ny-HRT-24-26-00008-P: New York rulemaking HRT-24-26-00008-P

I.D. No. HRT-24-26-00008-P. Final rule as compared with last published rule: No changes. Text of rule and any required statements and analyses may be obtained from: Jeffrey Shalke, Division of Human Rights, 350 Main St., 10th Fl., Suite 1000B, Buffalo, New York 14202, (716) 847-3977, email: rulemaking@dhr.ny.gov Initial Review of Rule As a rule that does not require a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2031, which is no later than the 5th year after the year in which this rule is being adopted. Assessment of Public Comment A Notice of Rule Making was published in the State Register on June 17, 2026. The Division of Human Rights (Division) received one (1) com- ment associated with the rule making during the public comment period. The comment noted two concerns regarding the proposed amendments, which are summarized below. The Division’s response is provided for each concern. Comment: The proposed amended regulations do not create a meaning- ful discovery dispute resolution process. Litigants are still required to commence a special proceeding in New York State Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas or compel disclosure. Response: Special proceedings in New York State Supreme Court are not the sole option for enforcing subpoenas or compelling disclosure in a Division action. New York Executive Law § 295(7) provides the Division 13 Rule MakingActivities with the general authority to subpoena witnesses, compel their attendance, and require the production of documents. More specifically, under 9 NYCRR § 465.12(f)(5) and (8), the administrative law judge has the power to call witnesses and direct the production of documents/evidentiary mat- ters at hearing. Additionally, under 9 NYCRR § 465.12(f)(1) the adminis- trative law judge has authority to rule upon all motions and objections, including those involving discovery. Comment: The proposed amended regulations do not expressly state that Division settlements and awards must be assessed by reference to comparable state and federal case law. Response: After consideration, the Division determined it is not neces- sary to expressly state in the amended regulations that Division settle- ments and awards must be assessed by reference to comparable state and federal case law. All orders and awards issued or approved by the Com- missioner will continue to conform to precedential case law. Long Island PowerAuthority PROPOSED RULE MAKING HEARING(S) SCHEDULED Standby and Buyback Contract Demand Clarification I.D. No. LPA-40-26-00003-P PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE State Administrative Pro- cedureAct, NOTICE is hereby given of the following proposed rule: Proposed Action: LIPA staff proposes to modify LIPA’s Tariff for Electric Service, effective January 1, 2027, to clarify the daily application of the Contract Demand Charges to Service Classification No. 11 (Buyback Ser- vice) and No. 12 (Standby Service). Statutory authority: PublicAuthorities Law, section 1020-f(u) and