6(c)(5)(ii)(C).
NHTSA is proposing to change the title of a section in Part 536 Introductory Text; to remove text and to correct terminology to clarify a provision in § 536.1; to remove text to clarify a provision in § 536.2; to add text to
NHTSA is proposing to correct a spelling error in § 537.4(b)(3) and a regulatory citation in § 537.7(c)(7)(i).
NHTSA requests comments on all aspects of this NPRM. This section describes how you can participate in this process.
Your comments must be written and in English.
When submitting comments, please remember to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Regulation Identifier Number (RIN),
• Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information either or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the
If you submit your comments to NHTSA's docket by mail and wish DOT Docket Management to notify you upon receipt of your comments, please enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit your complete submission, including the information you claim to be CBI, to NHTSA's Office of the Chief Counsel. When you send a comment containing CBI, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our CBI regulation.
NHTSA is currently treating electronic submission as an acceptable method for submitting CBI to NHTSA under 49 CFR part 512. Any CBI submissions sent via email should be sent to an attorney in the Office of the Chief Counsel at the address given above under
NHTSA will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
If a comment is received too late for NHTSA to practicably consider in developing a proposed rule, NHTSA will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
You may read the materials placed in the dockets for this document (
NHTSA will hold one virtual public hearing during the public comment period. NHTSA will announce the
NHTSA will conduct the hearing informally, and technical rules of evidence will not apply. NHTSA will arrange for a written transcript of the hearing to be posted in the dockets as soon as it is available and keep the official record of the hearing open for 30 days following the hearing to allow you to submit supplementary information.
The Draft EIS associated with this proposal has a unique public docket number and is available at Docket No. NHTSA-2025-0491. Comments on the Draft EIS can be submitted electronically at
E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), provides for determining whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review process and to the requirements of the Executive order. This action is a “significant regulatory action” under Section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, NHTSA submitted this action to OMB for review and any changes made in response to interagency feedback submitted via the OMB review process have been documented in the docket for this action. The estimated benefits and costs of this proposed rule are described above and in the PRIA, located in the docket and on NHTSA's website.
E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025) requires an agency, unless prohibited by law, to identify at least ten existing regulatory requirements to be repealed when the agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new significant regulatory rule. Section 3(c) of E.O. 14192 also requires that the total incremental costs associated with an agency's proposed new regulations must, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of costs associated with other previous regulations of the agency. This proposed rule, if finalized as proposed, is expected to be an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action and thus is not expected to generate net new incremental costs. The estimated cost savings of this proposal are detailed in the PRIA.
E.O. 14219, “Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's `Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative” (90 FR 10583, Feb. 19, 2025) requires agency heads to review their regulations and identify regulations that, among other things, are based on anything other than the best reading of the underlying statutory authority or prohibition or that implicate matters of social, political, or economic significance that are not authorized by clear statutory authority. NHTSA has identified its CAFE standards issued in 2022 and 2024 as falling within an enumerated category of E.O. 14219. Specifically, as described in an interpretive rule published on June 11, 2025, NHTSA determined that the CAFE standards issued in 2022 and 2024 are not authorized by clear statutory authority. NHTSA is issuing this proposed rule to reset the CAFE standards and bring the CAFE program into compliance with relevant statutory requirements. NHTSA discusses compliance with relevant statutory requirements in Section V above.
To inform its development of the CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2031, and pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321
NHTSA has considered the information contained in the Draft SEIS as part of developing this proposed rule. As explained in NHTSA's June 2025 interpretive rule, NHTSA “must not consider the fuel economy of dedicated automobiles; must consider dual-fueled automobiles to be operated only on gasoline or diesel fuel; and must not consider, when prescribing a fuel economy standard, the trading, transferring, or availability of credits under [49 U.S.C. 32903]”;
The Draft SEIS is available for public comment; instructions for the submission of comments are included within the document. Afterward, NHTSA will simultaneously issue the Final SEIS and Record of Decision (ROD), pursuant to Section 14 of DOT Order 5610.D, unless NHTSA determines the statutory criteria or practicability considerations preclude simultaneous issuance. For additional information on NHTSA's NEPA analysis, please see the Draft SEIS.
CAA (42 U.S.C. 7401
The air quality of a geographic region is usually assessed by comparing the levels of criteria air pollutants found in the ambient air to the levels established by the NAAQS (also considering the other elements of a NAAQS: averaging time, form, and indicator). Concentrations of criteria pollutants within the air mass of a region are measured in parts of a pollutant per million parts (ppm) of air or in micrograms of a pollutant per cubic meter (μg/m
When the measured concentrations of a criteria pollutant within a geographic region are below those permitted by the NAAQS, EPA designates the region as an attainment area for that pollutant, while regions where concentrations of criteria pollutants exceed Federal standards are called nonattainment areas. Former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance with the NAAQS are designated as maintenance areas. Each state with a nonattainment area is required to develop and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) documenting how the region will reach attainment levels within the time periods specified in the CAA. For maintenance areas, the SIP must document how the state intends to maintain compliance with the NAAQS. EPA develops a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if a state fails to submit an approvable plan for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS. When EPA revises a NAAQS, each state must revise its SIP to address how it plans to attain the new standard.
No Federal agency may “engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve” any activity that does not “conform” to a SIP or FIP after EPA has approved or promulgated it.
(1) The Transportation Conformity Rule
(2) The General Conformity Rule
The proposed CAFE standards and associated program activities are not developed, funded, or approved under 23 U.S.C. or 49 U.S.C. chapter 53. Accordingly, this proposed action and associated program activities would not be subject to transportation conformity. Under the General Conformity Rule, a conformity determination is required where a Federal action would result in total direct and indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or precursor in a nonattainment or maintenance areas equaling or exceeding the rates specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) and (2). As explained below, NHTSA's proposed action would not result in direct or indirect emissions as defined in 40 CFR 93.152.
The General Conformity Rule defines direct emissions as “those emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors that are caused or initiated by the Federal action and originate in a nonattainment or maintenance area and occur at the same time and place as the action and are reasonably foreseeable.”
Indirect emissions under the General Conformity Rule are “those emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors: (1) [t]hat are caused or initiated by the Federal action and originate in the same nonattainment or maintenance area but occur at a different time or place as the action; (2) [t]hat are reasonably foreseeable; (3) [t]hat the agency can practically control; and (4) [f]or which the agency has continuing program responsibility.”
EPCA requires NHTSA to set fleetwide average fuel economy standards for the CAFE program using performance-based standards. NHTSA is not authorized to dictate how manufacturers are to comply with the standards, nor may NHTSA require manufacturers to use specific technologies to achieve improved fuel economy in their fleets. Furthermore, NHTSA cannot control consumer purchasing or driving behavior, both of which can have a considerable effect on vehicle emissions of criteria pollutants. It is the combination of factors outside NHTSA's control, such as manufacturers' decisions to apply fuel economy technologies and consumers' purchasing and driving behaviors, which determine the aggregate levels of criteria pollutant and precursor emissions. For purposes of analyzing the environmental impacts of the alternatives considered under NEPA, NHTSA has necessarily made assumptions regarding all of these factors.
In addition, NHTSA does not have the statutory authority or practical ability to control the actual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by drivers. As the extent of emissions is directly dependent on the operation of motor vehicles, changes in any emissions that would result from NHTSA's proposed CAFE standards are not changes NHTSA can practically control or for which NHTSA has continuing program responsibility. Therefore, the proposed CAFE standards and alternative standards considered by NHTSA would not cause indirect emissions under the General Conformity Rule, and a general conformity determination is not required.
Under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies must ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of any federally listed threatened or endangered species (collectively, “listed species”) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the designated critical habitat of these species.
The Services have previously provided legal and technical guidance about whether CO
Subsequent to the publication of that appendix, a court vacated the Polar Bear Special Rule on NEPA grounds, though it upheld the ESA analysis as having a rational basis.
Pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, NHTSA considered the effects of the proposed CAFE standards and reviewed applicable ESA regulations, case law, and guidance to determine what, if any, impact there might be to listed species or designated critical habitat. Based on this assessment, the agency has determined that the action of setting CAFE standards does not require consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA and has concluded the agency's review of this action under Section 7 of the ESA.
NHTSA conducted brief qualitative reviews of the impacts of action alternatives on potentially affected resources, including those related to the statutory requirements and orders listed below, in the Draft SEIS, and determined that setting CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks is not the type of activity to have impacts on such resource categories:
• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA);
• Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA);
• Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA);
• Floodplain Management (E.O. 11988 and DOT Order 5650.2);
• Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands (E.O. 11990 and DOT Order 5660.1a);
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), E.O. 13186; and
• Department of Transportation Act (Section 4(f)).
This action is subject to E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997). Pursuant to E.O. 13045, NHTSA must prepare an evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects of the planned action on children and an explanation of why the planned action is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by NHTSA. Further, this analysis may be included as part of any other required analysis.
While environmental and health effects associated with criteria pollutant and toxic air pollutant emissions vary over time and across alternatives, negative effects, when estimated, are extremely small. This preamble and the Draft SEIS discuss air quality, climate, and their related environmental and health effects. In addition, Section V of this preamble explains why NHTSA believes the proposed CAFE standards are preferable to other alternatives considered. Together, this preamble and Draft SEIS satisfy NHTSA's responsibilities under E.O. 13045.
E.O. 14154, “Unleashing American Energy” (90 FR 8353, Jan. 29, 2025), announced the administration's policy regarding energy resources, specifically to promote the production, distribution, and use of reliable domestic energy supplies, including oil, natural gas, and biofuels; to ensure that all regulatory requirements related to energy are “grounded in clearly applicable law”; and “to eliminate the `electric vehicle (EV) mandate' and promote true consumer choice”
This proposed rule follows the direction of E.O. 14154 to ensure that all analysis related to energy is grounded in clearly applicable law and that only the relevant legislated requirements for environmental considerations and any considerations beyond these requirements are eliminated from the assessment of maximum feasible standards and the Draft SEIS.
E.O. 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (90 FR 8633, Jan. 31, 2025), removed “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) principles from mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, and requirements. This Executive order revoked E.O. 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, Feb. 11, 1994), which directed Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the NHTSA Administrator certifies this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA's statement providing the factual basis for this certification pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b) follows.
Small businesses are defined based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.
NHTSA
E.O. 13132, “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 1999), requires Federal agencies to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” The Executive order defines the term “[p]olicies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under the Executive order, agencies may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, which imposes substantial direct compliance costs, unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the state and local governments, or the agencies consult with state and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed rule.
NHTSA has determined that this proposed rule does not implicate E.O. 13132, because it neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state, local, or tribal governments, nor does it preempt state law. Thus, this proposed rule does not implicate the consultation procedures that E.O. 13132 imposes on agency regulations that would either preempt state law or impose substantial direct compliance costs on state, local, or tribal governments, because the only entities subject to this proposed rule are vehicle manufacturers.
NHTSA is not taking any action regarding preemption in this proposed rule, as this rule's purpose is to propose amended CAFE standards. Nothing in EPCA or EISA provides that NHTSA must make a determination or pronouncement on preemption.
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996), requires that executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with these requirements.
NHTSA has examined this proposed rule to reset the CAFE standards applicable to MYs 2022-2026 and MYs 2027-2031 and determined that it meets the requirements of the Executive order. In particular, the issue of preemption is discussed above and the agency's assessment of the rule's effect on prior model years is discussed in Section V. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, Nov. 9, 2000). This proposed rule would be implemented at the Federal level and would directly impact only vehicle manufacturers. Thus, E.O. 13175, which requires consultation with tribal officials when agencies are developing policies that have “substantial direct effects” on tribes and tribal interests, does not apply to this proposed rule.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any 1 year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Adjusting this amount by the implicit GDP price deflator for 2024 results with $187 million (125.23/66.939 = 1.87).
This proposed rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, of more than $187 million annually, but it will result in cost savings exceeding that amount for vehicle manufacturers and their suppliers. In developing this proposed rule, NHTSA considered a range of alternative fuel economy standards. As explained in detail in Section V of the preamble above, NHTSA concludes its selected alternatives are the maximum feasible alternatives that achieve the objectives of this proposed rule, as required by EPCA/EISA.
DOT assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document may be used to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards are defined by the NTTAA as “performance-based or design-specific technical specification and related management systems practices.” They pertain to “products and processes, such as the size, strength, or technical performance of a product, process, or material.”
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials, International, the SAE, and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, it is required by the act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of reasons for not using such standards. There are currently no consensus standards that NHTSA administers relevant to these proposed CAFE standards.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32902(j)(2), NHTSA submitted this proposed rule to DOE for review. That agency did not make any comments that NHTSA did not address.
Under the procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The following table provides a summary of each of the information collections in the ICR.
The two largest information collections for the pre-model year and mid-model year reports each have an estimated 25 respondents per year. These respondents are the vehicle manufacturers that manufacture automobiles subject to the CAFE standards in 49 CFR parts 531 and 533 and they must report pursuant to 49 CFR part 537. For the remaining collections, the number of respondents varies each year, as the information is collected on an as-needed basis from the 25 respondents each year, except for the small volume petitions. NHTSA estimates that, on average, three small volume manufacturers will petition NHTSA for alternative standards in each
The pre-model year and mid-model year reports are both annual reports. However, the other collections are submitted when needed and are generally based on compliance obligations arising in particular circumstances.
NHTSA estimates that there will be an average of 25 responses for the pre-model year and mid-model year reporting requirements. For the other collections, the number of responses varies and NHTSA has provided annualized averages for each collection in Table VIII-4 below.
The total number of burden hours associated with this collection is estimated to be 4,576 hours. The average number of respondents and responses estimated for each submission type is based on a 3-year average from MY 2026 through MY 2028. Certain reporting elements will be discontinued starting in MY 2028, which is reflected in the 3-year average.
An average of 25 automobile manufacturers submitted CAFE pre-model year and mid-model year reports over MYs 2017-2025 under 49 CFR part 537. Manufacturers use engineers, managers, legal, and clerical staff to prepare and submit CAFE reports to NHTSA. All manufacturers use electronic database systems to produce CAFE reports, and manufacturers can use those databases to export the compliance data required by Part 537. The template has been updated since the last rulemaking based on feedback from manufacturers on functionality. The burden hours associated with producing CAFE reports primarily involve engineers and managers reviewing the output of these database systems. NHTSA estimates that each pre-model year and mid-model year report takes each manufacturer approximately 51 hours. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that manufacturers spend a total of 1,275 hours (25 respondents × 51 hours) each year producing pre-model year reports and 1,275 hours (25 respondents × 51 hours) each year producing the required mid-model year CAFE reports.
Manufacturers may also be required to submit supplementary reports if the information in their mid-model year report needs to be corrected. NHTSA receives on average three supplementary reports from manufacturers each year requesting to make corrections to previously submitted reports. These revisions account for 93 (3 respondents × 31 hours) additional burden hours.
Starting with the 2017 compliance model year, manufacturers began incurring additional burden hours for incorporating information regarding AC technologies, OC technologies, and advanced technology that is applied to full-sized pickup trucks into pre-model year and mid-model year reports. However, this reporting burden will cease when these incentives are no longer applicable, which end in MY 2024 for advanced technology that is applied to full-sized pickup trucks and in MY 2026 for AC and OC technologies. This results in a reduction in burden for submitting pre-model year and mid-model year reports.
Manufacturers may also be required occasionally to submit existing production information (
On average, three small volume manufacturers submit petitions for alternative standards to NHTSA each year. These petitions are seeking relief from complying with conventional CAFE standards. These small volume manufacturers primarily include exotic sports car manufacturers (
Very few manufacturers incur burden each year in submitting documents to NHTSA for corporate relationship changes. On average, only one manufacturer each model year submits documents to NHTSA for corporate relationship changes. The burden hours associated with this activity primarily involve attorneys preparing documents. Minimal amounts of burden hours are necessary for engineers and managers to review documents and for clerical staff to submit them to NHTSA. The estimated total industry burden will be 19 annual hours (1 respondent × 19 hours) for preparing and submitting information on corporate relationship changes to NHTSA.
Nearly all vehicle manufacturers will incur burden hours in managing their CAFE credit accounts each year. Credit management is a significant activity for vehicle manufacturers that are addressing a current credit shortfall or are preparing to avoid one in the future. Manufacturers manage their credit accounts using engineers, managers, and attorneys to prepare documents and then clerical staff to submit credit allocation plans, credit transaction instructions and trade documents to NHTSA. Manufacturers submit credit transaction instructions to NHTSA at various times throughout the model year when transferring credit trades from one manufacturer to another or when submitting a credit allocation plan to NHTSA because of a credit shortfall. On average, based upon compliance data for MYs 2017-2025, NHTSA receives 25 credit transaction instructions from vehicle manufacturers each model year. There are an additional 11 credit shortfalls/credit allocation plans submitted each year. There are an additional 17 credit trades with accompanying credit trades documents, which have been reduced due to credit trades no longer being applicable starting in MY 2028. Both credit allocation plans and credit transaction requests have their labor hour burdens slightly reduced due to credit trades no longer being applicable starting in MY 2028. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that manufacturers will spend a total of approximately 374 hours for credit trade documents each year (17 respondents × 22 hours), 297 hours for credit allocation plans (11 respondents × 27 hours), and 250 hours for credit transaction requests (25 respondents × 10 hours).
NHTSA rarely receives carryback plans. A temporary increase in respondents for carryback plans occurred only for MYs 2019-2021, maintaining the average at approximately one respondent per year. NHTSA estimates that on average 27 hours (1 respondent × 27 hours) will be incurred by any manufacturer preparing a credit carryback plans each year.
NHTSA requires all manufacturers engaging in trades to report credit cost information, so that NHTSA can determine the monetary and non-monetary values of credit trades. Manufacturers are required to submit this information every time they fill out a credit trade contract per 49 CFR 536.5(c)(5). In the 2021 NPRM, NHTSA had proposed a Credit Value Reporting Template to ease the process of reporting credit cost information. In response to comments, NHTSA decided to hold off on requiring the Credit Value Reporting Template. Credit cost information is still required in the format that manufacturers choose to submit to meet the requirements of this section, and the hourly burden remains the same even without a Credit Value Reporting Template. NHTSA currently receives an average of 25 credit trade contracts annually, but the average will drop off due to the removal of credit trading starting in MY 2028, resulting in an estimated average of 17 respondents. Therefore, the total burden hours for submitting credit value information in conjunction with credit trade contracts is estimated to be 374 hours (17 reports × 22 hours). The total combined hours for the industry to manage their credit accounts is estimated to be 1,322 hours annually (374 hours + 297 hours + 250 hours + 27 hours + 374 hours).
Table VIII-4 provides a summary of the annual burden hours for each of the 11 information collections.
The estimated total annual labor hour cost associated with 4,576 burden hours for CAFE reporting is $437,468.62. The cost is based upon the estimated burden hours and current average labor rates for engineers, managers, attorneys, and clerical staff to prepare and send CAFE information to NHTSA. Table VIII-4 provides the breakdown of the associated costs based upon individual hourly mean wage estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for 2024 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics,
BLS estimates that the hourly mean wage for Engineers (Engineer) (BLS Occupation code 17-2199) in the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry is $54.54. BLS estimates that the hourly mean wage for Administrative Services Managers (Manager) (BLS Occupation code 11-3012) in the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry is $69.75. BLS estimates that the hourly mean wage for Lawyers (Legal) (BLS Occupation code 23-1011) in the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry is $117.96. BLS estimates that the hourly mean wage for Other Office and Administrative Support Workers (Clerical) (BLS Occupation code 43-9000) in the Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Industry is $30.34.
In addition to base hourly wages, respondents also incur costs associated with employee compensation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that private industry workers' wages represent 70.3 percent of total labor compensation costs.
NHTSA estimates there are no costs to respondents or record keepers other
Please submit any comments, identified by the docket number in the heading of this document, by the methods described in the
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule can be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking at
Fuel economy.
Energy conservation, Fuel economy, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Fuel economy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR parts 523, 531, 533, 536, and 537 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 32901; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
This part establishes categories of vehicles subject to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, 15 U.S.C. 2001
As used in this part:
(1) For passenger automobiles, non-passenger automobiles, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, emergency vehicle has the meaning given in 49 U.S.C. 32902(e).
(2) For heavy-duty vehicles, emergency vehicle has the meaning given in 40 CFR 1037.801.
(1) Is an “incomplete truck,” meaning any truck that does not have the primary load carrying device or container attached; or
(2) Has a seating capacity of more than 12 persons; or
(3) Is designed for more than 9 persons in seating rearward of the driver's seat; or
(4) Is equipped with an open cargo area (for example, a pick-up truck box or bed) of 72.0 inches in interior length or more. A covered box not readily accessible from the passenger compartment will be considered an open cargo area for purposes of this definition. (See paragraph (1) of the definition of
(1) For front seat volume, divide 1,728 into the product of the following SAE dimensions, measured in inches to the nearest 0.1 inches, and round the quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
(i) H61-Effective head room—front.
(ii) W3-Shoulder room—front.
(iii) L34-Maximum effective leg room-accelerator.
(2) For the volume of seats to the rear of the front seat, divide 1,728 into the product of the following SAE dimensions, measured in inches to the nearest 0.1 inches, and rounded the quotient to the nearest 0.001 cubic feet.
(i) H63-Effective head room—second.
(ii) W4-Shoulder room—second.
(iii) L51-Minimum effective leg room—second.
An automobile is any 4-wheeled vehicle propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel, manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and highways and rated at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, except:
(a) A vehicle operated only on a rail line;
(b) A vehicle manufactured in different stages by 2 or more manufacturers, if no intermediate or final-stage manufacturer of that vehicle manufactures more than 10,000 multi-stage vehicles per year; or
(c) A work truck.
A passenger automobile is any automobile (other than an automobile capable of off-highway operation) manufactured primarily for use in the transportation of not more than 10 individuals. A medium-duty passenger vehicle that does not meet the criteria for non-passenger motor vehicles in § 523.5 is a passenger automobile.
A non-passenger automobile means an automobile that is not a work truck and possesses one or more of the characteristics described in paragraph (a) of this section or meets the off-highway features described in paragraph (b) of this section. A medium-duty passenger vehicle that meets the criteria in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section is a non-passenger automobile.
(a) An automobile not manufactured primarily for transporting 10 or fewer individuals, determined by the presence of at least one of the following chief characteristics:
(1) Transports more than 10 individuals;
(2) Provides temporary living quarters, as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter;
(3) Transports property on an open bed;
(4) Provides, as sold to the first retail purchaser, greater cargo-carrying than passenger-carrying volume, such as in a cargo van; if a vehicle is sold with two or more rows of seating, its cargo-carrying volume is determined with those seats installed, regardless of whether the manufacturer has described that seat as optional; or
(5) Permits expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other non-passenger-carrying purposes through:
(i) For automobiles manufactured in model year 2022 through model year 2027, for vehicles equipped with at least 3 rows of designated seating positions as standard equipment, permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other non-passenger-carrying purposes through the removal or stowing of foldable or pivoting seats so as to create a flat, leveled cargo surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.
(ii) [Reserved]
(6) For automobiles manufactured in model year 2028 and beyond, as sold to the first retail purchaser, has a light-duty work factor (LDWF) value greater than or equal to 5500, calculated according to Figure 1 to this paragraph (a).
(b) An automobile capable of off-highway operation, as indicated by the presence of the significant features contained in this paragraph (b):
(1) (i) Has 4-wheel drive; or
(ii) Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
(2) For automobiles manufactured through model year 2027, has at least four of the following high ground clearance feature characteristics measured when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure—
(i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.
(ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.
(iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.
(iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.
(v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each.
(3) For automobiles manufactured in model year 2028 and beyond, has all four of the following high ground clearance feature characteristics measured when the automobile is at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended pressure—
(i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.
(ii) Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.
(iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.
(iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.
(a) A heavy-duty vehicle is any commercial medium- or heavy-duty on-highway vehicle or a work truck, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(7) and (19). For the purpose of this section, heavy-duty vehicles are divided into three regulatory categories as follows:
(1) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans;
(2) Heavy-duty vocational vehicles; and
(3) Truck tractors with a GVWR above 26,000 pounds.
(b) The heavy-duty vehicle classification does not include vehicles excluded as specified in 49 CFR 535.3.
(a) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans are pickup trucks and vans with a gross vehicle weight rating between 8,501 pounds and 14,000 pounds (Class 2b through 3 vehicles) manufactured as complete vehicles by a single or final-stage manufacturer or manufactured as incomplete vehicles as designated by a manufacturer. See references in 40 CFR 86.1801-12, 40 CFR 86.1819-17, 40 CFR 1037.150, and 49 CFR 535.5(a).
(b) Heavy duty vehicles above 14,000 pounds GVWR may be optionally certified as heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans and comply with fuel consumption standards in 49 CFR 535.5(a), if properly included in a test group with similar vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR. Fuel consumption standards apply to these vehicles as if they were Class 3 heavy-duty vehicles. The work factor for these vehicles may not be greater than the largest work factor that applies for vehicles in the test group that are at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR (see 40 CFR 86.1819-14).
(c) Incomplete heavy-duty vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR may be optionally certified as heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans and comply with the fuel consumption standards in 49 CFR 535.5(a).
Heavy-duty vocational vehicles are vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 8,500 pounds excluding:
(a) Heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans defined in § 523.7;
(b) Medium-duty passenger vehicles; and
(c) Truck tractors, except vocational tractors, with a GVWR above 26,000 pounds.
Truck tractors for the purpose of this part are considered as any truck tractor as defined in 49 CFR part 571 having a GVWR above 26,000 pounds.
(a) A trailer means a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying cargo and for being drawn by another motor vehicle as defined in 49 CFR 571.3. For the purpose of this part, heavy-duty trailers include only those trailers designed to be drawn by a truck tractor excluding non-box trailers other than flatbed trailers, tanker trailers, and container chassis, and those that are coupled to vehicles exclusively by pintle hooks or hitches instead of a fifth wheel. Heavy-duty trailers may be divided into different types and categories as follows:
(1) Box vans are trailers with enclosed cargo space that is permanently attached to the chassis, with fixed sides, nose, and roof. Tank trailers are not box vans.
(2) Box vans with front-mounted HVAC systems are refrigerated vans. Note that this includes systems that provide cooling, heating, or both. All other box vans are dry vans.
(3) Trailers that are not box vans are non-box trailers.
(4) Box vans with a length greater than 50 feet are long box vans. Other box vans are short box vans.
(5) The following types of equipment are not trailers:
(i) Containers that are not permanently mounted on chassis.
(ii) Dollies used to connect tandem trailers.
(iii) Equipment that serves similar purposes but are not intended to be pulled by a tractor.
(b) Heavy-duty trailers do not include trailers excluded in 49 CFR 535.3.
49 U.S.C. 32902, delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
This part establishes average fuel economy standards pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32902 for passenger automobiles.
The purpose of this part is to increase the fuel economy of passenger automobiles by establishing minimum levels of average fuel economy for those vehicles.
This part applies to manufacturers of passenger automobiles.
(a)
(2) The terms
(b)
(1) The term
(2) [Reserved]
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, for model years 2022 through 2031, a manufacturer's passenger automobile fleet shall comply with the fleet average fuel economy level calculated for that model year according to Figure 1 to this paragraph (a) and the appropriate values in Table 1 to this paragraph (a).
(b) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, each manufacturer, other than manufacturers subject to standards in paragraph (c) of this section, shall also meet the minimum fleet standard for domestically manufactured passenger automobiles expressed in Table 2 to this paragraph (b):
(c) The following manufacturers shall comply with the standards indicated in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section for the specified model years:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The fleet average fuel economy performance of all passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States for a model year shall be determined in accordance with procedures established by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under 49 U.S.C. 32904 and set forth in 40 CFR part 600.
Assume a hypothetical manufacturer (Manufacturer X) produces a fleet of passenger automobiles as follows:
49 U.S.C. 32902; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
This part establishes average fuel economy standards pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32902 for non-passenger automobiles.
The purpose of this part is to increase the fuel economy of non-passenger automobiles by establishing minimum levels of average fuel economy for those vehicles.
This part applies to manufacturers of non-passenger automobiles.
(a)
(2) The term
(b)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(a) Each manufacturer of non-passenger automobiles shall comply with the following fleet average fuel economy standards, expressed in miles per gallon, in the model year (MY) specified as applicable:
(1) For model years 2022-2031, a manufacturer's non-passenger automobile fleet shall comply with the fleet average fuel economy standard calculated for that model year according to Figures 1 and 2 to this paragraph (a) and the appropriate values in Table 1 to this paragraph (a).
(2) [Reserved]
(b) [Reserved]
(a) Any reference to a class of non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States in a model year shall be deemed—
(1) To include all non-passenger automobiles in that class manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer;
(2) To include only automobiles that qualify as non-passenger vehicles in accordance with § 523.5 of this chapter; and
(3) To exclude all non-passenger automobiles in that class manufactured (within the meaning of paragraph (a)(1) of this section) during a model year by such manufacturer that are exported prior to the expiration of 30 days following the end of such model year.
(b) The fleet average fuel economy performance of all non-passenger automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States in a model year shall be determined in accordance with procedures established by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under 49 U.S.C. 32904 and set forth in 40 CFR part 600.
Assume a hypothetical manufacturer (Manufacturer X) produces a fleet of non-passenger automobiles as follows:
49 U.S.C. 32903; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
This part establishes regulations governing the use and application of corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) credits up to three model years before and five model years after the model year in which the credit was earned. It also specifies requirements for manufacturers wishing to transfer fuel economy credits between their compliance categories. It also establishes regulations that allow manufacturers and other persons to trade fuel economy credits through model year 2027.
This part applies to all credits earned for exceeding applicable average fuel economy standards in a given model year for domestically manufactured passenger automobiles, imported passenger automobiles, and non-passenger automobiles.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) The average fuel economy of the vehicles in that category exceed or meet the fuel economy standard for that category; or
(ii) The average fuel economy of the vehicles in that category do not meet the fuel economy standard for that category, but the manufacturer proffers a sufficient number of valid credits, adjusted for total oil savings, to cover the gap between the average fuel economy of the vehicles in that category and the required average fuel economy. A manufacturer achieves compliance for its fleet if the conditions in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section or this paragraph (b)(4)(ii) are simultaneously met for all compliance categories.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) A designated recipient must provide name, address, contact information, and a valid taxpayer identification number or Social Security number;
(2) NHTSA does not grant a request to open a new account by any party other than a party designated as a recipient of credits by a credit holder; and
(3) NHTSA maintains accounts with zero balances for a period of time, but reserves the right to close accounts that have had zero balances for more than 1 year.
(c)
(i) The credit holder(s) involved in the transaction.
(ii) The originating credits described by the amount of the credits, compliance category, and the vintage of the credits.
(iii) The recipient credit account(s) for banking or applying the originating credits described by the compliance category(ies), model year(s), and if applicable the adjusted credit amount(s) and adjustment factor(s).
(iv) For trades, a contract authorizing the trade signed by the manufacturers or credit holders or by managers legally authorized to obligate the sale and purchase of the traded credits.
(2) Upon receipt of a credit instruction from an existing credit holder, NHTSA verifies the presence of sufficient credits in the account(s) of the credit holder(s) involved as applicable and notifies the credit holder(s) that the credits will be debited from and/or credited to the accounts involved, as specified in the credit instruction. NHTSA determines if the credits can be debited or credited based upon the amount of available credits, accurate application of any adjustment factors and the credit requirements prescribed by this part that are applicable at the time the transaction is requested.
(3) After notifying the credit holder(s), all accounts involved are either credited or debited, as appropriate, in line with the credit instruction. Traded credits identified by a specific compliance category are deposited into the recipient's account in that same compliance category and model year. If a recipient of credits as identified in a credit instruction is not a current account holder, NHTSA establishes the credit recipient's account, subject to the conditions described in paragraph (b) of this section, and adds the credits to the newly opened account.
(4) NHTSA will automatically delete unused credits from holders' accounts when those credits reach their expiry date.
(5) Starting January 1, 2022, all parties trading credits must also provide NHTSA the price paid for the credits including a description of any other monetary or non-monetary terms affecting the price of the traded credits, such as any technology exchanged or shared in exchange for the credits, any other non-monetary payment for the credits, or any other agreements related to the trade.
(6) Starting September 1, 2022, manufacturers or credit holders issuing credit instructions or providing credit allocation plans as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, must use and submit the NHTSA Credit Template fillable form (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1475). In the case of a trade, manufacturers or credit holders buying traded credits must use the credit transactions template to submit trade instructions to NHTSA. Manufacturers or credit holders selling credits are not required to submit trade instructions. The NHTSA Credit Template must be signed by managers legally authorized to obligate the sale and/or purchase of the traded credits from both parties to the trade. The NHTSA Credit Template signed by both parties to the trade serves as an acknowledgement that the parties have agreed to trade a certain amount of credits, and does not dictate terms, conditions, or other business obligations of the parties.
(7) NHTSA will consider claims that information submitted to the agency under this section is entitled to confidential treatment under 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and under the provisions of part 512 of this chapter if the information is submitted in accordance with the procedures of part 512. The NHTSA Credit Template is available for download on the CAFE Public Information Center website. Manufacturers must submit the cost information to NHTSA in a PDF document along with the Credit Template through the CAFE email,
(d)
(2) If a manufacturer's vehicles in a particular compliance category have below standard fuel economy, NHTSA will provide written notification to the manufacturer that it has failed to meet a particular fleet target standard. The manufacturer will be required to confirm the shortfall and may also submit a plan indicating how it will allocate existing credits or earn, transfer and/or acquire credits to achieve compliance. If the manufacturer submits a plan, the plan must be submitted within 60 days of receiving agency notification.
(3) Credits used to offset shortfalls are subject to the three- and five-year limitations as described in § 536.6.
(4) Transferred credits are subject to the limitations specified by 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3) and this part.
(5) The value, when used for compliance, of any credits received via trade or transfer is adjusted, using the adjustment factor described in § 536.4(c), pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32903(f)(1).
(6) Credit allocation plans received from a manufacturer will be reviewed and approved by NHTSA. Starting in model year 2022, credit holders must use the NHTSA Credit Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Forms 1475) to record the credit transactions. The template is a fillable form that has an option for recording and calculating credit transactions for credit allocation plans. The template calculates the required adjustments to the credits. The credit allocation plan and the completed transaction templates must be submitted to NHTSA. NHTSA will approve the credit allocation plan unless it finds that the proposed credits are unavailable or that it is unlikely that the plan will result in the manufacturer earning sufficient credits to offset the subject credit shortfall. If the plan is approved, NHTSA will revise the respective manufacturer's credit account accordingly. If the plan is rejected, NHTSA will notify the respective manufacturer and may request a revised plan.
(e)
(2) NHTSA issues an annual credit status letter to each party that is a credit holder at that time. The letter to a credit holder includes a credit accounting record that identifies the credit status of the credit holder including any activity
(a)
(1) Credits earned in a compliance category may be applied by the manufacturer that earned them to carryback plans for that compliance category approved up to three years prior to the year in which the credits were earned, or may be held or applied for up to five model years after the year in which the credits were earned.
(2) [Reserved]
(b)
(1) Credits earned in a compliance category in model years 2022 through 2027 may be transferred or traded in accordance with all applicable provisions under this part.
(2) Credits earned in a compliance category in model year 2028 and beyond may be transferred in accordance with all applicable provisions under this part. Credits earned in a compliance category in model year 2028 and beyond may not be traded.
(a) Carryback credits earned in a compliance category in any model year may be used in carryback plans approved by NHTSA, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32903(b), for up to three model years prior to the year in which the credit was earned.
(b) No credits from any source (earned, transferred, and/or traded) will be accepted in lieu of compliance if those credits are not identified as originating within one of the three model years after the model year of the confirmed shortfall.
(a)
(b)
(1) Manufacturers may use credits originally earned by another manufacturer in a particular compliance category to satisfy compliance obligations within the same compliance category.
(2) Once a manufacturer acquires by trade credits originally earned by another manufacturer in a particular compliance category, the manufacturer may transfer the credits to satisfy its compliance obligations in a different compliance category, but only to the extent that the CAFE increase attributable to the transferred credits does not exceed the limits in 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(3). For any compliance category, the sum of a manufacturer's transferred credits earned by that manufacturer and transferred credits obtained by that manufacturer through trade must not exceed that limit.
(c)
(1) In general, if two manufacturers merge in any way, they must inform NHTSA how they plan to merge their credit accounts. NHTSA will subsequently assess corporate fuel economy and compliance status of the merged fleet instead of the original separate fleets.
(2) If a manufacturer divides or divests itself of a portion of its automobile manufacturing business, it must inform NHTSA how it plans to divide the manufacturer's credit holdings into two or more accounts. NHTSA will subsequently distribute holdings as directed by the manufacturer, subject to provision for reasonably anticipated compliance obligations.
(3) If a manufacturer is a successor to another manufacturer's business, it must inform NHTSA how it plans to allocate credits and resolve liabilities per part 534 of this chapter.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a) Each manufacturer is responsible for compliance with both the minimum standard and the attribute-based standard set out in the chapter.
(b) In any particular model year, the domestically manufactured passenger automobile compliance category credit excess or shortfall is determined by comparing the actual CAFE value against either the required standard value or the minimum standard value, whichever is larger.
(c) Transferred or traded credits may not be used, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32903(g)(4) and (f)(2), to meet the domestically manufactured passenger automobile minimum standard specified in 49 U.S.C. 32902(b)(4) and in 49 CFR 531.5(b).
(d) If a manufacturer's average fuel economy level for domestically manufactured passenger automobiles is lower than the attribute-based standard, but higher than the minimum standard, then the manufacturer may achieve compliance with the attribute-based standard by applying credits.
(e) If a manufacturer's average fuel economy level for domestically manufactured passenger automobiles is lower than the minimum standard, then the difference between the minimum standard and the manufacturer's actual fuel economy level may only be relieved by the use of credits earned by that manufacturer within the domestic passenger automobile compliance category that have not been transferred or traded. If the manufacturer does not have available earned credits to offset a credit shortage below the minimum standard, then the manufacturer can submit a carry-back plan that indicates sufficient future credits will be earned in its domestic passenger automobile compliance category.
(a) The fuel economy of alternative fueled and dual fueled automobiles is calculated pursuant to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 600.510-12 and included as part of EPA's calculation of a manufacturer's fleet average fuel economy for the model year and compliance category to which the alternative fueled or dual fueled automobile belongs, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 32905 and limited by 49 U.S.C. 32906.
(b) If a manufacturer's calculated fuel economy for a particular compliance category, including any alternative fueled and dual fueled automobiles, is higher or lower than the applicable fuel economy standard, manufacturers will earn credits or must apply credits equal to the difference between the calculated fuel economy level in that compliance category and the applicable standard. Credits earned are the same as any other credits, and may be held, transferred, or traded by the manufacturer subject to the limitations of the statute and this part.
49 U.S.C. 32907; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
This part establishes requirements for automobile manufacturers to submit reports to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding their efforts to improve automotive fuel economy.
The purpose of this part is to obtain information to aid the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in evaluating automobile manufacturers' plans for complying with average fuel economy standards and in preparing an annual review of the average fuel economy standards.
This part applies to automobile manufacturers, except for manufacturers subject to an alternate fuel economy standard under 49 U.S.C. 32902(d).
(a)
(2) The term
(3) The terms
(4) The terms
(b)
(2) The terms
(3) The terms
(4) The term
(5) As used in this part, unless otherwise required by the context:
(i)
(ii)
(A) In the case of a pre-model year report, the full model year immediately following the period during which that report is required by § 537.5(b) to be submitted.
(B) In the case of a mid-model year report, the model year during which that report is required by § 537.5(b) to be submitted.
(iii)
(iv)
(a) For each current model year, each manufacturer shall submit a pre-model year report, a mid-model year report, and, as required by § 537.8, supplementary reports.
(b)(1) The pre-model year report required by this part for each current model year must be submitted during the month of December (
(2) The mid-model year report required by this part for each current model year must be submitted during the month of July (
(3) Each supplementary report must be submitted in accordance with § 537.8(c).
(c) Each report required by this part must:
(1) Identify the report as a pre-model year report, mid-model year report, or supplementary report as appropriate;
(2) Identify the manufacturer submitting the report;
(3) State the full name, title, and address of the official responsible for preparing the report;
(4) Be submitted electronically to
(5) Identify the current model year;
(6) Be written in the English language; and
(7) (i) Specify any part of the information or data in the report that the manufacturer believes should be withheld from public disclosure as trade secret or other confidential business information.
(ii) With respect to each item of information or data requested by the manufacturer to be withheld under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and 15 U.S.C. 2005(d)(1), the manufacturer shall:
(A) Show that the item is within the scope of sections 552(b)(4) and 2005(d)(1);
(B) Show that disclosure of the item would result in significant competitive damage;
(C) Specify the period during which the item must be withheld to avoid that damage; and
(D) Show that earlier disclosure would result in that damage.
(d) Beginning with model year 2023, each manufacturer shall generate reports required by this part using the NHTSA CAFE Projections Reporting Template (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474). The template is a fillable form.
(1) Manufacturers must select the option to identify the report as a pre-model year report, mid-model year report, or supplementary report as appropriate.
(2) Manufacturers must complete all required information for the manufacturer and for all vehicles produced for the current model year required to comply with corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. The manufacturer must identify the manufacturer submitting the report, including the full name, title, and address of the official responsible for preparing the report and a point of contact to answer questions concerning the report.
(3) Manufacturers must use the template to generate confidential and non-confidential reports for each of the compliance fleets (
(4) Manufacturers must submit confidential reports and requests for confidentiality to NHTSA on CD-ROM in accordance with § 537.12. Email copies of non-confidential (
(5) Manufacturers can withhold information on projected production sales volumes under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) and 15 U.S.C. 2005(d)(1). In accordance, the manufacturer must:
(i) Show that the item is within the scope of sections 552(b)(4) and 2005(d)(1);
(ii) Show that disclosure of the item would result in significant competitive damage;
(iii) Specify the period during which the item must be withheld to avoid that damage; and
(iv) Show that earlier disclosure would result in that damage.
(e) Each report required by this part must be based upon all information and data available to the manufacturer 30 days before the report is submitted to the Administrator.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(2) Manufacturers must provide a report with the information required by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section for each non-passenger automobile fleet, as specified in part 533 of this chapter, for the current model year.
(3) For model year 2023 and later, for passenger automobiles specified in part 531 and non-passenger automobiles specified in part 533 of this chapter, manufacturers must provide the information for pre-model and mid-model year reports in accordance with the NHTSA CAFE Projections Reporting Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474). The required reporting template can be downloaded from NHTSA's website.
(i) Manufacturers are only required to provide the actual information on vehicles and technologies in production at the time the pre- and mid-model year reports are required. Otherwise, manufacturers must provide reasonable estimates or updated estimates where possible for pre-and mid-model year reports.
(ii) Manufacturers should attempt not to omit data, which should only be the
(b)
(1) Manufacturers must state the projected average fuel economy for the manufacturer's automobiles determined in accordance with § 537.9 and based upon the fuel economy values and projected sales figures provided under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) Manufacturers must state the projected final average fuel economy that the manufacturer anticipates having if changes implemented during the model year will cause that average to be different from the average fuel economy projected under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) Manufacturers must state the projected required fuel economy for the manufacturer's passenger automobiles and non-passenger automobiles determined in accordance with §§ 531.5(a) and 533.5 of this chapter and based upon the projected sales figures provided under paragraph (c)(2) of this section. For each unique model type and footprint combination of the manufacturer's automobiles, the manufacturer must provide the information specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section in tabular form. The manufacturer must list the model types in order of increasing average inertia weight from top to bottom down the left side of the table and list the information categories in the order specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section from left to right across the top of the table. Other formats, such as those accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which contain all the information in a readily identifiable format, are also acceptable. For model year 2023 and later, for each unique model type and footprint combination of the manufacturer's automobiles, the manufacturer must provide the information specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section in accordance with the CAFE Projections Reporting Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474).
(i) In the case of passenger automobiles, manufacturers must report the following:
(A) Beginning model year 2013, base tire as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter;
(B) Beginning model year 2013, front axle, rear axle, and average track width as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter;
(C) Beginning model year 2013, wheelbase as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter;
(D) Beginning model year 2013, footprint as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter; and
(E) The fuel economy target value for each unique model type and footprint entry listed in accordance with the equation provided in part 531 of this chapter.
(ii) In the case of non-passenger automobiles, manufacturers must report the following:
(A) Beginning model year 2013, base tire as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter;
(B) Beginning model year 2013, front axle, rear axle, and average track width as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter;
(C) Beginning model year 2013, wheelbase as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter;
(D) Beginning model year 2013, footprint as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter; and
(E) The fuel economy target value for each unique model type and footprint entry listed in accordance with the equation provided in part 533 of this chapter.
(4) Manufacturers must state the projected final required fuel economy that the manufacturer anticipates having if changes implemented during the model year will cause the targets to be different from the target fuel economy projected under paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(5) Manufacturers must state whether the manufacturer believes that the projections it provides under paragraphs (b)(2) and (4) of this section, or if it does not provide an average or target under paragraphs (b)(2) and (4), the projections it provides under paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) of this section, sufficiently represent the manufacturer's average and target fuel economy for the current model year for purposes of the Act. In the case of a manufacturer that believes that the projections are not sufficiently representative for the purpose of determining the projected average fuel economy for the manufacturer's automobiles, the manufacturers must state the specific nature of any reason for the insufficiency and the specific additional testing or derivation of fuel economy values by analytical methods believed by the manufacturer necessary to eliminate the insufficiency and any plans of the manufacturer to undertake that testing or derivation voluntarily and submit the resulting data to EPA under 40 CFR 600.509-12.
(c)
(1) For each model type of the manufacturer's automobiles, the manufacturers must provide the information specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section in tabular form. List the model types in order of increasing average inertia weight from top to bottom down the left side of the table and list the information categories in the order specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section from left to right across the top of the table. For model year 2023 and later, CAFE reports required by this part shall for each model type of the manufacturer's automobiles provide the information specified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this section using the NHTSA CAFE Projections Reporting Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474) and list the model types in order of increasing average inertia weight from top to bottom.
(2) (i) Combined fuel economy; and
(ii) Projected sales for the current model year and total sales of all model types.
(3) For pre-model year reports not subject to § 537.5(d) of this chapter, for each vehicle configuration whose fuel economy was used to calculate the fuel economy values for a model type under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, manufacturers must provide the information specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(4) (i) Loaded vehicle weight;
(ii) Equivalent test weight;
(iii) Engine displacement, liters;
(iv) Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) net rated power, kilowatts;
(v) SAE net horsepower;
(vi) Engine code;
(vii) Fuel system (number of carburetor barrels or, if fuel injection is used, so indicate);
(viii) Emission control system;
(ix) Transmission class;
(x) Number of forward speeds;
(xi) Existence of overdrive (indicate yes or no);
(xii) Total drive ratio (N/V);
(xiii) Axle ratio;
(xiv) Combined fuel economy;
(xv) Projected sales for the current model year;
(xvi) (A) In the case of passenger automobiles:
(
(
(B) In the case of non-passenger automobiles:
(
(
(xvii) Frontal area;
(xviii) Road load power at 50 miles per hour, if determined by the manufacturer for purposes other than compliance with this part to differ from
(xix) Optional equipment that the manufacturer is required under 40 CFR parts 86 and 600 to have actually installed on the vehicle configuration, or the weight of which must be included in the curb weight computation for the vehicle configuration, for fuel economy testing purposes.
(5) For each model type of automobile classified as a non-passenger automobile under part 523 of this chapter, manufacturers must provide the following for each unique trim or configuration of the model type that alters any characteristic or feature described in the sections contained in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(i) For an automobile not manufactured primarily for transporting 10 or fewer passengers, determined by the presence of at least one chief non-passenger characteristic in accordance with § 523.5(a) of this chapter, provide:
(A) A yes or no confirmation for whether the number of designated seating positions is greater than ten. If yes, provide the number of designated seating positions;
(B) A yes or no confirmation for the presence of temporary living accommodations, such as a bed, sink, stove, refrigerator, or toilet. If yes, list the provided accommodations;
(C) A yes or no confirmation for the ability to transport property on an open bed. If yes, provide bed width and length in inches, measured to the nearest tenth of inch;
(D) Maximum passenger carrying volume and minimum cargo carrying volume, as defined in § 523.2 of this chapter, with all seats, as sold to the first retail purchaser, installed and in their passenger-carrying position; and
(E) For automobiles manufactured in model year 2022 through model year 2027:
(
(
(F) For automobiles manufactured in 2028 and beyond, curb weight, gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and gross combined weight rating (GCWR) for the calculation of the light duty work factor (LDWF).
(ii) For an automobile capable of off-highway operation, provide the features in paragraphs (c)(5)(ii)(A) through (D) of this section in accordance with § 523.5(b) of this chapter:
(A) A yes or no confirmation for the presence of 4-wheel drive;
(B) The gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) in pounds;
(C) Measured in accordance with § 523.5(b)(2), provide the value of:
(
(
(
(
(D) For automobiles manufactured through model year 2027, measured in accordance with § 523.5(b)(2), provide the value of:
(
(
(6) Manufacturers must determine the fuel economy values provided under paragraphs (c)(2) and (4) of this section in accordance with § 537.9.
(7) For the model years specified in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section, manufacturers must identify any air-conditioning (AC), off-cycle and full-size pick-up truck technologies used each model year to calculate the average fuel economy specified in 40 CFR 600.510-12.
(i) For automobiles manufactured in years in which a manufacturer may generate fuel consumption improvement values pursuant to 40 CFR part 600, each manufacturer must provide a list of each air conditioning (AC) efficiency improvement technology utilized in its fleet(s) of vehicles for each model year for which the manufacturer qualifies for fuel consumption improvement values . For each technology identify vehicles by make and model types that have the technology, which compliance category those vehicles belong to, and the number of vehicles for each model equipped with the technology. For each compliance category (domestic passenger automobile, imported passenger automobile, and non-passenger automobile), report the AC fuel consumption improvement value in gallons/mile in accordance with the applicable equation specified in 40 CFR part 600.
(ii) For automobiles manufactured in model years in which a manufacturer may generate fuel consumption improvement values pursuant to 40 CFR part 600, each manufacturer must provide a list of off-cycle efficiency improvement technologies utilized in its fleet(s) of vehicles for each model year that is pending or approved by EPA for which the manufacturer qualifies for fuel consumption improvement values. For each technology, manufacturers must identify vehicles by make and model types that have the technology, which compliance category those vehicles belong to, the number of vehicles for each model equipped with the technology, and the associated off-cycle credits (grams/mile) available for each technology. For each compliance category (domestic passenger automobile, imported passenger automobile, and non-passenger automobile), manufacturers must calculate the fleet off-cycle fuel consumption improvement value in gallons/mile in accordance with the applicable equation specified in 40 CFR part 600.
(iii) For model years up to 2024, each manufacturer must provide a list of full-size pickup trucks in its fleet that meet the mild and strong hybrid vehicle definitions. For each mild and strong hybrid type, manufacturers must identify vehicles by make and model types that have the technology, the number of vehicles produced for each model equipped with the technology, the total number of full-size pickup trucks produced with and without the technology, the calculated percentage of hybrid vehicles relative to the total number of vehicles produced, and the associated full-size pickup truck credits (grams/mile) available for each technology. For the non-passenger automobile compliance category, manufacturers must calculate the fleet pickup truck fuel consumption improvement value in gallons/mile in accordance with the applicable equation specified in 40 CFR part 600.
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each manufacturer whose most recently submitted mid-model year report contained an average fuel economy projection under § 537.7(b)(2) or, if no average fuel economy was projected under that section, under § 537.7(b)(1) that was not less than the applicable average fuel economy standard in this chapter and who now projects an average fuel economy that is less than the applicable standard in this chapter shall file a supplementary report containing the information specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, each manufacturer that determines that its average fuel economy for the current model year as
(3) For model years through 2022, each manufacturer whose mid-model year report omits any of the information specified in § 537.7(b) or (c) shall file a supplementary report containing the information specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(4) Starting model year 2023, each manufacturer whose mid-model year report omits any of the information shall resubmit the information with other information required in accordance with the NHTSA CAFE Projections Reporting Template (OMB Control No. 2127-0019, NHTSA Form 1474).
(b) (1) The supplementary report required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must contain:
(i) Such revisions of and additions to the information previously submitted by the manufacturer under this part regarding the automobiles whose projected average fuel economy has decreased as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section as are necessary—
(A) To reflect the change and its cause; and
(B) To indicate a new projected average fuel economy based upon these additional measures.
(ii) An explanation of the cause of the decrease in average fuel economy that led to the manufacturer's having to submit the supplementary report required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(2) The supplementary report required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section must contain:
(i) A statement of the specific nature of and reason for the insufficiency in the representativeness of the projected average fuel economy;
(ii) A statement of specific additional testing or derivation of fuel economy values by analytical methods believed by the manufacturer necessary to eliminate the insufficiency; and
(iii) A description of any plans of the manufacturer to undertake that testing or derivation voluntarily and submit the resulting data to the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR 600.509-12.
(3) The supplementary report required by paragraph (a)(3) of this section must contain:
(i) All of the information omitted from the mid-model year report under § 537.6(c); and
(ii) Such revisions of and additions to the information submitted by the manufacturer in its mid-model year report regarding the automobiles produced during the current model year as are necessary to reflect the information provided under paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section.
(4) The supplementary report required by paragraph (a)(4) of this section must contain:
(i) All information omitted from the mid-model year reports under § 537.6(c); and
(ii) Such revisions of and additions to the information submitted by the manufacturer in its pre-model or mid-model year reports regarding the automobiles produced during the current model year as are necessary to reflect the information provided under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
(c) (1) Each report required by paragraph (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section must be submitted in accordance with § 537.5(c) not more than 45 days after the date on which the manufacturer determined, or could have determined with reasonable diligence, that the report was required.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) A supplementary report is not required to be submitted by the manufacturer under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section:
(1) With respect to information submitted under this part before the most recent mid-model year report submitted by the manufacturer under this part; or
(2) When the date specified in paragraph (c) of this section occurs after the day by which the pre-model year report for the model year immediately following the current model year must be submitted by the manufacturer under this part.
(e) For model years 2008, 2009, and 2010, each manufacturer of non-passenger automobiles, as that term is defined in § 523.5 of this chapter, shall submit a report, not later than 45 days following the end of the model year, indicating whether the manufacturer is opting to comply with § 533.5(f) or (g) of this chapter.
(a)
(2) For each vehicle subconfiguration specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for which a fuel economy value approved under 40 CFR part 600, does not exist, but for which a fuel economy value determined under 40 CFR part 600 exists, the manufacturer shall submit that fuel economy value.
(3) For each vehicle subconfiguration specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for which a fuel economy value has been neither determined nor approved under 40 CFR part 600, the manufacturer shall submit a fuel economy value based on tests or analyses comparable to those prescribed or permitted under 40 CFR part 600 and a description of the test procedures or analytical methods used.
(4) For each vehicle configuration for which a fuel economy value is required under paragraph (c) of this section and has been determined and approved under 40 CFR part 600, the manufacturer shall submit that fuel economy value.
(b)
(c)
(a) A manufacturer may incorporate by reference in a report required by this part any document other than a report, petition, or application, or portion thereof submitted to any Federal department or agency more than two model years before the current model year.
(b) A manufacturer that incorporates by reference a document not previously submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shall append that document to the report.
(c) A manufacturer that incorporates by reference a document shall clearly identify the document and, in the case of a document previously submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, indicate the date on
Except as provided in § 537.12, any person may inspect the information and data submitted by a manufacturer under this part in the docket section of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Any person may obtain copies of the information available for inspection under this section in accordance with the regulations of the Secretary of Transportation in part 7 of this title.
(a)
(b)
(c)