| Page Range | 35883-36076 | |
| FR Document |
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 82 FR 35991 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 35990 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting Notice | |
| 82 FR 36007 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 82 FR 36076 - List of Countries Requiring Cooperation With an International Boycott | |
| 82 FR 36070 - Reallocation of Unused Fiscal Year 2017 Tariff-Rate Quota Volume for Raw Cane Sugar | |
| 82 FR 36071 - Fiscal Year 2017 Allocation of Additional Tariff-Rate Quota Volume for Raw Cane Sugar | |
| 82 FR 36067 - United States Passports Invalid for Travel to, in, or Through the Democratic People's Republic of Korea | |
| 82 FR 36065 - Notice of Information Collection Under OMB Emergency Review: Request for Approval To Travel to a Restricted Country or Area | |
| 82 FR 35992 - Job Corps Center Proposed for Closure: Comments Requested | |
| 82 FR 35906 - Regulations Governing Fees for Services Performed in Connection With Licensing and Related Services-2017 Update | |
| 82 FR 35906 - Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming; Negative Declarations; Correction | |
| 82 FR 35945 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petitions for Objection to State Operating Permits for Duke Energy, LLC-Asheville Steam Electric Plant (Buncombe County, North Carolina) and Roxboro Steam Electric Plant (Person County, North Carolina) | |
| 82 FR 35922 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Enhanced Monitoring; California | |
| 82 FR 35944 - Certain New Chemicals or Significant New Uses; Statements of Findings for April 2017 | |
| 82 FR 35953 - Information Collection; Statement and Acknowledgment (Standard Form 1413) | |
| 82 FR 36030 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 | |
| 82 FR 36046 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend BX Rules at Chapter IV, Section 6 | |
| 82 FR 36037 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Delay the Effective Date of the TotalView and OpenView Depth-of-Book Products | |
| 82 FR 36057 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the DTC Operational Arrangements Necessary for Securities To Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services in Order To Clarify and Update Provisions Relating to the Processing of Eligibility Requests and Servicing of Assets on Deposit at DTC | |
| 82 FR 36049 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filings of Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt the Clearing Agency Risk Management Framework | |
| 82 FR 36031 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Permit the Listing and Trading of Managed Portfolio Shares; and To List and Trade Shares of the Following Under Proposed Rule 14.11(k): ClearBridge Appreciation ETF; ClearBridge Large Cap ETF; ClearBridge MidCap Growth ETF; ClearBridge Select ETF; and ClearBridge All Cap Value ETF | |
| 82 FR 36020 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1012 | |
| 82 FR 36017 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options Market Rules at Chapter IV, Section 6 | |
| 82 FR 35946 - Notice of Agreements Filed | |
| 82 FR 35927 - Solicitation of Input From Stakeholder and Public Listening Session Regarding: Capacity Building Grants for Non-Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCA); The Secondary Education, Two-Year Postsecondary Education and Agriculture in the K-12 Classroom Challenge Grants Program (SPECA); The Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fields Program (WAMS); The Higher Education Challenge Grants Program (HEC) | |
| 82 FR 35929 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture, From the People's Republic of China; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review | |
| 82 FR 35984 - Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as Amended | |
| 82 FR 35928 - Solicitation of Input From Stakeholders Regarding the Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program (MSP) and the National Needs Graduate and Postgraduate Fellowship (NNF) Grants Program: Stakeholder and Public Listening Session | |
| 82 FR 36067 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Casanova: The Seduction of Europe” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 35898 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 | |
| 82 FR 35935 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 35953 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 35900 - Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, IL | |
| 82 FR 35986 - Lost Hills Solar Project, Kern County, California; Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Habitat Conservation Plan | |
| 82 FR 35988 - General Conservation Plan for Oil and Gas Activities in Santa Barbara County, California; Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Analysis/Document; Initiation of Public Scoping Process | |
| 82 FR 35900 - Safety Zone, Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan Including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, and Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL | |
| 82 FR 35980 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0030 | |
| 82 FR 35979 - Information Collection Request to Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0002 | |
| 82 FR 35933 - Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Consultative Committee Nominations and Meeting Announcement | |
| 82 FR 36072 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders | |
| 82 FR 35985 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition | |
| 82 FR 35940 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 82 FR 35947 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 36068 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “After Darkness: Southeast Asian Art in the Wake of History” Exhibition | |
| 82 FR 35938 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation | |
| 82 FR 35939 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah | |
| 82 FR 35939 - Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee | |
| 82 FR 36006 - Draft Test Plan High Energy Arcing Faults Phase 2 | |
| 82 FR 35981 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Documentation Requirements for Articles Entered Under Various Special Tariff Treatment Provisions | |
| 82 FR 35982 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Cargo Manifest/Declaration, Stow Plan, Container Status Messages and Importer Security Filing | |
| 82 FR 35971 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation) | |
| 82 FR 35965 - Over-the-Counter Monograph User Fees: Stakeholder Meeting | |
| 82 FR 35973 - Antibacterial Therapies for Patients With an Unmet Medical Need for the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Diseases; Guidance for Industry; Availability | |
| 82 FR 35946 - Controlled Carriers Under the Shipping Act of 1984 | |
| 82 FR 36067 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Online Application for Nonimmigrant Visa; Correction | |
| 82 FR 35943 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 35940 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 35941 - Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization: Great Valley Solar 2, LLC | |
| 82 FR 35943 - Great Valley Solar 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 82 FR 35942 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 82 FR 35941 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 82 FR 35931 - National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) Secure Inter-Domain Routing Building Block | |
| 82 FR 35979 - Advisory Committee for Women's Services; Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 35991 - Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof; Notice of Commission Determination Not To Review and Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety Based Upon Settlement; Termination of the Investigation | |
| 82 FR 35989 - Indian Gaming; Approval of a Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact in the State of South Dakota | |
| 82 FR 36064 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request | |
| 82 FR 36039 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Consisting of Proposed Amendments to MSRB Rule G-26, on Customer Account Transfers, To Modernize the Rule and Promote a Uniform Customer Account Transfer Standard | |
| 82 FR 36010 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the September 5, 2017 Compliance Date for the Shortening of the Standard Settlement Cycle From Three Business Days After the Trade Date to Two Business Days After the Trade Date | |
| 82 FR 36008 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change in Connection With the September 5, 2017 Compliance Date for the Shortening of the Standard Settlement Cycle From Three Business Days After the Trade Date to Two Business Days After the Trade Date | |
| 82 FR 36023 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 515A, MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (“PRIME”) and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism, Rule 518, Complex Orders, and Rule 519A, Risk Protection Monitor | |
| 82 FR 36012 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change To Adopt Transaction Fees in Connection With the Exchange's Transition to a Fully-Automated Cash Equities Market | |
| 82 FR 36054 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Its Listing Standards for Closed-End Funds | |
| 82 FR 36033 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change for Trading UTP Securities on Pillar, the Exchange's New Trading Technology Platform | |
| 82 FR 36030 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To List and Trade Shares of Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bull 3x Shares and Direxion Daily Crude Oil Bear 3x Shares Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200 | |
| 82 FR 36071 - Request for Comments and Notice of Public Hearing Concerning China's Compliance With WTO Commitments | |
| 82 FR 35976 - Request for Letters of Interest for NCI-MATCH Laboratories | |
| 82 FR 35926 - Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (FVIAC): Notice of Intent To Renew Charter and Call for Nominations | |
| 82 FR 35990 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related Actions | |
| 82 FR 36032 - Change Finance, PBC, et al. | |
| 82 FR 36007 - Postal Rate and Classification Changes | |
| 82 FR 35920 - Temporary Flight Restrictions in the Proximity of Launch and Reentry Operations; Withdrawal | |
| 82 FR 35905 - Fisher Houses and Other Temporary Lodging; Correction | |
| 82 FR 36069 - Request for Comments To Compile the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers | |
| 82 FR 35934 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Northeast Region Dealer Purchase Reports | |
| 82 FR 35933 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Individual Bluefin Tuna Quota Tracking | |
| 82 FR 35975 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Meetings | |
| 82 FR 35979 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 82 FR 35978 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 82 FR 35936 - Compliance Bulletin 2017-01: Phone Pay Fees | |
| 82 FR 35910 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod in the Western Aleutian Islands District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area | |
| 82 FR 36074 - Federal Advisory Committee National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC) and Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS); Notice of Meeting | |
| 82 FR 35962 - Outsourcing Facility Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 35954 - Food Safety Modernization Act Domestic and Foreign Facility Reinspection, Recall, and Importer Reinspection Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 35929 - Notice of Request for Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 82 FR 35957 - Animal Generic Drug User Fee Rates and Payment Procedures for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 35966 - Animal Drug User Fee Rates and Payment Procedures for Fiscal Year 2018 | |
| 82 FR 35922 - VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program; Correction | |
| 82 FR 35918 - Proposed Modification and Revocation of Multiple Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes; Northcentral United States | |
| 82 FR 35924 - Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings | |
| 82 FR 35974 - Solicitation of Nominations for Membership on the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections | |
| 82 FR 35914 - Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. Turbofan Engines | |
| 82 FR 35902 - Loan Guaranty: Vendee Loan Fees | |
| 82 FR 35896 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 35890 - Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments | |
| 82 FR 35992 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambrex High Point, Inc. | |
| 82 FR 35911 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes | |
| 82 FR 35992 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooper, Ative Research and Production Act of 1993-Vehicle Safety Communications 5 Consortium | |
| 82 FR 36075 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee | |
| 82 FR 36068 - Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; Rescission of Statutory Debarment and Reinstatement of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation Under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations | |
| 82 FR 35995 - Jardon and Howard Technologies, Incorporated; Application for Permanent Variance and Interim Order; Grant of Interim Order; Request for Comments | |
| 82 FR 35974 - Meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters | |
| 82 FR 35883 - Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection | |
| 82 FR 35888 - Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Airplanes |
Agricultural Marketing Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau), with the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), is issuing a final rule amending the Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB Ethics Regulations) involving: Outside employment for covered employees; Bureau employees' ownership or control of certain securities; restrictions on seeking, obtaining, or renegotiating credit or indebtedness; disqualification requirements based on existing credit or indebtedness; and restrictions on participating in matters involving covered entities. The final rule also clarifies and makes minor revisions to certain definitions.
This final rule is effective September 1, 2017.
Amber Vail, Senior Ethics Counsel, at (202) 435-7305 or Amy Mertz Brown, Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official, at (202) 435-7256 at the Legal Division, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
On January 10, 2017, the Bureau, with OGE's concurrence, published a proposed rule in the
The Bureau has made six technical changes in the final rule that are not intended to change the substantive meaning of the rule. First, in 5 CFR 9401.102, the Bureau removed the phrase “on a mortgage” from the definition of “indebted to an entity” to clarify that the term includes any type of servicer to whom payments are made. Second, the Bureau replaced the phrase “he or she” with the term “employee” in the definition of “participate” in 5 CFR 9401.102. Third, the Bureau inserted the phrase “or indebtedness” in the section heading of 5 CFR 9401.108 and the subsection heading in § 9401.108(d) to highlight that the restrictions in this section apply to both credit and indebtedness. Fourth, the Bureau added the phrase “or lenders” to the section heading of 5 CFR 9401.109 to clarify that the restrictions in this section apply to both creditors and lenders. The Bureau added the phrase to ensure that the language in the section heading is parallel to the substantive language regarding credit or indebtedness in the text of that section. The revision does not change the substance of the rule. Fifth, the Bureau made a grammatical correction by changing the word “with” to “within” in 5 CFR 9401.111(b)(1). Finally, in several places within the regulation, the Bureau revised the phrase “is or represents a party” to read “is a party or represents a party.” This revision is intended to clarify that the regulation applies when an entity is a party, as well as when an entity is representing a party in a particular matter involving specific parties.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
The Bureau has determined that this rule does not impose any new recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on members of the public that would be collections of information requiring approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Conflict of interests, Government employees.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau, in concurrence with OGE, is amending part 9401 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
5 U.S.C. 7301; 5 U.S.C. App. (Ethics in Government Act of 1978); E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159 (April 12, 1989); 3 CFR, 1898 Comp., p.215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547 (October 17, 1990); 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2635.105, 2635.403, 2635.502 and 2635.803.
For purposes of this part:
(1) Unmarried, under the age of 21, and living in the employee's household; or
(2) Claimed as a “dependent” on the employee's income tax return.
(1) Has a close and committed personal relationship and both parties are at least 18 years of age, are each other's sole domestic partner and intend to remain in the relationship indefinitely, and neither is married to, in a civil union with, or partnered with any other spouse or domestic partner;
(2) Is not related by blood in a manner that would bar marriage under the laws of the jurisdiction in which the employee resides;
(3) Is in a financially interdependent relationship in which both agree to be responsible for each other's common welfare and share in financial obligations; and
(4) Has shared for at least six months the same regular and permanent residence in a committed relationship and both parties intend to do so indefinitely, or would maintain a common residence but for an assignment abroad or other employment-related, financial, or similar obstacle.
(1) Preparing any legal document, including any deeds, mortgages, assignments, discharges, leases, trust instruments, or any other instruments intended to affect interests in real or personal property, wills, codicils, instruments intended to affect the disposition of property of decedents' estates, other instruments intended to affect or secure legal rights, and contracts except routine agreements incidental to a regular course of business;
(2) Preparing or expressing legal opinions;
(3) Appearing or acting as an attorney in any tribunal;
(4) Preparing any claims, demands or pleadings of any kind, or any written documents containing legal argument or interpretation of law, for filing in any court, administrative agency, or other tribunal;
(5) Providing advice or counsel as to how any of the activities described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this definition might be done, or whether they were done, in accordance with applicable law; or
(6) Furnishing an attorney or attorneys, or other persons, to render the services described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this definition.
(1) The employee and the employee's spouse are separated;
(2) The employee and the employee's spouse live apart;
(3) There is an intention to end the marriage or separate permanently; and
(4) The employee has no control over the separated spouse's securities.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) An employee in the Division of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending;
(2) An employee serving in an attorney position;
(3) An employee in the Office of Research, serving as a section chief at Bureau pay band 71 or above or as a senior economist in the Compliance Analytics and Policy Section;
(4) An employee serving in the Office of Consumer Response in an investigations position;
(5) An employee required to file a Public Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278e) under 5 CFR part 2634; or
(6) Any other Bureau employee specified in a Bureau order or directive whose duties and responsibilities, as determined by the DAEO, require application of the prohibition on outside employment contained in this section to ensure public confidence that the Bureau's programs are conducted impartially and objectively.
(a)
(1) Take a position that is or appears to be in conflict with the interests of the Bureau; or
(b) * * *
(1) In those matters in which the attorney has participated personally and substantially as a Government employee; or
(2) In those matters which are the subject of the attorney's official responsibility.
(a)
(1) An entity supervised by the Bureau; or
(2) A collective investment fund that has a stated policy of concentrating its investments in the financial services or banking industry. A collective investment fund includes, without limitation, mutual funds, unit investment trusts (UITs), exchange traded funds (ETFs), real estate investment trusts (REITs), and limited partnerships.
(b)
(1)
(i) The fund does not have a stated policy of concentrating its investments in the financial services or banking industry; and
(ii) Neither the employee nor the employee's spouse or minor child exercises or has the ability to exercise control over or selection of the financial interests held by the fund.
(2)
(i) The employee plan does not have a stated policy of concentrating its investments in any industry, business, single country other than the United States, or bonds of a single State within the United States;
(ii) The investments of the employee plan are administered by an independent trustee;
(iii) The employee plan's trustee has a written policy of varying the plan investments;
(iv) Neither the employee nor the employee's spouse or minor child participates in the selection of the employee plan's investments or designates specific plan investments (except for directing that contributions be divided among several different categories of investments, such as stocks, bonds, or mutual funds, which are available to plan participants); and
(v) The employee plan is not a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan.
(3)
(4)
(c)
(2)
(3)
(d)
(2)
(e)
(1) Mitigating circumstances exist due to the way the employee or the employee's spouse or minor child acquired ownership or control of the security. Mitigating circumstances may include without limitation:
(i) The employee or the employee's spouse or minor child acquired the security through inheritance, merger, acquisition, or other change in corporate structure, or otherwise without specific intent on the part of the employee or the employee's spouse or minor child; or
(ii) The employee's spouse received the security as part of a compensation package in connection with employment or prior to marriage to the employee;
(2) The employee makes a prompt and complete written disclosure of the security to the DAEO;
(3) The disqualification of the employee from participating in particular matters pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, as specified in the written waiver, would not unduly interfere with the full performance of the employee's duties; and
(4) The granting of the waiver would not unduly undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality and objectivity with which:
(i) The employee performs the employee's official Bureau duties; and
(ii) The Division in which the employee works executes its programs and functions.
(f)
(1) A partnership in which the employee or the employee's spouse or minor child is a general partner;
(2) A partnership or closely held corporation in which the employee or the employee's spouse or minor child individually or jointly holds more than a 10 percent equity interest;
(3) A trust in which the employee or the employee's spouse or minor child has a vested legal or beneficial interest;
(4) An investment club or similar informal investment arrangement between the employee or the employee's spouse or minor child, and others;
(5) A qualified profit sharing, retirement, or similar plan in which the employee or the employee's spouse or minor child has an interest; or
(6) An entity in which the employee or the employee's spouse or minor child individually or jointly holds more than a 25 percent equity interest.
An employee or the employee's spouse or minor child may not accept credit from, become indebted to, or enter into a financial relationship with an entity supervised by the Bureau, unless the credit, indebtedness, or other financial relationship:
(a) Is offered on terms and conditions no more favorable than those offered to the general public; and
(b) Is not otherwise prohibited by law or inconsistent with the OGE Standards or the CFPB Ethics Regulations.
(a)
(2)
(b)
(1) The residential real property is or will be the principal residence of the
(2) A minimum of three months have passed since the end of the employee's participation in each particular matter involving specific parties in which that entity was a party or represented a party;
(3) The employee is disqualified from participating in particular matters involving specific parties in which that entity is a party or represents a party while the employee or the employee's spouse or minor child is seeking, obtaining, or renegotiating the credit or indebtedness;
(4) The employee or the employee's spouse or minor child seeking, obtaining, or negotiating the credit or indebtedness must satisfy all financial requirements generally applicable to all applicants for the same type of credit or indebtedness for residential real property; and
(5) The credit or indebtedness is obtained on terms and conditions no more favorable than those offered to the general public.
(c)
(1) The credit or indebtedness is supported only by the income or independent means of the spouse or minor child;
(2) The credit or indebtedness is obtained on terms and conditions no more favorable than those offered to the general public; and
(3) The employee does not participate in the negotiating for the credit or indebtedness or serve as co-maker, endorser or guarantor of the credit or indebtedness.
(d)
(1) The employee's spouse, domestic partner, or dependent child;
(2) A partnership in which the employee or the employee's spouse, domestic partner, or dependent child is a general partner;
(3) A partnership or closely held corporation in which the employee or the employee's spouse, domestic partner, or dependent child individually or jointly owns or controls more than a 10 percent equity interest;
(4) A trust in which the employee or the employee's spouse, domestic partner, or dependent child has a vested legal or beneficial interest;
(5) An investment club or similar informal investment arrangement between the employee or the employee's spouse, domestic partner, or dependent child, and others;
(6) A qualified profit sharing, retirement, or similar plan in which the employee or the employee's spouse, domestic partner, or dependent child has an interest; or
(7) An entity in which the employee or the employee's spouse, domestic partner, or dependent child individually or jointly holds more than a 25 percent equity interest.
(e)
(1) Revolving consumer credit or charge cards;
(2) Overdraft protection on checking accounts and similar accounts; and
(3) The provision of telephone, cable, gas, electricity, water, or other similar utility services provided on credit (
(f)
(a)
(5) A trust in which the employee or the employee's spouse, domestic partner, or dependent child has a vested legal or beneficial interest;
(b) * * *
(1) Revolving consumer credit or charge cards;
(2) Overdraft protection on checking accounts and similar accounts;
(3) Amortizing indebtedness on consumer goods (
(4) Automobile leases for primarily personal (consumer) use vehicles;
(5) The provision of telephone, cable, gas, electricity, water, or other similar utility services provided on credit (
(6) Educational loans (
(7) Loans on residential homes (
An employee shall not make recommendations or suggestions, directly or indirectly, concerning the acquisition or sale or other divestiture of a security in an entity supervised by the Bureau, or an entity that is a party or represents a party to a particular matter involving specific parties to which the employee is assigned.
(a)
(b)
(1) Any person for whom the employee is serving or seeking to serve, or has served within the last year, as officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor, or employee; or
(2) Any person for whom the employee is aware the employee's spouse, domestic partner, fiancé, child, parent, sibling, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half-sister, or member of the employee's household is serving or seeking to serve as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, agent, attorney, consultant, contractor, or employee.
(c)
Approved:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule.
We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2002-19-01 for SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the flight control wheel traveling beyond normal roll control limits and jamming in a position that could cause loss of control. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective September 6, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 6, 2017.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of October 29, 2002 (67 FR 59137; September 20, 2002).
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
For service information identified in this AD, contact SOCATA, Direction des services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; phone: +33 (0) 5 62 41 73 00; fax: +33 (0) 5 62 41 76 54; email:
Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4119; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes. That NPRM was published in the
The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states that:
An event occurred in 2001 on an in-service aeroplane where, during a pre-flight check of the flight controls, the pilot control wheel jammed in full nose up and full left position after having exceeded the control stop of roll.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to reduced control of the aeroplane.
Prompted by these findings, SOCATA issued Service Bulletin (SB) 70-095-27 to provide inspection instructions.
To address this unsafe condition, DGAC France issued AD 2001-582(A) to require repetitive inspections of the flight control system after any maintenance operation on flight controls. That AD was later revised to update the list of affected aeroplane MSN.
Since DGAC France AD 2001-582(A) R1 was issued, SOCATA issued Revision 2 of SB 70-095-27 to provide instructions for replacement of the rivets in the roll primary stops as a terminating action for the repetitive inspections.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, which supersedes DGAC France AD 2001-582(A) R1, requires replacement of the rivets in the roll primary stops of the flight control wheels at the next maintenance operation on flight controls.
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.
We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We reviewed DAHER SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-095, Revision 2, dated October 2016, which describes procedures for replacement of the flight control wheel primary stop rivets. We also reviewed EADS SOCATA Recommended Service Bulletin SB 70-114, dated December 2004, which describes procedures for installation of roll control emergency stops on the flight control wheel. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
DAHER SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-095, Revision 2, dated
We estimate that this AD will affect 203 products of U.S. registry.
We estimate that it will take about 1 hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the inspection on U.S. operators to be $17,255, or $85 per product.
In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 3 work-hours per product. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this action on U.S. operators to be $255 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these actions.
For the optional actions to terminate the repetitive inspections, we estimate the following costs. We have no way of determining how many operators may choose to do either of the optional actions. For replacement of the rivets in the roll primary stops, we estimate that it will take about 3.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $10 per product. Based on these figures, for replacement of the rivets we estimate the cost of this action on U.S. operators to be $307.50 per product.
For the installation of a roll control emergency stop on each control wheel, we estimate that it will take about 19.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $1,650 per product. Based on these figures, for installation of the roll control emergency stop, we estimate the cost of this action on U.S. operators to be $3,307.50 per product.
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.
We are 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.
We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective September 6, 2017.
This AD supersedes AD 2002-19-01, Amendment 39-12881 (67 FR 59137, September 20, 2002) (“AD 2002-19-01”).
This AD applies to SOCATA Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 1 through 184, 186, 187, 189 through 204, 206, and 207, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight Controls.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as the flight control wheel traveling beyond normal roll control limits. We are issuing this AD to prevent the flight control wheel from becoming jammed and leading to reduced or loss of control.
Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD or paragraph (f)(3) of this AD:
(1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after October 29, 2002 (the effective date retained from AD 2002-19-01) and repetitively thereafter every time the flight control system undergoes maintenance, perform a test of the pilot and right-hand (RH) station control wheels to determine if either control wheel becomes jammed following SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin (SB) 70-095 27, dated November 2001.
(2) If any jamming is found during any test required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, adjust the roll control stops on either the pilot control wheel or the RH station control wheel following SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory SB 70-095 27, dated November 2001.
(3) To terminate the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD either of the following actions may be done:
(i) Replace the rivets in the roll primary stops of both control wheels following the
(ii) Install a roll control emergency stop on each control wheel following the Accomplishment Instructions of EADS SOCATA Recommended SB 70-114, dated December 2004.
If done before September 6, 2017 (the effective date of this AD), this AD allows credit for replacement of the roll primary stop rivets on an airplane as specified in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this AD following the Accomplishment Instructions of SOCATA TBM Mandatory SB 70-095, original issue or revision 1.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
Refer to MCAI EASA AD No.: 2017-0018, dated February 3, 2017. The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 6, 2017 (the effective date of this AD).
(i) DAHER SOCATA Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-095, Revision 2, dated October 2016.
(ii) EADS SOCATA Recommended Service Bulletin SB 70-114, dated December 2004.
(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on October 29, 2002 (67 FR 59137, September 20, 2002).
(i) SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory SB 70-095 27, dated November 2001.
(ii) Reserved.
(5) For SOCATA service information identified in this AD, contact SOCATA, Direction des services, 65921 Tarbes Cedex 9, France; phone: +33 (0) 5 62 41 73 00; fax: +33 (0) 5 62 41 76 54; email:
(6) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information on the Internet at
(7) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective August 2, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 2, 2017.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal regulations, part 97, (14 CFR part 97), is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective August 2, 2017. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of August 2, 2017.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125) Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS MANCHESTER (LCS 14) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective August 2, 2017 and is applicable beginning July 25, 2017.
Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE., Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone number: 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS MANCHESTER (LCS 14) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the height of the forward masthead light above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the placement of the masthead light or lights above and clear of all other lights and obstructions; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead light; Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to the task light's horizontal distance from the fore and aft centerline of the vessel in the athwartship direction; Rule 21(a) and Annex I, paragraph 9(b), pertaining to the visibility of tasks lights (restricted maneuverability) obstructions; Rule 27(b)(i) and Annex I, paragraph 9(b)(i), pertaining to the arc of visibility of middle tasks lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
The additions read as follows:
15. * * *
16. * * *
27. On the following ships, the arc of visibility of the middle task light (restricted maneuverability), required by the rule 27(b)(i) and Annex I, paragraph 9(b)(i), may be obstructed at the following angles relative to ship's heading;
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7 at specified times from July 31, 2017 until September 1, 2017. This action is necessary to protect the waterway and vessels from the potential hazards associated with barge entrainment mitigation trials conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's electric dispersal barrier.
The regulations in 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 165.930 will be enforced from August 2, 2017, through 6 p.m. on September 1, 2017. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8 a.m. on July 31, 2017, through August 2, 2017.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT John Ramos Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 630-986-2155; email address
The Coast Guard will enforce a segment of the Safety Zone; Brandon Road Lock and Dam to Lake Michigan including Des Plaines River, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago River, Calumet-Saganashkee Channel, Chicago, IL, listed in 33 CFR 165.930. Specifically, the Coast Guard will enforce this safety zone on all waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between Mile Marker 296.1 to Mile Marker 296.7. Enforcement will occur on each Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m., from July 31, 2017 through September 1, 2017. During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a Captain of the Port Lake Michigan designated representative. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene representative.
This notice of enforcement is issued under the authority of 33 CFR 165.930 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the South Branch of the Chicago River, Chicago, IL. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and after the filming of a scene for a television series, where objects will be thrown off a bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
This rule is effective from 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. on August 4, 2017.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT John Ramos, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details for this event until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish a NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the filming of a scene for a television series, where objects will be thrown off a bridge on August 4, 2017.
We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
On August 4, 2017, the filming of a scene for a television series, where objects will be thrown off a bridge will take place on the South Branch of the Chicago River on the Cermak Road Bridge. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that objects being thrown off the bridge will pose a significant risk to public safety and property. Such hazards include falling television props and collisions among passing vessels.
With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of the public during the filming of a scene for a television series, where objects will be thrown off the Cermak Road Bridge on the South Branch of the Chicago River. This safety zone will be enforced intermittently from 8 p.m. to 11:59 on August 4, 2017. This zone will encompass all waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River within a 300 foot radius of the Cermak Road Bridge in Chicago, IL.
Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (414) 747-7182.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.” This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (February 2, 2017).
We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced intermittently on August 4, 2017 from 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit on a portion of the South Branch of the Chicago River on August 4, 2017 from 8 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone for the filming of a scene for a television series, where objects will be thrown off the bridge on the South Branch of the Chicago River in Chicago, IL. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated in the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR parts 165 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.
(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his or her behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at (414) 747-7182. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Final rule.
This document adopts as final a proposed rule of the Department of
Andrew Trevayne, Assistant Director for Loan and Property Management (261), Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 632-8795 (this is not a toll-free number).
On October 26, 2016, VA published a proposed rule in the
The public comment period for the proposed rule closed on December 27, 2016. VA received one comment. For the reasons explained below, VA adopts, with a change, the proposed rule that revises VA's authority to charge reasonable fees associated with vendee loans at 38 CFR 36.4500, 36.4501, 36.4528, 36.4529, and 36.4530.
VA received one comment on the proposed rule from an individual. The commenter was unclear regarding whether or not VA will use discretion in determining fees. The commenter questioned whether fees will be waived under the following circumstances: When a veteran is purchasing a home from another veteran, including circumstances where the purchaser is a disabled veteran in receipt of compensation; when a non-profit or non-veteran purchaser seeks a vendee loan to house homeless veterans; or when an individual in receipt of VA Family Caregiver Program benefits seeks to purchase a repossessed home to provide care for a veteran with a serious injury. The commenter also expressed concern that this was not a veterans' benefit program intended to keep a veteran in his or her home and that the Secretary's focus should essentially be on retention options. Lastly, the commenter requested veterans' benefits not be used to fund this program.
In its proposed rule, VA discussed that the Secretary has the discretion to negotiate fees on a case-by-case basis (81 FR 74382, 74383). The very nature of the Secretary's discretion might permit the waiver of fees in unique situations. Additionally, as stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, VA states that the Secretary may make vendee loans to certain entities pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 2041 for the purpose of assisting homeless veterans and their families in acquiring shelter (81 FR 74382). Specifically, 38 U.S.C. 2041(b)(2)(C) states that the Secretary may use discretion when determining whether or not to waive fees if appropriate in situations regarding homeless veterans.
In regard to the commenter's concern regarding purchasers who are disabled veterans in receipt of compensation, VA notes that 38 U.S.C. 3729(c) prohibits VA from charging a loan fee to “a veteran who is receiving compensation (or who, but for the receipt of retirement pay or active service pay, would be entitled to receive compensation) or [to] a surviving spouse of any veteran (including a person who died in the active military, naval, or air service) who died from a service-connected disability.” In proposed § 36.4528, VA stated that the Secretary may charge a loan origination fee “[i]n addition to the loan fee required pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 3729.” VA understands that this language may be interpreted as VA attempting to charge a loan fee to those veterans or surviving spouses who Congress exempted from loan fees in 38 U.S.C. 3729(c). In order to clarify that VA is not charging a fee prohibited by statute, VA is adding “if any” following “[i]n addition to the loan fee required pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 3729” to clarify that not all loans will carry the loan fee described in section 3729.
In regard to the commenter's concern that the vendee loan program is not a home retention option, VA notes that, prior to a holder foreclosing a VA-guaranteed loan, there are specific required actions the holder must take that emphasize loss mitigation and retention options for borrowers. All participating VA servicers adhere to these regulations prior to initiating foreclosure sales. VA also notes that the principal and interest resulting from the repayment of vendee loans are deposited into the Veterans Housing Benefit Program Fund (VHBPF) to help offset the housing operation costs of the Home Loan Guaranty Program. Lastly, in response to the commenter's statement asking VA not to use veterans' benefits to fund this program, VA notes that vendee loans are not classified as veterans' benefits and are available to any purchaser VA determines creditworthy and whose offer is awarded a sales contract. Vendee loans enable VA to sell more of its properties and to sell them at a faster rate, and as previously stated, the proceeds are deposited into the VHBPF. The fees are consistent with the private mortgage industry and will ensure the sustainability of the vendee loan program.
Therefore, this rule finalizes the proposed rule with the change noted above.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local,
The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This final rule will have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.
This final rule contains no provisions constituting a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
This final rule will affect individuals and small businesses who choose to obtain a vendee loan from VA to finance the purchase of a VA-owned property rather than alternate financing. A party who wants to purchase a VA-owned property may choose whatever source of financing he wishes. Presumably the purchaser would select the least expensive financing option available, which may or may not be a VA vendee loan. VA does not believe that this final rule will impose any significant economic impact for the following reasons. Should the purchaser decide that the VA vendee program was not the most economically advantageous to the purchaser then the purchaser would obtain alternate financing. Parties would have to choose to be subject to the impact, if any, imposed by this rule.
Accordingly, the Secretary certifies that the adoption of this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking is exempt from the final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of section 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.114, Veterans Housing—Guaranteed and Insured Loans.
Condominiums, Flood insurance, Housing, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Loan programs—Indians, Loan programs—veterans, Manufactured homes, Mortgage insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 25, 2017, for publication.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 36, subpart D, as set forth below:
38 U.S.C. 501 and 3720.
The revision and additions read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2)
(e) Sections 36.4528, 36.4529, and 36.4530, which concern vendee loans, shall be applicable to all vendee loans.
The addition and revision read as follows:
(a) In addition to the loan fee required pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 3729, if any, the Secretary may, in connection with the origination of a vendee loan, charge a borrower a loan origination fee not to exceed one-and-a-half percent of the loan amount.
(b) All or part of such fee may be paid in cash at loan closing or all or part may
(c) In no event may the total fee agreed upon between the Secretary and the borrower result in an amount that will cause the loan to be designated as a high-cost mortgage as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1602(bb) and 12 CFR part 1026.
(a) The Secretary may charge a borrower the following reasonable fees, per use, following origination, in connection with the servicing of any vendee loan:
(1) Processing assumption fee for the transfer of legal liability of repaying the mortgage when the individual assuming the loan is approved. Such fee will not exceed $300, plus the actual cost of the credit report. If the assumption is denied, the fee will not exceed the actual cost of the credit report;
(2) Processing subordination fee, not to exceed $350, to ensure that a modified vendee loan retains its first lien position;
(3) Processing partial release fee, not to exceed $350, to exclude collateral from the mortgage contract once a certain amount of the mortgage loan has been paid;
(4) Processing release of lien fee, not to exceed $15, for the release of an obligor from a mortgage loan in connection with a division of real property;
(5) Processing payoff statement fee, not to exceed $30, for a payoff statement showing the itemized amount due to satisfy a mortgage loan as of a specific date;
(6) Processing payment by phone fee, not to exceed $12, when a payment is made by phone and handled by a servicing representative; and
(7) Processing payment by phone fee, not to exceed $10, when a payment is made by phone and handled through an interactive voice response system, without contacting a servicing representative.
(b) The specific fees to be charged on each account may be negotiated between the Secretary and the borrower. The Secretary will review the maximum fees under paragraph (a) of this section bi-annually to determine that they remain reasonable.
(c) The Secretary may charge a borrower reasonable fees established in the loan instrument, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Property inspection fees;
(2) Property preservation fees;
(3) Appraisal fees;
(4) Attorneys' fees;
(5) Returned-check fees;
(6) Late fees; and
(7) Any other fee the Secretary determines reasonably necessary for the protection of the Secretary's investment.
(d) Any fee included in the loan instrument and permitted under paragraph (c) of this section would be based on the amount customarily charged in the industry for the performance of the service in the particular area, the status of the loan, and the characteristics of the affected property.
(a) In addition to the fees that may be charged pursuant to §§ 36.4528 and 36.4529 and the statutory loan fee charged pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 3729, the borrower may be required to pay third-party fees for services performed in connection with a vendee loan.
(b) Examples of the third party fees that may be charged in connection with a vendee loan include, but are not limited to:
(1) Termite inspections;
(2) Hazard insurance premiums;
(3) Force-placed insurance premiums;
(4) Courier fees;
(5) Tax certificates; and
(6) Recorder's fees.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Correcting amendments.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is correcting a final rule that eliminated the use of VA Form 10-0408A when veterans receiving treatment or care seek temporary lodging at a VA Fisher House for their relatives, close friends, or caregivers that was published in the
The correction is effective August 2, 2017.
Jennifer Koget, National Fisher House and Family Hospitality Program Manager, Care Management and Social Work (10P4C), Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-6780. (This is not a toll-free number.)
On June 8, 2017, at 82 FR 26592, VA amended what had been the § 60.15 series of 38 CFR part 60 to eliminate use of VA Form 10-0408A, found at 38 CFR 60.15. VA amended the section heading and heading for paragraph (b) in the § 60.15 series to reflect the June 8, 2017, amendment. At the time of the amendments, VA inadvertently failed to include the accompanying instruction amending the section and paragraph headings. The rule became effective on July 10, 2017; however, the
Consequently, the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, published by the Government Printing Office, could not implement the change, noting an “inaccurate amendatory instruction” at 38 CFR 60.15. With this notice, VA is amending § 60.15 to correct the accompanying instruction amending the section and paragraph headings in the regulation.
Health care, Housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel, Veterans.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, VA is correcting 38 CFR part 60 with the following amendments:
38 U.S.C. 501, 1708.
(b)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; correction.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is correcting a direct final rule that appeared in the
This correction is effective on August 4, 2017.
Gregory Lohrke, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6396,
In FR Doc. 2017-11576 appearing on page 25734 in the
Surface Transportation Board.
Final rules.
The Board updates for 2017 the fees that the public must pay to file certain cases and pleadings with the Board. Pursuant to this update, 83 of the Board's 133 fees will be increased, while 50 fees will be maintained at their current levels.
These rules are effective September 1, 2017.
David T. Groves, (202) 245-0327, or Andrea Pope-Matheson (202) 245-0363. [TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]
The Board's regulations at 49 CFR 1002.3 provide for an annual update of the Board's entire user-fee schedule. Fees are generally revised based on the cost study formula set forth at 49 CFR 1002.3(d), which looks to changes in salary costs, publication costs, and Board overhead cost factors. Applying that formula, 83 of the Board's 133 fees will be increased, while 50 will remain at their current levels.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To obtain a free copy of the full decision, visit the Board's Web site at
Administrative practice and procedure, Common carriers, and Freedom of information.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman, Elliott, and Miller.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 49, chapter X, part 1002, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(A) and 553; 31 U.S.C. 9701 and 49 U.S.C. 1321(a). Section 1002.1(g)(11) is also issued under 5 U.S.C. 5514 and 31 U.S.C. 3717.
(a) Certificate of the Records Officer, $19.00.
(b) Services involved in examination of tariffs or schedules for preparation of certified copies of tariffs or schedules or extracts therefrom at the rate of $43.00 per hour.
(c) Services involved in checking records to be certified to determine authenticity, including clerical work, etc. identical thereto, at the rate of $30.00 per hour.
(f) * * *
(1) A fee of $76.00 per hour for professional staff time will be charged when it is required to fulfill a request for ADP data.
(g) * * *
(6) The search and review hourly fees will be based upon employee grade levels in order to recoup the full, allowable direct costs attributable to their performance of these functions. They are as follows:
(f)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod, including for the Community Development Quota program (CDQ), in the Western Aleutian Islands district of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the Western Aleutian Islands district Pacific cod harvest limit of the 2017 total allowable catch (TAC) in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 29, 2017, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2017.
Josh Keaton, 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 by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 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 Western Aleutian Islands district Pacific cod harvest limit of the 2017 TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI is 4,018 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2017 and 2018 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (82 FR 11826, February 27, 2017). In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the Area 543 Pacific cod harvest limit of the 2017 Pacific cod TAC in the Aleutian Islands subarea of the BSAI will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 2,818 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 1,200 mt as incidental catch in directed fishing for other species. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod in the Western Aleutian Islands district of the BSAI.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is 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 delay the directed fishing closure of Pacific cod in the Western Aleutian Islands district 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 July 27, 2017.
The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012-21-04, which applies to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A310 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). AD 2012-21-04 currently requires repetitive inspections for, and replacement of, any cracked hood halves of fuel pump canisters. Since we issued AD 2012-21-04, we allowed inspections of the outer tank and trim tank fuel pump canister hood halves to be terminated. However, we have received reports of new in-service events of outer tank fuel pump canister hood cracking. This proposed AD would retain the requirements of AD 2012-21-04, reinstate the terminated inspections, and add optional terminating actions. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 18, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
On October 25, 2012, we issued AD 2012-21-04, Amendment 39-17220 (77 FR 64701, October 23, 2012) (“AD 2012-21-04”), for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A310 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, and Model A300-600 series airplanes. AD 2012-21-04 was prompted by reports of cracked fuel pump canister hoods located in fuel tanks. AD 2012-21-04 requires repetitive inspections for, and replacement of, any cracked hood halves of fuel pump canisters. We issued AD 2012-21-04 to prevent any detached canister hood fragments/debris from being ingested into the fuel feed system, and becoming a potential source of ignition with consequent fire or explosion.
Since we issued AD 2012-21-04 (which corresponds to European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2011-0124, dated June 30, 2011), EASA has issued EASA AD 2011-0124R1, dated September 5, 2014. That EASA AD introduced optional terminating action for the wing inner and center fuel tanks, and cancelled the repetitive inspections of the fuel pump canister hood halves in outer wing and trim tanks, for which no cracks had been reported following the initial inspection. The FAA provided a global alternative method of compliance (AMOC) to AD 2012-21-04 providing relief to operators from conducting the inspection for the fuel pump canister hoods in the outer wing and trim tanks. Since the FAA provided the global AMOC, we have received reports of new in-service events of outer tank fuel pump canister hood cracking.
EASA has issued AD 2017-0051, dated March 23, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A310 series airplanes;
Reports were received of finding cracked fuel pump canister hoods located in fuel tanks on in-service aeroplanes. Initial analyses, laboratory testing and examinations suggested that vibration-induced fatigue could have caused these cracks. However, initial data could not exclude some other potential contributing factors.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to detached canister hood fragments or debris being ingested into the fuel feed system. In addition, metallic debris inside the fuel tank could result in a potential source of fuel vapour ignition, possibly resulting in a fire or fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.
To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2011-0124 (later revised) [FAA AD 2012-21-04 corresponds to EASA AD 2011-0124] to require repetitive inspections of the canister hood halves installed on all fuel pump canisters and, if any damage was found, replacement. EASA AD 2011-0124R1 introduced an optional terminating action for the wing inner and centre fuel tanks, and cancelled the repetitive inspections of the fuel pump canister hoods in outer wing and trim tanks, for which no cracks had been reported following the initial inspection.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, new in service events of outer tank fuel pump canister hood cracking have been reported. Consequently, the canister hoods of the outer tank fuel pumps and trim tank fuel pumps will need to be inspected.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0124R1, which is superseded, retaining the repetitive inspections of fuel pump canister hoods in wing inner and centre tanks, and reintroduces repetitive detailed inspections (DET) for outer tank and trim tank fuel pump canister hoods. This [EASA] AD also retains the existing optional terminating action for the repetitive DET of wing inner and centre tank fuel pump canister hoods, and introduces a new optional terminating action for the repetitive DET of the outer and trim tank fuel pump canister hoods required by this [EASA] AD.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
Airbus has issued the following service information.
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of all fuel pump locations (center, wing-inner, and wing-outer tank), and replacing any cracked hood halves of fuel pump canisters.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0092, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6110, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2175, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the hood halves of the fuel pump canisters with newer design hood halves for the wing-inner tank and the center tank fuel pumps. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0094, Revision 00, dated January 9, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the hood halves of the fuel pump canisters with newer design hood halves for the wing-outer tank.
• Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016; and Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016. This service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections of all fuel pump locations (center, wing-inner, wing-outer, and trim tank), and replacing any cracked hood halves of fuel pump canisters. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
• Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6114, Revision 00, dated January 9, 2017; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2178, Revision 00, January 9, 2017. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the hood halves of the fuel pump canisters with newer design hood halves for the wing-outer tank and the trim tank fuel pumps. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.
We estimate that this proposed AD affects 168 airplanes of U.S. registry.
The actions required by AD 2012-21-04, and retained in this proposed AD take about 12 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2012-21-04 is $1,020 per product.
We also estimate that it would take about 9 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the new basic requirements of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $128,520, or $765 per product.
In addition, we estimate that the optional terminating actions would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $255, for a cost of $340 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.
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.
We are 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.
We 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. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 18, 2017.
This AD replaces AD 2012-21-04, Amendment 39-17220 (77 FR 64701, October 23, 2012) (“AD 2012-21-04”).
This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in any category, all certificated models, all manufacturer serial numbers.
(1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.
(2) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.
(3) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes, Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes, Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.
This AD was prompted by reports of cracked fuel pump canister hoods located in fuel tanks and new in-service events of outer tank fuel pump canister hood cracking. We are issuing this AD to prevent any detached canister hood fragments/debris from being ingested into the fuel feed system, and becoming a potential source of ignition with consequent fire or explosion.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2012-21-04, with revised service information. Within 30 months after November 27, 2012 (the effective date of AD 2012-21-04), do a detailed inspection for cracking of the fuel pump canister hood halves installed on all wing center and inner tank fuel pump canisters having part numbers (P/N) 2052C11, 2052C12, and C93R51-601, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable. If any crack is found on any fuel pump canister hood half during any inspection, before further flight, replace the fuel pump canister hood half, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 01, including Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet, dated April 15, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016.
(2) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 01, including Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet, dated April 15, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016.
(3) For Model A310 series airplanes: Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 01, including Inspection Findings—Reporting Sheet, dated April 15, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016. As of the effective date of this AD, only use Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2012-21-04, with no changes. Within 30 months after accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30 months, repeat the detailed inspection specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.
Within 30 months after the effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection for cracking of the outer tank and trim tank, as applicable, fuel pump canister hood halves installed on all fuel pump canisters having part numbers (P/N) 2052C11, 2052C12, and C93R51-601, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 30 months. If any crack is found on any fuel pump canister hood half during any inspection, before further flight, replace the fuel pump canister hood half, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin specified in paragraph (i)(1), (i)(2), or (i)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016.
(2) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016.
(3) For Model A310 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 03, dated December 16, 2016.
Replacement of the fuel pump canister hood halves installed on all fuel pump canisters having P/Ns 2052C11, 2052C12, and C93R51-601, constitutes terminating action for the inspections required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD. The replacement of the fuel pump canister hood halves must be done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service information specified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Model A300 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0092, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014 (for wing center and inner tank fuel pump canister hood halves); and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0094, Revision 00, dated January 9, 2017 (for outer tank fuel pump canister hood halves).
(2) For Model A300-600 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6110, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014 (for wing center and inner tank fuel pump canister hood halves); and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6114, Revision 00, dated January 9, 2017 (for outer tank and trim tank fuel pump canister hood halves).
(3) For Model A310 series airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2175, Revision 01, dated August 29, 2014 (for wing center and inner tank fuel pump canister hood halves); and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2178, Revision 00, January 9, 2017 (for outer tank and trim tank fuel pump canister hood halves).
(1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (k)(1)(i), (k)(1)(ii), or (k)(1)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, dated January 13, 2011; or Airbus Service
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, dated January 13, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 02, dated April 25, 2014.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, dated January 13, 2011; or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 02, dated April 25, 2014.
(2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i), (k)(2)(ii), or (k)(2)(iii) of this AD.
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, dated January 13, 2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 01, dated April 15, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-0089, Revision 02, dated April 25, 2014.
(ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, dated January 13, 2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 01, dated April 15, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6106, Revision 02, dated April 25, 2014.
(iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, dated January 13, 2011; Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 01, dated April 15, 2011; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-28-2173, Revision 02, dated April 25, 2014.
(3) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Service Bulletin A300-28-6110, Revision 00, dated November 28, 2013.
(1)
(i) 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.
(ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-21-04, Amendment 39-17220 (77 FR 64701, October 23, 2012), are not approved as AMOCs with this AD.
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0051, dated March 23, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Honeywell International Inc. AS907 series turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by two loss-of-thrust-control events, and two in-flight shutdowns (IFSDs) of new production, low-time engines attributed to water intrusion of the engine electronic control unit (ECU). This proposed AD would require applying sealant to identified areas of the ECU and requires inserting a copy of certain airplane operating procedures into the applicable flight manuals. We are proposing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.
We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 18, 2017.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We received reports of two loss-of-thrust-control events and two IFSDs of new production, low-time AS907-2-1A engines, attributed to water intrusion into the ECU at the ECU cover-to-body splitline, cover screws and cavities, leading to internal board electrical faults. Similar events have occurred on AS907-1-1A engines when rainwater dripped through the ECU and T2 engine access panels at 10 and 2 o'clock locations onto the ECU and harnesses while the airplane was on the ground. This proposed AD would require application of sealant to identified areas of the ECU and requires inserting a copy of certain airplane operating procedures into the applicable flight manuals. These procedures describe interim actions for not dispatching the airplane under certain engine electronic fault conditions. This condition, if not corrected, could result in dual engine power loss, loss of thrust control, and damage to the engine and airplane.
We reviewed Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB); SB AS907-76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017; Operating Information Letter (OIL) OIAS907-0001R00, dated March 14, 2017; Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 2119576, Temporary Revision (TR) No. 76-1, Section 76-10-15, dated September 6, 2016; and CMM 2119576, TR No. 76-1, Section 76-10-29, dated August 2, 2016.
In combination, the SB and TRs describe procedures for applying sealant to identified areas of the ECU to prevent water from entering the ECU on AS907 series engines. The OIL provides instructions for interrogating the onboard Maintenance Data Computer to clear engine electronic fault conditions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require applying sealant to identified areas of the ECU.
Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017 recommends complying after 400 engine operating hours, not to exceed 18 months from the date of issuance of the SB. This NPRM proposes complying within 200 engine operating hours or 9 months after the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs first.
We consider this proposed AD interim action. Honeywell is developing design changes that will eliminate the need to apply sealant to the ECU.
We estimate that this ECU sealing affects 477 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
We estimate the following costs to do any necessary fault checks of the Maintenance Data Computer (MDC)/Onboard Messaging System (OMS). We estimate that 20 engines will need this fault check.
According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.
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.
We are 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
We 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) Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
We must receive comments by September 18, 2017.
None.
This AD applies to all Honeywell International Inc. AS907-1-1A, -2-1A, -2-1G, and -3-1E model turbofan engines, with engine serial numbers (S/Ns) listed in Table 3 of Honeywell Service Bulletin (SB) AS907-76-9021 Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017; or with engine electronic control unit (ECU), part numbers (P/Ns) 2119576-1001 through -1011, with no Mod Record or with a Mod Record 1 through 5 (for the AS907-1-1A engine); or with ECU, P/N 2119576-1102, with no Mod Record (for the AS907-2-1A engine); or with ECU, P/Ns 2119576-3002 and -3102, with no Mod Record (for the AS907-2-1G engine); or with ECU, P/Ns 2119576-4102 and -4103, with no Mod Record (for the AS907-3-1E), installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7600, Engine Controls Section.
This AD was prompted by two low-time loss-of-thrust-control events and two in-flight shut downs (IFSDs) attributed to water intrusion of the engine ECU. We are issuing this AD to prevent a dual engine power loss, and loss of thrust control and damage to the engine and airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) For applicable engines, apply sealant to both ECUs within 200 engine operating hours, or 9 months after the effective date of this AD whichever occurs first, using Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C. of Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017.
(2) If the ECU sealant is removed or becomes defective, re-apply sealant using Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.C. of Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017; or Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) 2119576, Temporary Revision (TR) No. 76-1, Section 76-10-15, dated September 6, 2016; or CMM 2119576, TR No. 76-1, Section 76-10-29, dated August 2, 2016.
(3) Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, for all airplanes that have an affected engine installed with an ECU not in compliance with paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, insert a copy of Figure 1, 2, or 3 to paragraph (g) of this AD, as applicable to your airplane, into the Emergency Procedures Section of the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM).
(4) If a cyan warning is announced, before next flight, check the current fault messages in the Maintenance Data Computer (MDC)/Onboard Messaging System (OMS) for any of the following:
(5) Replace the ECU if any of the fault messages listed in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD are in the MDC OMS. Refer to Operating Information Letter (OIL) OIAS907-0001R00, dated March 14, 2017 for information on returning and replacing the ECU.
(6) Continued flight is permitted if none of the fault messages listed in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD are in the MDC OMS, or if paragraph (g)(5) of this AD was accomplished.
(i) Do not install an ECU if any of the fault messages listed in paragraph (g)(4) of this AD are in the MDC OMS.
(ii) Do not install an ECU that has a P/N and Mod Record listed in paragraph (c) of this AD unless it was either sealed as specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD or if the ECU is not affected by this AD.
Remove from the AFM, Figure 1, 2, or 3 to paragraph (g) of this AD, after paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD is accomplished.
You may take credit for the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, if you performed those actions before the effective date of this AD using Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021, Revision 0, dated May 13, 2016.
The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5246; fax: 562-627-5210; email:
(2) Honeywell SB AS907-76-9021, Revision 1, dated April 20, 2017; OIL OIAS907-0001R00, dated March 14, 2017; CMM 2119576, TR No. 76-1, Section 76-10-15, dated September 6, 2016; and CMM 2119576, TR No. 76-1, Section 76-10-29, dated August 2, 2016, can be obtained from Honeywell International using the contact information in paragraph (l)(3) of this AD.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-2802; phone: 800-601-3099; Internet:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
This action proposes to amend and remove multiple VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways in northcentral United States to reflect additional amendments to several Federal airways impacted by the decommissioning of the Tiverton, OH, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid. The route changes would be made as part of the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) efforts to safely improve the overall efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS).
Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-2 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies the NAS route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-2) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-9555 and Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-2.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
On February 27, 2017, the FAA published in the
Subsequent to publication, the FAA initiated a project for decommissioning the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME due to the land-lease for the navigation aid expiring September 30, 2018, and not being renewed. With the planned decommissioning of the Tiverton VOR/DME occurring, several of the Federal airways proposed for amendment in the NPRM are impacted and will require additional amendment. Based on the timing of the NPRM and the planned Tiverton VOR/DME decommissioning project, and that several airways are affected by both actions, the FAA decided to incorporate both activities into this airspace docket action. By merging the planned Tiverton VOR/DME decommissioning activity with this action, additional proposed amendments to V-92, V-133, and V-210 are necessary. Additionally, NAV CANADA has amended V-43 within Canada's airspace that requires the FAA to adjust the proposed amendment to V-43. The remaining Federal airways associated with the Tiverton VOR/DME (V-443, V-523, and V-525) require no additional proposed amendments beyond those proposed in the NPRM.
Additionally, the FAA reviewed the airway amendments proposed in the NPRM and the Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex project redesign and has now determined the two activities are in fact independent of each other and not connected. The FAA mischaracterized the connection between the redesign and the airway changes in the NPRM. The airway amendments proposed in the NPRM support the FAA's NextGen efforts to safely improve the overall efficiency of the NAS.
Since several airway amendments proposed in the NPRM require further amendment, and the NPRM characterization requires clarification that the airway amendments proposed in the NPRM support the FAA's NextGen efforts independent from the FAA's Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex project activities, the FAA has determined it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment.
The FAA is undertaking this action in support of its NextGen goal to safely improve the overall efficiency of the NAS by increasing efficiencies in the enroute structure and areas with complex air traffic flows. More specifically, the proposed changes would enhance the way aircraft navigate the enroute airspace, improve airport access, and make flight routes more efficient by optimizing the operations and procedures based on satellite-based navigation.
Lastly, the FAA plans to continue NextGen modernization efforts of the Cleveland and Detroit terminal radar approach control (TRACON) airspace areas, at a later date, by working with the facilities to establish RNAV T-routes designed to enhance the flow of traffic through their busy terminal airspace areas. Any new RNAV T-routes that result from that process will be proposed in a separate airspace docket action.
The legal description to V-2 is revised to reflect the proposed amendment.
The proposed amendment to V-43 is revised to include removing the airway segment between the Erie, PA, VORTAC and the Buffalo, NY, VOR/DME.
The proposed amendment to V-92 is revised to include removing the airway segments between the intersection of the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC 358° and Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME 127° radials (BEBEE fix) and the Chicago Heights, IL, VORTAC; between the Goshen, IN, VORTAC and the intersection of the Goshen, IN, VORTAC 092°(T)/092°(M) and Fort Wayne, IN, VORTAC 016°(T)/016°(M) radials (ILTON fix); and between the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME and the Newcomerstown, OH, VOR/DME.
The proposed amendment to V-133 is revised to include removing the airway segment between the Zanesville, OH, VOR/DME and the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME.
The proposed amendment to V-210 is revised to include removing the airway segment between the Rosewood, OH, VORTAC and the Tiverton, OH, VOR/DME.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-43, V-92, V-133, and V-210. Those airway amendments are outlined below.
The remaining VOR Federal airway amendments and removals proposed in the NPRM published in the
All radials in the route descriptions below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Seattle, WA; Ellensburg, WA; Moses Lake, WA; Spokane, WA; Mullan Pass, ID; Missoula, MT; Helena, MT; INT Helena 119° and Livingston, MT, 322° radials; Livingston; Billings, MT; Miles City, MT; 24 miles, 90 miles, 55 MSL, Dickinson, ND; 10 miles, 60 miles, 38 MSL, Bismarck, ND; 14 miles, 62 miles, 34 MSL, Jamestown, ND; Fargo, ND; Alexandria, MN; Gopher, MN; Nodine, MN; Lone Rock, WI; Madison, WI; Badger, WI; Muskegon, MI; to Lansing, MI. From Buffalo, NY; Rochester, NY; Syracuse, NY; Utica, NY; Albany, NY; INT Albany 084° and Gardner, MA, 284° radials; to Gardner.
From Youngstown, OH; to Erie, PA.
From Chicago Heights, IL; to Goshen, IN. From Newcomerstown, OH; Bellaire, OH; INT Bellaire 107° and Grantsville, MD, 285° radials; Grantsville; INT Grantsville 124° and Armel, VA, 292° radials; to Armel.
From INT Charlotte, NC, 305° and Barretts Mountain, NC, 197° radials; Barretts Mountain; Charleston, WV; to Zanesville, OH. From Saginaw, MI; Traverse City, MI; Escanaba, MI; Sawyer, MI; Houghton, MI; Thunder Bay, ON, Canada; International Falls, MN; to Red Lake, ON, Canada. The airspace within Canada is excluded.
From Los Angeles, CA, INT Los Angeles 083° and Pomona, CA, 240° radials; Pomona; INT Daggett, CA, 229° and Hector, CA, 263° radials; Hector; Goffs, CA; 13 miles, 23 miles 71 MSL, 85 MSL, Peach Springs, AZ; Grand Canyon, AZ; Tuba City, AZ; 10 miles 90 MSL, 91 miles 105 MSL, Rattlesnake, NM; Alamosa, CO; INT Alamosa 074° and Lamar, CO, 250° radials; 40 miles, 51 miles, 65 MSL, Lamar; 13 miles, 79 miles, 55 MSL, Liberal, KS; INT Liberal 137° and Will Rogers, OK, 284° radials; Will Rogers; INT Will Rogers 113° and Okmulgee, OK, 238° radials; Okmulgee. From Brickyard, IN, Muncie, IN; to Rosewood, OH. From Revloc, PA; INT Revloc 096° and Harrisburg, PA, 285° radials; Harrisburg; Lancaster, PA; INT Lancaster 095° and Yardley, PA, 255° radials; to Yardley.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.
The FAA is withdrawing a previously published NPRM that proposed to revise the temporary flight restriction (TFR) provision for space flight operations to make the restrictions applicable to all aircraft including non-U.S. registered aircraft, instead of only U.S. registered aircraft or aircraft flown by pilots using a FAA pilot certificate. The NPRM also proposed to amend language for consistency with other TFR provisions and commercial space regulations and definitions by replacing “space flight operations” with “launch, reentry, or amateur rocket operations.” The intended effect of the proposed action was to further enhance the safety in the affected airspace and improve the readability of the TFR requirements. After further review of this action and the changing technology and scope of new flight operations, the FAA determined that a better assessment of TFRs in the National Air Space (NAS) is needed to address present day operations; therefore, it is withdrawing this NPRM.
The FAA is withdrawing the NPRM published on September 2, 2015 (80 FR 53033) as of August 2, 2017.
For technical questions concerning this
Section 91.143 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) authorizes the FAA to issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) prohibiting a person from operating any aircraft of U.S. registry or piloting an aircraft under the authority of an airman certificate issued by the FAA in areas designated in the NOTAM for space flight operations. By restricting non-essential aircraft from the designated recovery area, the FAA ensures the safe recovery of spacecraft while mitigating the risk of an aircraft collision.
On September 2, 2015, the FAA published an NPRM, Notice No. 15-07, proposing to amend § 91.143 [80 FR 53033] to ensure that all aircraft—not only U.S. registered aircraft or aircraft flown by pilots using an FAA pilot certificate—are restricted from operating in airspace designated for launch, reentry, or amateur rocket operations. The FAA also proposed amending the provision to update and clarify that the FAA issues NOTAMs that designate a TFR under § 91.143 for launch, reentry, or Class 2 or 3 amateur rocket operations, when the FAA determines a TFR is necessary to maintain safety because technological changes have resulted in an increased growth of larger amateur rockets with greater power. The NPRM would also amend the language of § 91.143 to align with the terminology used in 51 U.S.C. Chapter 509 and the FAA space transportation regulations and definitions by replacing “space flight operations” with “launch, reentry, or amateur rocket operations.” The FAA intended to strengthen the understandability of these requirements and enhance safety in the affected airspace.
The 60-day comment period closed on November 2, 2015. The FAA received two comments from individuals regarding: (1) The use of ambiguous language in the proposed regulation that does not address the uniqueness of unmanned aircraft operations and (2) a recommendation to limit the length of a TFR to a narrow window of time.
One commenter suggested that the FAA limit the length of the TFR to a narrow window of time not to exceed 24 hours and recommended that a 48-hour notice be provided via NOTAM. The individual commented that any TFR longer than 24 hours is not temporary and should be established as a restricted area by rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking because time limits were not proposed in the NPRM and are not addressed in the existing rule. The FAA notes, however, that TFRs issued under § 91.143 are established within the airspace and over a period of time necessary to contain the activity and ensure the safety of the NAS.
Another commenter suggested that the use of the proposed language: “No person may operate an aircraft within an area . . .” presents an undesirable level of ambiguity when considering unmanned aircraft and drones—particularly autonomously guided or preprogrammed aircraft that follow GPS coordinates or are otherwise not under the direct control of a person.
The FAA defines the term “operate” broadly. Under the definition in § 1.1, “operate with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in § 91.13) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).” Therefore, the term “operate” captures persons who operate the aircraft directly and those who cause an aircraft to be operated, whether manned or unmanned. Additionally, “within” as used in the phrase “within an area designated for launch, reentry, or amateur rocket operations” refers to the location of the aircraft, not the location of the operator.
The FAA has decided to withdraw this rulemaking because it has determined that this regulatory course of action requires further study of the changing environment of flight operations, including new technologies and new types of commercially viable operations. The proposed rule references launch, reentry, and amateur rocket operations, replacing the reference to “space operations,” which encompasses both launch and reentry; however, narrowing TFRs to launch, reentry, and amateur rockets operations without understanding the complete scope of all space operations could unknowingly narrow the applicability of TFRs. A greater understanding of current flight operations will serve to enhance the effectiveness of the TFRs. From an efficiency standpoint, the FAA strives to integrate all operations in the NAS, and because TFRs are necessary to provide the highest level of safety, the FAA is withdrawing this NPRM to better assess the scope of TFR regulations in the NAS. The FAA will continue to include launches, reentries, and amateur rocket operations under “space operations” in § 91.143.
The FAA has determined that this regulatory course of action requires further study and that withdrawal of this NPRM is necessary. Withdrawal of Notice No. 15-07 does not preclude the FAA from issuing another notice on the subject matter in the future or commit the agency to any future course of action. The Agency will make any future necessary changes to the Code of Federal Regulations through an NPRM with opportunity for public comment.
Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, are subject to these requirements.
The FAA has evaluated this withdrawal based on the requirements of Executive Order 13771. Because the FAA determined that the NPRM was not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, the withdrawal of the NPRM does not constitute an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. In addition, the FAA also finds that there are no quantifiable costs or benefits associated with this withdrawal, and may therefore publish this action without identifying two offsetting deregulatory actions. The FAA, therefore, is withdrawing Notice No. 15-07, published in 80 FR 53033 on September 2, 2015.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule; corrections.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Affairs is correcting a proposed rule that proposes to amend its regulations concerning the VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program that was published in the
The correction is effective August 2, 2017.
Written comments may be submitted through
Guy Liedke, Program Analyst, Grant/Per Diem Program, (673/GPD), VA National Grant and Per Diem Program Office, 10770 N. 46th Street, Suite C-200, Tampa, FL 33617, (877) 332-0334,
VA is correcting its proposed rule that proposes to amend its regulations concerning the VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program.
In FR Doc. 17-15338 appearing on page 34457 in the
On page 34459, in the first column, in the second full paragraph, add a new first sentence, “VA makes no changes to paragraphs (b) and (c) and merely restates them.” Immediately preceding the sentence, “Proposed paragraphs (d), (f), and (h) restate, without substantive change, material that currently appears at § 61.33(e), (g), and (i).”
On page 34463, in the first column, amend § 61.33(2)(A) by removing “(A)” and replacing it with “(i)”, and in § 61.33(2)(B) by removing “(B)” and replacing it with “(ii)”.
On page 34463, in the second column, amend § 61.33(c) by removing “118” and replacing it with “1/8”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California on November 10, 1993. This SIP revision concerns the establishment of a Photochemical Assessment Monitoring System (PAMS) network in six ozone nonattainment areas within California. The EPA is proposing this action under the Clean Air Act based on the conclusion that all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements related to PAMS SIP revisions have been met.
Any comments must arrive by September 1, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0411 at
Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3959,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
The Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) requires the EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for certain widespread pollutants, such as ozone, that cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
The Act, as amended in 1990, required the EPA to designate as nonattainment any ozone areas that were still designated nonattainment under the 1977 Act Amendments, and any other areas violating the 1-hour ozone standard, generally based on air quality monitoring data from the 1987 through 1989 period.
The control requirements and date by which attainment of the one-hour ozone
In 1991, we published the initial ozone classifications for nonattainment areas within each state, and within California, we classified six ozone nonattainment areas as Serious, Severe, or Extreme: Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (“South Coast”), Sacramento Metro, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley, Southeast Desert Modified AQMA (“Southeast Desert”) and Ventura County.
Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires that the EPA promulgate rules for enhanced monitoring of ozone, oxides of nitrogen (NO
The final PAMS rule was promulgated by the EPA on February 12, 1993 (58 FR 8452). Section 58.40(a) of the revised rule requires the State to submit a PAMS network description, including a schedule for implementation, to the Administrator within six months after promulgation or by August 12, 1993.
On August 12, 1993, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted proposed PAMS network plans to the EPA that included a schedule for implementation for each of the six subject areas in California. This submittal was reviewed and approved in stages for the different areas.
Section 182(c)(1) also requires that the SIP be revised to contain measures to improve the ambient monitoring of ozone, NO
On November 10, 1993, CARB submitted to the EPA a SIP revision for PAMS in California (“California PAMS SIP revision”). The California PAMS SIP revision consists of PAMS commitments from five California air districts with jurisdiction within the six relevant ozone nonattainment areas: the South Coast Air Quality Management District(for South Coast and Southeast Desert areas); Sacramento Metro AQMD (for the Sacramento Metro area); San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (for the San Diego County area); San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD (for the San Joaquin Valley area), and Ventura County APCD (for the Ventura County area), as well as CARB Executive Orders approving the commitments, and public process documentation. The California PAMS SIP revision is intended to meet the requirements of section 182(c)(1) of the Act and affect compliance with the PAMS regulations, codified at 40 CFR part 58, as promulgated on February 12, 1993.
The criteria used to review the SIP revision submittal are derived from the CAA, and include: The General Preamble;
The September 2, 1993, Helms boilerplate memorandum stipulates that the PAMS SIP, at a minimum, must: Provide for monitoring of criteria pollutants, such as ozone and nitrogen dioxide and non-criteria pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, speciated VOCs, including carbonyls, as well as meteorological parameters; provide a copy of the approved (or proposed) PAMS network description, including the phase-in schedule, for public inspection during the public notice and/or comment period provided for in the SIP revision or, alternatively, provide information to the public upon request concerning the State's plans for implementing the rules; make reference to the fact that PAMS will become a part of the State or local air monitoring stations (SLAMS) network; and provide a statement that SLAMS will employ federal reference or equivalent methods (FRMs or FEMs) while most PAMS sampling will be conducted using methods that are not FRMs or FEMs but approved by the EPA.
The California PAMS SIP revision provides that each of the five relevant air districts will implement PAMS as required in 40 CFR part 58, as amended February 12, 1993. Each district will amend its SLAMS and its National Air Monitoring Stations monitoring systems to include the PAMS requirements. Each district will develop its PAMS network design and establish monitoring sites pursuant to 40 CFR part 58 in accordance with an approved network description and as negotiated with the EPA through the CAA section 105 grant process on an annual basis. Each district also provided the public with an opportunity to inspect the proposed network description during the public review process for the proposed SIP revision prior to
The five California air districts have implemented their PAMS networks as required in 40 CFR part 58. Each relevant air district also includes a provision to meet quality assurance requirements as contained in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A and a provision to assure that the PAMS monitors will meet monitoring methodology requirements contained in 40 CFR part 58, appendix C. Lastly, the air districts provided assurance that the PAMS network within their respective jurisdictions will be phased in over a period of not more than five years as required in 40 CFR 58.44.
As such, we conclude that the PAMS SIP revision submitted by CARB on November 10, 1993, meets the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements, and we propose to approve it as part of the California SIP.
Under CAA section 110(k)(3) and for the reasons discussed above, the EPA proposes to approve the California PAMS SIP revision submitted on November 10, 1993, for six ozone nonattainment areas in California. We will accept comments from the public on the proposed approval for the next 30 days.
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the 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 proposed action merely approves a state plan as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• 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 an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• 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; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is 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 proposed action 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).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a reopening of the public comment period for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) requesting public comment and information on revisions to the EPA's “Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings.”
The comment period for the NPRM, published January 19, 2017 (82 FR 4408), is reopened. Written comments must be received on or before October 16, 2017.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788, at
Ingrid Rosencrantz, EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9286,
The EPA published the NPRM on January 19,
1.
• Identify the rulemaking by docket number, subject heading,
• Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be reproduced.
• Illustrate your concerns with specific examples 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.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788. The EPA has also developed a Web site for the NPRM at:
In response to requests for an extension, we are reopening the public comment period for this NPRM through October 16, 2017. This action will provide the public additional time to provide comment on updating this standard.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice: intent to renew charter and call for nominations.
The Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (FVIAC) was established to examine the full spectrum of fruit and vegetable issues and provide recommendations and ideas to the Secretary of Agriculture on how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) can tailor programs to better meet the needs of the fruit and vegetable industry. Through this Notice, USDA is announcing the following: Its intent to renew the Charter of the FVIAC, which expires on July 28, 2017; its call for nominations to fill ten (10) upcoming vacancies for appointments in 2017, and its call for nominations for a pool of candidates to fill future unexpected vacancies in any of the position categories should that occur.
The current FVIAC Charter expires on July 28, 2017. Written nominations must be postmarked on or before September 1, 2017.
Nomination applications can be sent via email to Marlene Betts at
Marlene Betts, (202) 720-5057; Email:
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given that the Secretary of Agriculture intends to renew the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee (FVIAC) for two years. The purpose of the FVIAC is to examine the full spectrum of issues faced by the fruit and vegetable industry and provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can tailor its programs to better meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.
The Deputy Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service's Specialty Crops Program will serve as the FVIAC Executive Secretary. Representatives from USDA mission areas and agencies affecting the fruit and vegetable industry will be called upon to participate in the FVIAC's meetings as determined by the FVIAC Executive Secretary and the FVIAC.
Industry members are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and serve 2-year terms, with a maximum of three 2-year terms. Membership consists of 25 members who represent the fruit and vegetable industry and will include individuals representing fruit and vegetable growers/shippers, fruit and vegetable wholesalers/distributors, brokers, retailers/restaurant representatives, fresh-cut and other fruit and vegetable processors, and foodservice suppliers. It should also include individuals representing farmers markets and food hubs, organic and non-organic fruit and vegetable representatives, and representatives from state departments of agriculture, farmer organizations, and produce trade associations. Through this Notice, the USDA seeks to fulfill two goals. Firstly, it is seeking nominations to fill ten (10) upcoming vacancies. The Secretary of Agriculture will appoint one person to each of these ten positions to serve a 2-year term of office beginning August 1, 2017, and ending July 31, 2019. Secondly, the USDA is seeking nominations to fill future unexpected vacancies in any of the position categories. These nominations will be held as a pool of candidates that the Secretary of Agriculture can draw upon as replacement appointees if unexpected vacancies occur. A person appointed to fill a vacancy will serve for the remainder of the 2-year term of the vacant position.
The Secretary of Agriculture invites those individuals, organizations, and groups affiliated with the categories listed above to nominate individuals or themselves for membership on the FVIAC. Nominations should describe and document the proposed member's fruit and vegetable industry qualifications for membership to the FVIAC. The Secretary of Agriculture seeks a diverse group of members representing a broad spectrum of persons interested in providing suggestions and ideas on how USDA can tailor its programs to meet the fruit and vegetable industry's needs.
To nominate yourself or someone else, please submit the following: A resume (required), Form AD-755 (required), which can be accessed at:
Equal opportunity practices will be followed in all appointments to the FVIAC in accordance with USDA policies. To ensure that FVIAC recommendations take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, person with disabilities and limited resource agriculture producers.
The information collection requirements concerning the nomination process have been previously cleared by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 0505-0001.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice of web-based listening session and request for stakeholder input.
As part of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) strategy to successfully meet the needs of its stakeholders, NIFA will host a virtual listening session. The focus of the listening session is to gather stakeholder input regarding capacity building grants for Non-Land-Grant Colleges of Agriculture (NLGCA); The Secondary Education, Two-Year Postsecondary Education and Agriculture in the K-12 Classroom Challenge Grants Program (SPECA); The Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Fields Program (WAMS); The Higher Education Challenge Grants Program (HEC). NIFA is particularly interested in achieving the most impact and identifying suggested priorities in these programs.
The listening session will be held on Tuesday, August 15, 2017 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). All written comments must be received by 5 p.m. EDT on August 15, 2017.
The web-based listening session will be hosted using Adobe Connect and audio conference call. On August 15th, please access the following Web site,
Dr. Joyce Parker, Program Specialist, NIFA at (202) 401-4512 or by email at
Persons wishing to present during the web-based listening session on Tuesday, August 15, 2017, are requested to pre-register by contacting Dr. Joyce Parker at
The purpose of this program is to assist the NLGCA Institutions in maintaining and expanding their capacity to conduct education, research, and outreach activities relating to agriculture, renewable resources, and other similar disciplines. NLGCA Institutions may use the funds to maintain and expand capacity: (A) To successfully compete for funds from Federal grants and other sources to carry out educational, research, and outreach activities that address priority concerns of national, regional, State, and local interest; (B) to disseminate information relating to priority concerns to—(i) interested members of the agriculture, renewable resources, and other relevant communities; (ii) the public; and (iii) any other interested entity; (C) to encourage members of the agriculture, renewable resources, and other relevant communities to participate in priority education, research, and outreach activities by providing matching funding to leverage grant funds; and, (D) through (i) the purchase or other acquisition of equipment and other infrastructure (not including alteration, repair, renovation, or construction of buildings); (ii) the professional growth and development of the faculty of the NLGCA Institution; and (iii) the development of graduate assistantships.
The SPECA Challenge Grants Program is a NIFA-administered competitive grants program focused on improving formal, K-14 food, agricultural, natural resource, and human (FANH) sciences education. SPECA-funded projects ensure a competent and qualified workforce will exist to serve the FANH sciences system. At the same time, SPECA-funded projects improve the economic health and viability of communities through the development of degree programs emphasizing new and emerging employment opportunities. Finally, SPECA projects address the national challenge to increase the number and diversity of students entering the food, agricultural, natural resource, and human (FANH) sciences (
The purpose of this program is to support research and extension projects that increase participation by women and underrepresented minorities from rural areas in STEM. NIFA intends this program to address educational needs, as determined by each institution, within broadly defined areas of food and agricultural sciences and related disciplines. Applications recommended for funding must highlight and emphasize a competent and qualified workforce to guide the food and agricultural sciences system. WAMS-funded projects should improve the economic health and viability of rural communities by developing research and extension initiatives that focus on new and emerging employment opportunities in STEM occupations. Hence, the goal of WAMS projects is to meet the national challenge to increase the number and diversity of students entering food and agriculture-related STEM disciplines (
The Higher Education Challenge Grants Program (HEC) is a NIFA-administered competitive grants program focused on improving formal, baccalaureate or master's degree level food, agricultural, natural resources, and human sciences (FANH) education and first professional degree-level education in veterinary medicine (DVM). HEC projects provide funding to eligible applicants to help ensure a competent, qualified and diverse workforce will exist to serve the FANH sciences system. At the same time, HEC-funded projects improve the economic health and viability of communities through the development of degree programs emphasizing new and emerging employment opportunities. Finally, HEC projects address the national challenge to increase the number and diversity of students entering the FANH sciences (
All comments and the official transcript of the listening session, once available, may be reviewed on the NIFA Web page,
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice of web-based listening session and request for stakeholder input.
As part of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) strategy to successfully meet the needs of its stakeholders, NIFA will host a virtual listening session. The focus of the listening session is to gather stakeholder input for the Higher Education Multicultural Scholars Program (MSP) and the National Needs Graduate and Postgraduate Fellowship (NNF) Grants Program Request for Applications (RFA) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. NIFA is particularly interested achieving the most impact and identifying suggested priorities in these workforce development programs.
The listening session will be held on Thursday, August 24, 2017 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Anyone interested may submit written comments. All written comments must be submitted to Dr. Joyce Parker at
The web-based listening session will be hosted using Adobe Connect and audio conference call. On August 24th, please access the following Web site,
For the MSP program email—
For the NNF program email—
Include NIFA-2017-0004 in the subject line of the message.
Dr. Joyce Parker, Program Specialist, NIFA at (202) 401-4512 or by email at
Through these scholarships, the goal of the MSP is to increase the participation of any group historically underrepresented in USDA mission areas and prepare them for the professional and scientific workforce in these areas. Underrepresented/underserved groups are those whose representation among food and agricultural professionals is disproportionately less than their proportion in the general population as indicated in standard statistical references, or as documented on a case-by-case basis by national survey data (
National Needs Graduate and Postgraduate Fellowship Grants Program (NNF)—The purpose of the NNF Grants Program is to provide funding to support students' training and completion of master's and/or doctoral degree programs in identified national need areas within the Food, Agricultural, Natural Resources, and Human Sciences. Awards made under NNF are specifically intended to support traineeship programs that engage outstanding students to pursue and complete their degrees in areas where there is a national need for the development of scientific and professional expertise in the food and
All comments and the official transcript of the listening session, once available, may be reviewed on the NIFA Web page,
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's (RBS) intention to revise a currently approved information collection in support of the program for the Annual Survey of Farmer Cooperatives, as authorized in the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926.
Comments on this notice must be received by October 2, 2017 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this revision. Comments should refer to the information collection by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: James Wadsworth, Policy and Research Branch, RBS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 3254, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3254, (202) 720-7395 (this is not a toll-free number) or email
James Wadsworth, Policy and Research Branch, RBS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 3254, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3254, Telephone (202) 720-7395 (this is not a toll-free number) or send an email message to:
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RBS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the RBS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) 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 forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Jeanne Jacobs, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Stop 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On March 15, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Based on the timely withdrawal of the requests for review of certain companies, we are now rescinding this administrative review for the period January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, with respect to 67 companies.
Effective August 2, 2017.
Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-0989.
On January 4, 2005, the Department published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. All requesting parties withdrew their respective requests for an administrative review of the companies or groups of companies listed in the Appendix to this notice within 90 days of the date of publication of the
The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice.
This notice serves as the only reminder to importers whose entries will be liquidated as a result of this rescission notice, of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's assumption that the reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Building Block. This notice is the initial step for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) in collaborating with technology companies to address cybersecurity challenges identified under the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Building Block. Participation in the building block is open to all interested organizations.
Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest template to be completed and submitted to NIST. Letters of interest will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than September 1, 2017. When the building block has been completed, NIST will post a notice on the NCCoE Secure Inter-Domain Routing Building Block Web site at:
The NCCoE is located at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest must be submitted to
William Haag, Jr. via email to
Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify how their products address one or more of the following desired solution characteristics in section 3 of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Building Block (for reference, please see the link in the
Responding organizations need to understand and, in their letters of interest, commit to provide:
1. Access for all participants' project teams to component interfaces and the organization's experts necessary to make functional connections among security platform components.
2. Support for development and demonstration of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Building Block in NCCoE facilities which will be conducted in a manner consistent with the following standards and guidance: FIPS 200; FIPS 201; OMB Circular A-130; FIPS 140-2; SP 800-37 Rev. 1; SP 800-53 Rev. 4; SP 800-54; SP 800-57 Part 1; SP 800-130; SP 800-152; SP 800-160; NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity; and RFCs 793, 3882, 4012 5280, 5575, 6092, 6472, 6480, 6481-6493, 6811, 7115, 7318, 7454, 7674, 7908
Additional details about the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Building Block are available at:
NIST cannot guarantee that all the products proposed by respondents will be used in the demonstration. Each prospective participant will be expected to work collaboratively with NIST staff and other project participants under the terms of the consortium CRADA in the development of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Building Block. Prospective participants' contribution to the collaborative effort will include assistance in establishing the necessary interface functionality, connection and set-up capabilities and procedures, demonstration harnesses, environmental and safety conditions for use, integrated platform user instructions, and demonstration plans and scripts necessary to demonstrate the desired capabilities. Each participant will train NIST personnel, as necessary, to operate its product in capability demonstrations. Following successful demonstrations, NIST will publish a description of the security platform and its performance characteristics sufficient to permit other organizations to develop and deploy security platforms that meet the security objectives of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing Building Block. These descriptions will be public information.
Under the terms of the consortium CRADA, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products by providing IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.
The dates of the demonstration of the Secure Inter-Domain Routing, Building Block capability will be announced on the NCCoE Web site at least two weeks in advance at
For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Margo Schulze-Haugen, (301) 427-8503 or
Amendment 7 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (79 FR 71510, December 2, 2014) implemented individual bluefin tuna quota (IBQ) shares and allocations for vessels permitted in the Atlantic Tunas Longline Category and Atlantic Tunas Purse Seine Category. IBQs are intended to fairly and effectively allocate limited quota for incidental capture of bluefin tuna among vessels in the Longline category, while minimizing dead discards and discouraging interactions with bluefin tuna, and better utilizing the Purse seine category quota. An on-line system developed by the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) tracks allocations and allocation leases, and reconciles leases with bluefin tuna catches for quota monitoring. The extension of this collection of information will allow NMFS to continue to account for the reporting burden associated with allocation and lease tracking. There are no new requirements.
First-time vessel permit holders in the affected categories must obtain and set up an IBQ account in the online “Catch Shares Online System” in order to be issued IBQ shares and resultant allocation, and to lease IBQ. To use the electronic IBQ System, first-time participants will need to request an account and set their account up with background information. The information collected during account issuance and set-up will be used by NMFS to verify the identity of the individual/business and whether they qualify for IBQ allocation leasing.
The lease monitoring information collected by the online system will be used by each permit holder to keep track of their individual IBQ allocation, and document allocation leases with other IBQ participants. NMFS will use these data to ensure proper accounting of allocations among participants, and to track use of quota allocations and reconcile allocation usage with bluefin tuna catch and landings.
Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Under the MSA, management measures must be consistent with ten National Standards, and fisheries must be managed to maintain optimum yield, rebuild overfished fisheries, and prevent overfishing. Under ATCA, the Secretary of Commerce shall promulgate regulations, as necessary and appropriate, to implement measures adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
Information will be collected on line using the electronic IBQ System.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice calling for nominations and announcing meeting.
NOAA is soliciting nominations for individuals to serve as members of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Consultative Committee. This action is
The NAFO Consultative Committee Meeting will be held on August 30, 2017.
Nominations for NAFO Consultative Committee members should be made in writing to Mr. Patrick E. Moran, Office of International Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Service, at 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Nominations and questions about the NAFO Consultative Committee meeting may also be sent via email (
Mr. Patrick E. Moran, (301) 427-8370.
NAFO is a regional fisheries management organization that coordinates scientific study and cooperative management of the fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, excluding salmon, tunas/marlins, whales and sedentary species (
As outlined in 16 U.S.C. 5607 provides that the Secretaries of Commerce and State shall jointly establish a NAFO Consultative Committee (NCC) to advise the Secretaries on issues related to the NAFO Convention. Membership in the NCC is open to representatives from the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, the States represented on those Councils, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the fishing industry, the seafood processing industry, and others knowledgeable and experienced in the conservation and management of fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Members shall be appointed to a 2-year term and are eligible for reappointment. The NCC is exempted from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. NCC members are invited to attend all non-executive meetings of the U.S. Commissioners and at such meetings are given an opportunity to examine and to be heard on all proposed programs of study and investigation, reports, recommendations, and regulations of issues relating to the Act and proceedings of NAFO. In addition, NCC members may attend all public meetings of the NAFO Commission and any other meetings to which they are invited.
Nominations to the NCC will be accepted at any time and should document an individual's qualifications based on those outlined in 16 U.S.C. 5607 (see above). Résumés and/or curriculum vitae will be requested from nominees. Self-nominations are acceptable, and current and former NCC members are eligible for reappointment. Nominations will be evaluated by officials in the Department of Commerce who are familiar with the duties and responsibilities of NCC membership. All nominees will be notified of their status and any need for further information once the nomination process is complete.
A meeting of the NCC will be held 1:30-3 p.m. on August 30, 2017, at the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office at 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. All members of the public with an interest in the fisheries of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean are welcome to attend.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to David Ulmer, (757) 723-0303 or
This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.
Federally permitted dealers, and any individual acting in the capacity of a dealer, must submit to the Regional Administrator or to the official designee a detailed report of all fish purchased or received for a commercial purpose, other than solely for transport on land, by one of the available electronic reporting mechanisms approved by National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The information obtained is used by economists, biologists, and managers in the management of the fisheries. The data collection parameters are consistent with the current requirements for Federal dealers under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This is an extension request of the current approval.
Dealers submit purchase information through an electronic process by one of the following: The web based system as administered by the Atlantic Coast Cooperative Statistics Program, the computer based trip ticket program issued by the NMFS or through a NMFS approved proprietary mechanism.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
To aid the Administration's plan to incorporate broadband in the upcoming infrastructure initiative and ensure the digital preparedness of the nation's current and future workforce, NTIA data will reveal consumers' changing demand for broadband, as well as their online activities. The information may inform decisions about the scope and scale of the needed infrastructure, particularly in remote and sparsely populated areas where broadband deployment may be difficult and costly. It may also shed light on opportunities to increase digital literacy and use among Americans who currently use the Internet sparingly, if at all. NTIA works with Congress, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and other stakeholders to develop and advance economic and regulatory policies that foster broadband deployment and adoption. Current, systematic, and comprehensive data on broadband use and non-use by U.S. households are critical to allow policymakers not only to gauge progress made to date, but also to identify problem areas with a specificity that
The U.S. government's critical need for comprehensive broadband data continues to increase as high-speed Internet access and the skills to use the technology are becoming essential to Americans' daily lives and to the nation's economy. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, NTIA, and the FCC have all issued reports noting the importance of useful broadband adoption data for policymakers. Congress sought to address the paucity of such information in the Broadband Data Improvement Act in 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, and recent congressional action has highlighted the need for more accurate broadband data.
Since 1994, NTIA has sponsored 13 supplements to the CPS on the Internet and the shifting technologies consumers use for online access. The Census Bureau enjoys an outstanding reputation for data gathering and analysis based on its centuries of experience and its scientific methods. Coordinating NTIA's requested information collection on broadband usage with the Bureau's scheduled November 2017 CPS will significantly reduce the potential burdens on that agency and on surveyed households. The 66 questions to be added to the November 2017 CPS are comparable to the 61 questions that NTIA added to the July 2015 CPS.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Compliance bulletin.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issues this Compliance Bulletin to provide guidance to covered persons and service providers regarding fee assessments for pay-by-phone services (phone pay fees) and the potential for violations of sections 1031 and 1036 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act's (Dodd-Frank Act) prohibition on engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (collectively, UDAAPs) when assessing phone pay fees. This Bulletin also provides guidance to debt collectors about compliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when assessing phone pay fees.
This Bulletin summarizes the current law, highlighting relevant examples of conduct observed during supervisory examinations and enforcement investigations that may violate Federal consumer financial law. Whether conduct similar to the conduct described in this Bulletin violates these laws may depend on additional facts and analysis. The Bureau will closely review conduct related to phone pay fees for potential violations of Federal consumer financial laws.
The Bureau released this Compliance Bulletin on its Web site on July 27, 2017.
Chantal Hernandez, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Supervision Policy, 1700 G Street NW., 20552, (202) 435-7084.
Across various consumer financial products and services, many entities provide consumers multiple payment options. For instance, many provide consumers the option of making payments over the phone by using an automated system or speaking with a live representative. Many entities also provide consumers the option to make phone payments by using a credit card, debit card, or electronic check, or to have their payment expedited. A number of entities also use third-party service providers to handle and process the payments. State and Federal laws may restrict fees related to phone payments.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, all covered persons or service providers are legally required to refrain from committing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in violation of the Act. An act or practice is unfair when (i) it causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers; (ii) the injury is not reasonably avoidable by consumers; and (iii) the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.
Depending on the facts and circumstances, the following non-exhaustive list of examples of conduct related to phone pay fees may constitute UDAAPs or contribute to the risk of committing UDAAPs.
Many entities charge different phone pay fees depending on the payment method used by the consumer. Prior to charging such fees, entities sometimes send periodic billing statements or other documentation that discloses that “transaction fees may apply” to various payment methods, but that do not disclose the relevant fees to be charged for those methods.
Entities sometimes charge a fee for expedited phone payments, but also offer consumers no-fee phone pay options that post after a processing delay. Some entities in turn offer their fee-based expedited payment option as their default pay-by-phone option. In such cases, disclosures in connection with the default option may risk misleading consumers into believing that a fee is required under all circumstances to make any payment by phone.
For example, in a public enforcement action, the Bureau alleged that an entity and its service provider engaged in deceptive acts or practices when it gave delinquent credit card holders the false impression that they had to pay $14.95 to make payment by phone when, in fact, the sole purpose of that fee was to expedite phone payments. Specifically, the Bureau alleged that the entity or its service provider: (i) Misrepresented in credit card agreements that the fee's purpose was to allow payment by phone, when its purpose was solely to ensure payment posted the same day it was made; (ii) failed to disclose during collection calls that the fee's purpose was solely to expedite payment, and in certain circumstances misrepresented that the fee was a “processing fee”; (iii) volunteered that consumers could make payment using a checking account and triggered the fee by setting such payments to post immediately by default; and (iv) failed to disclose the existence of no-cost payment alternatives, including free next-day payment.
In another public enforcement action, the Bureau alleged that a mortgage servicer engaged in a deceptive practice by misrepresenting to consumers, both expressly and by implication, that a particular pay-by-phone option was the only available payment method, or that consumers must use the particular pay-by-phone option in order to avoid negative consequences, including incurring a late fee or even facing foreclosure. In fact, the servicer accepted several payment options free of charge. In many instances, consumers could have used these other payment methods to make timely payments and avoid late fees.
An entity may risk engaging in a deceptive act or practice when it fails to disclose that a phone pay fee will be charged in addition to a consumer's otherwise applicable payment amount and indicates to that consumer that only the otherwise applicable payment amount will be charged.
A number of entities have policies and procedures in place requiring phone representatives to disclose all available phone pay options and fees to consumers, including requiring the use of detailed phone scripts. But deviations from call scripts may potentially cause phone representatives to misrepresent the available phone payment options and fees resulting in a consumer being charged a higher fee than otherwise would have been applicable. Entities can reduce the risk of misrepresentations through adequate monitoring.
In November 2016 the Bureau issued a separate bulletin on detecting and preventing consumer harm from production incentives.
Under the FDCPA, a person defined as a “debt collector” is prohibited from charging fees, including phone pay fees, in certain instances.
Supervision has found that one or more mortgage servicers that met the definition of “debt collector” under the FDCPA violated the Act when they charged fees for taking mortgage payments over the phone to borrowers whose mortgage instruments did not expressly authorize collecting such fees and who reside in states where applicable law does not expressly permit collecting such fees. Supervision directed one or more servicers to review mortgage notes and applicable state law, and to only collect pay-by-phone fees where expressly authorized by contract or state law.
The Bureau expects entities to review their practices on charging phone pay fees for potential risks of committing UDAAPs or violating the FDCPA. While the Bureau does not mandate any particular method for informing consumers about the available phone pay options and fees, entities should consider the following suggestions in assessing whether their practices may present a risk of constituting a UDAAP or FDCPA violation:
• Review applicable State and Federal laws, including the FDCPA, to confirm whether entities are permitted to charge phone pay fees.
• Review underlying debt agreements to determine whether such fees are authorized by the contract.
• Review internal and service providers' policies and procedures on phone pay fees, including call scripts and employee training materials, and revise policies and procedures to address any concerns identified during the review, as appropriate.
• Review whether information on phone pay fees is shared in account disclosures, loan agreements, periodic statements, payment coupon books, on the company's Web site, over the phone, or through other mechanisms.
• Incorporate pay-by-phone issues in regular monitoring or audits of calls with consumers.
• Review consumer complaints regarding phone pay fees.
• Perform regular reviews of service providers as to their pertinent practices.
• Review that the entity has a corrective action program to address any violations identified and to reimburse consumers when appropriate.
Entities should also consider reviewing employee and service provider production incentive programs to see if there are incentives to steer borrowers to certain payment types or to avoid disclosures. As discussed in more detail in CFPB Compliance Bulletin 2016-03,
In the context of phone pay fees, production incentives may enhance the potential risk of entities engaging in UDAAPs. Production incentives that reward employees or service providers based on consumers using a higher-cost phone pay option may potentially lead entities to steer consumers to a higher-cost option despite the availability of lower-cost alternatives. Similarly, incentive programs that reward representatives who complete a large number of daily calls may potentially cause these representatives to spend less time discussing the available phone pay options and fees resulting in the consumer paying a higher fee because the consumer is not informed of the lower-cost alternatives. Entities should review these programs accordingly.
The Bureau will continue to review closely the practices of entities assessing phone pay fees for potential UDAAPs and FDCPA violations, including the practices described above. The Bureau will use all appropriate tools to assess whether supervisory, enforcement, or other actions may be necessary.
This Compliance Bulletin is a non-binding general statement of policy articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau's exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authority. It is therefore exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). The Bureau has determined that this Compliance Bulletin does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Saturday, August 19, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Tremont Lodge, 7726 East Lamar Alexander Parkway, Townsend, Tennessee 37882.
Melyssa P. Noe, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 2001, EM-942, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 241-6932; Email:
Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Thursday, August 17, 2017, 6:00 p.m.
Barkley Centre, 111 Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001.
Jennifer Woodard, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825.
Breaks Taken As Appropriate
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee requires that agencies publish these notices in the
August 15, 2017, 1:00 p.m.-5:30 p.m., August 16, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.
Los Angeles Airport Marriott, 5855 West Century Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045.
Dr. Mark Elless, Designated Federal Officer for the Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585; Email:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) 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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) 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:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Great Valley Solar 2, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 15, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) 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:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) 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:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Great Valley Solar 1, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
(18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 15, 2017.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) 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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Section 5(g) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitters of the PMNs addressed in this action.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0141, is available at
This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of notices submitted under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the period from April 1, 2017 to April 30, 2017.
TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a TSCA section 5(a) notice and make one of the following specific findings:
• The chemical substance or significant new use presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
• The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of the chemical substance or significant new use;
• The information available to EPA is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects and the chemical substance or significant new use may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment;
• The chemical substance is or will be produced in substantial quantities, and such substance either enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in substantial quantities or there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure to the substance; or
• The chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to
Unreasonable risk findings must be made without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant under the conditions of use. The term “conditions of use” is defined in TSCA section 3 to mean “the circumstances, as determined by the Administrator, under which a chemical substance is intended, known, or reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used, or disposed of.”
EPA is required under TSCA section 5(g) to publish in the
Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any manufacturer or processor wishing to engage in a use of a chemical substance designated by EPA as a significant new use must submit a notice to EPA at least 90 days before commencing manufacture of the new chemical substance or before engaging in the significant new use.
The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.
In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs and SNUNs for which, during this period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
• EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) notice.
• Chemical identity (generic name, if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• Web site link to EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).
15 U.S.C. 2601
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final orders on petitions to object to state operating permits.
The EPA Administrator signed two Orders, dated June 30, 2017, granting the petitions submitted by Sierra Club (Petitioner) objecting to proposed Clean Air Act (CAA) title V operating permits issued to Duke Energy, LLC. One Order responds to a June 17, 2016, petition objecting to a proposed title V permit issued by the Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency to the Asheville Steam Electric Plant located in Arden, Buncombe County, North Carolina. The other Order responds to a June 23, 2016, petition objecting to a proposed title V permit issued by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality to the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant located near Semora, in Person County, North Carolina. Each Order constitutes a final action on the petition addressed therein.
Copies of the Orders, the petitions, and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: EPA Region 4; Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division; 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The Orders are also available electronically at the following addresses:
Art Hofmeister, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 4, at (404) 562-9115 or
The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if EPA has not objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after this period. Pursuant to sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA, a petition for judicial review of those parts of the Order that deny issues in the petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit within 60 days from the date this notice is published in the
Petitioner submitted a petition requesting that EPA object to the proposed CAA title V operating permit #11-628-15 issued to the Asheville Steam Electric Plant and a separate petition requesting that EPA object to the proposed title V operating permit #01001T49 issued to the Roxboro Steam Electric Plant. Petitioner claims generally that each permit must contain stricter, modeling-based numerical emission limits for sulfur dioxide (SO
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Maritime Commission is publishing an updated list of controlled carriers,
Tyler J. Wood, General Counsel, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573 (202) 523-5740.
The Federal Maritime Commission is publishing an updated list of controlled carriers. Section 3(8) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40102(8)), defines a “controlled carrier” as:
an ocean common carrier that is, or whose operating assets are, directly or indirectly, owned or controlled by a government, with ownership or control by a government being deemed to exist for a carrier if—
(A) a majority of the interest in the carrier is owned or controlled in any manner by that government, an agency of that government, or a public or private person controlled by that government; or
(B) that government has the right to appoint or disapprove the appointment of a majority of the directors, the chief operating officer, or the chief executive officer of the carrier.
As required by the Shipping Act, controlled carriers are subject to special oversight by the Commission. Section 9(a) of the Shipping Act (46 U.S.C. 40701(b)), states:
The Federal Maritime Commission, at any time after notice and opportunity for a hearing, may prohibit the publication or use of a rate, charge, classification, rule, or regulation that a controlled carrier has failed to demonstrate is just and reasonable.
Congress enacted these protections to ensure that controlled carries, whose marketplace decision-making can be influenced by foreign governmental priorities or by their access to non-market sources of capital, do not engage in unreasonable below-market pricing practices which could disrupt trade or harm privately-owned shipping companies.
The controlled carrier list is not a comprehensive list of foreign-owned or -controlled ships or ship owners; rather, it is only a list of ocean common carriers that are controlled by governments.
Since the last publication of this list on July 2, 2015 (80 FR 43427), there has been a reduction in the number of controlled carriers, due in part to the spate of consolidation activity that has occurred over the last two years. These changes are described below.
Pursuant to 46 CFR 501.23, COSCO SHIPPING Lines (Europe) GmbH (formerly COSCO Container Lines Europe GmbH) was classified as a controlled carrier on November 9, 2015.
Two previously classified controlled carriers, China Shipping Container Lines, Co., Ltd. and COSCO Container Lines Company, Limited, have formed a single controlled carrier now known as COSCO SHIPPING Lines Co., Ltd.
Hainan P O Shipping Co., Ltd. is being removed from the list as it no longer operates as a common carrier. All Hainan P O Shipping Co., Ltd. tariffs in the U.S.-foreign trades were cancelled effective November 29, 2012.
American President Lines, Ltd. and APL Co., Pte. are being removed from this list because they are now 100% owned by CMA CGM S.A., a privately owned company.
United Arab Shipping Company Ltd. (formerly United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G.)) is being removed from this list because it is now 100% owned by Hapag-Lloyd pursuant to the recently finalized purchase of United Arab Shipping by Hapag-Lloyd on May 24, 2017. The foreign government entities that formerly held an ownership stake in United Arab Shipping acquired minority stakes in Hapag-Lloyd as part of the transaction; no State is majority owner.
It is requested that any other information regarding possible omissions or inaccuracies in this list be provided to the Commission's Office of General Counsel.
(1) COSCO SHIPPING Lines Co., Ltd. (RPI No. 02034)—People's Republic of China;
(2) CNAN Nord SPA (RPI No. 021980)—People's Democratic Republic of Algeria.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice, request for comment.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) invites comment on a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Proprietary Trading and Certain Interests in and Relationships with Covered Funds (Regulation VV) (FR VV; OMB No. 7100-0360).
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.
Comments must be submitted on or before October 2, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by
•
•
•
•
•
All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at
Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at:
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval.
• OCC-supervised institutions,
• FDIC-supervised institutions,
• Banking entities for which the CFTC is the primary financial regulatory agency, as defined in section 2(12)(C) of the Dodd-Frank Act, and
• Banking entities for which the SEC is the primary financial regulatory agency, as defined in section 2(12)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act.
§ _.12(e)—20 hours (Initial setup 50 hours).
§ _.20(d) (entities with $50 billion or greater in trading assets and liabilities)—2 hours (Initial setup 6 hours).
§ _.20(d) (entities with at least $10 billion and less than $50 billion in trading assets and liabilities)—2 hours (Initial setup 6 hours).
§ _.3(d)(3)—1 hour (Initial setup 3 hours).
§ _.4(b)(3)(i)(A)—2 hours.
§ _.5(c)—100 hours (Initial setup 50 hours).
§ _.11(a)(2)—10 hours.
§ _.20(b)—265 hours (Initial setup 795 hours).
§ _.20(c)—1,200 hours (Initial setup 3,600 hours).
§ _.20(d)—(entities with $50 billion or more in trading assets and liabilities) 440 hours.
§ _.20(d)—(entities with at least $10 billion and less than $50 billion in trading assets and liabilities) 350 hours.
§ _.20(e)—200 hours.
§ _.20(f)(1)—8 hours.
§ _.20(f)(2)—40 hours (Initial setup 100 hours).
§ _.11(a)(8)(i)—0.1 hours.
The reporting requirements are found in sections 248.12(e) and 248.20(d); the recordkeeping requirements are found in sections 248.3(d)(3), 248.4(b)(3)(i)(A), 248.5(c), 248.11(a)(2), and 248.20(b)-(f); and the disclosure requirements are found in section 248.11(a)(8)(i). The recordkeeping burden for sections 248.4(a)(2)(iii), 248.4(b)(2)(iii), 248.5(b)(1), 248.5(b)(2)(i), 248.5(b)(2)(iv), 248.13(a)(2)(i), and 248.13(a)(2)(ii)(A) is accounted for in section 248.20(b); the recordkeeping burden for Appendix B is accounted for in section 248.20(c); the reporting and recordkeeping burden for Appendix A is accounted for in section 248.20(d); and the recordkeeping burden for sections 248.10(c)(12)(i) and 248.10(c)(12)(iii) is accounted for in section 248.20(e). These information collection requirements for the Board implemented section 13 of the BHC Act for banking entities for which the Board is authorized to issue regulations under section 13(b)(2) of the BHC Act and take actions under section 13(e) of that Act. These banking entities include any state bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System, any company that controls an insured depository institution (including a bank holding company and savings and loan holding company), any company that is treated as a bank holding company for purposes of section 8 of the International Banking Act, and any subsidiary of the foregoing other than a subsidiary for which the OCC, FDIC, CFTC, or SEC is the primary financial regulatory agency. The Board takes burden for all institutions under a holding company including OCC-supervised institutions, FDIC-supervised institutions, banking entities for which the CFTC is the primary financial regulatory agency, and banking entities for which the SEC is the primary financial regulatory agency. Compliance with the information collection is required for covered entities to obtain the benefit of engaging in certain types of proprietary trading or investing in, sponsoring, or having certain relationships with a hedge fund or private equity fund. No other federal law mandates these reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements. At this time, there are no required reporting forms associated with this information collection.
Section 248.12(e) states that, upon application by a banking entity, the Board may extend the period of time to meet the requirements on ownership limitations in Regulation VV for up to two additional years, if the Board finds that an extension would be consistent with safety and soundness and not detrimental to the public interest. An application for extension must (1) be submitted to the Board at least 90 days prior to expiration of the applicable time period, (2) provide the reasons for application including information that addresses the factors in paragraph (e)(2) of section 248.12, and (3) explain the banking entity's plan for reducing the permitted investment in a covered fund through redemption, sale, dilution, or other methods.
Section 248.20(d) provides that a banking entity engaged in proprietary trading activity must comply with the reporting requirements described in Appendix A, if (1) the banking entity has, together with its affiliates and subsidiaries, trading assets and liabilities (excluding trading assets and liabilities involving obligations of or guaranteed by the United States or any agency of the United States) the average gross sum of which over the previous consecutive four quarters, as measured as of the last day of each of the four prior calendar quarters, equals or exceeds the established threshold; (2) in the case of a foreign banking entity, the average gross sum of the trading assets and liabilities of the combined U.S. operations of the foreign banking entity (including all subsidiaries, affiliates, branches and agencies of the foreign banking entity operating, located or organized in the United States and excluding trading assets and liabilities involving obligations of or guaranteed by the United States or any agency of the United States) over the previous
Risk and position limits are the constraints that define the amount of risk that a trading desk is permitted to take at a point in time, as defined by the banking entity for a specific trading desk. Usage represents the portion of the trading desk's limits that are accounted for by the current activity of the desk. Risk and position limits must be reported in the format used by the banking entity for the purposes of risk management of each trading desk. Risk and position limits are often expressed in terms of risk measures, such as Value-at-Risk (VaR) and risk factor sensitivities, but may also be expressed in terms of other observable criteria, such as net open positions. When criteria other than VaR or risk factor sensitivities are used to define the risk and position limits, both the value of the risk and position limits and the value of the variables used to assess whether these limits have been reached must be reported. The calculation period is one trading day and the measurement frequency is daily.
Risk factor sensitivities are changes in a trading desk's comprehensive profit and loss that are expected to occur in the event of a change in one or more underlying variables that are significant sources of the trading desk's profitability and risk. A banking entity must report the risk factor sensitivities that are monitored and managed as part of the trading desk's overall risk management policy. The underlying data and methods used to compute a trading desk's risk factor sensitivities will depend on the specific function of the trading desk and the internal risk management models employed. The number and type of risk factor sensitivities that are monitored and managed by a trading desk, and furnished to the appropriate agency, will depend on the explicit risks assumed by the trading desk. In general, however, reported risk factor sensitivities must be sufficiently granular to account for a preponderance of the expected price variation in the trading desk's holdings. Trading desks must take into account any relevant factors in calculating risk factor sensitivities, including, for example, the following with respect to particular asset classes: Commodity derivative positions, credit positions, credit-related derivative positions, equity derivative positions, equity positions, foreign exchange derivative positions, and interest rate positions, including interest rate derivative positions. The methods used by a banking entity to calculate sensitivities to a common factor shared by multiple trading desks, such as an equity price factor, must be applied consistently across its trading desks so that the sensitivities can be compared from one trading desk to another. The calculation period is one trading day and the measurement frequency is daily.
VaR is the commonly used percentile measurement of the risk of future financial loss in the value of a given set of aggregated positions over a specified period of time, based on current market conditions. Stress VaR is the percentile measurement of the risk of future financial loss in the value of a given set of aggregated positions over a specified period of time, based on market conditions during a period of significant financial stress. Banking entities must compute and report VaR and stress VaR by employing generally accepted standards and methods of calculation. VaR should reflect a loss in a trading desk that is expected to be exceeded less than one percent of the time over a one-day period. For those banking entities that are subject to regulatory capital requirements imposed by a Federal banking agency, VaR and stress VaR must be computed and reported in a manner that is consistent with such regulatory capital requirements. In cases where a trading desk does not have a standalone VaR or stress VaR calculation but is part of a larger aggregation of positions for which a VaR or stress VaR calculation is performed, a VaR or stress VaR calculation that includes only the trading desk's holdings must be performed consistent with the VaR or stress VaR model and methodology used for the larger aggregation of positions. The calculation period is one trading day and the measurement frequency is daily.
Comprehensive profit and loss attribution is an analysis that attributes the daily fluctuation in the value of a trading desk's positions to various sources. First, the daily profit and loss of the aggregated positions is divided into three categories: (1) Profit and loss attributable to a trading desk's existing positions that were also positions held by the trading desk as of the end of the prior day (existing positions); (2) profit and loss attributable to new positions resulting from the current day's trading activity (new positions); and (3) residual profit and loss that cannot be specifically attributed to existing positions or new positions. The sum of (1), (2), and (3) must equal the trading desk's comprehensive profit and loss at each point in time. In addition, profit and loss measurements must calculate volatility of comprehensive profit and loss (
Inventory turnover is a ratio that measures the turnover of a trading desk's inventory. The numerator of the ratio is the absolute value of all transactions over the reporting period. The denominator of the ratio is the value of the trading desk's inventory at the beginning of the reporting period. For derivatives other than options and interest rate derivatives, value means gross notional value. For options, value means delta adjusted notional value. For interest rate derivatives, value means 10-year bond equivalent value. The calculation period is 30 days, 60 days, and 90 days and the measurement frequency is daily.
Inventory aging generally describes a schedule of the trading desk's aggregate assets and liabilities and the amount of time that those assets and liabilities have been held. Inventory aging should measure the age profile of the trading desk's assets and liabilities. In general, inventory aging must be computed using a trading desk's trading activity data and must identify the value of a trading desk's aggregate assets and liabilities. Inventory aging must include two schedules, an asset-aging schedule and a liability-aging schedule. Each schedule must record the value of assets or liabilities held over all holding periods. For derivatives other than options and interest rate derivatives, value means gross notional value. For options, value means delta adjusted notional value. For interest rate derivatives, value means 10-year bond equivalent value. The calculation period is one trading day and the measurement frequency is daily.
The customer-facing trade ratio is a ratio comparing (1) the transactions involving a counterparty that is a customer of the trading desk to (2) the transactions involving a counterparty that is not a customer of the trading desk. A trade count based ratio must be computed that records the number of transactions involving a counterparty that is a customer of the trading desk and the number of transactions involving a counterparty that is not a customer of the trading desk. A value based ratio must be computed that records the value of transactions involving a counterparty that is a customer of the trading desk and the value of transactions involving a counterparty that is not a customer of the trading desk. For purposes of calculating the customer-facing trade ratio, a counterparty is considered to be a customer of the trading desk if the counterparty is a market participant that makes use of the banking entity's market making-related services by obtaining such services, responding to quotations, or entering into a continuing relationship with respect to such services. However, a trading desk or other organizational unit of another banking entity would not be a client, customer, or counterparty of the trading desk if the other entity has trading assets and liabilities of $50 billion or more as measured in accordance with section 248.20(d)(1) unless the trading desk documents how and why a particular trading desk or other organizational unit of the entity should be treated as a client, customer, or counterparty of the trading desk. Transactions conducted anonymously on an exchange or similar trading facility that permits trading on behalf of a broad range of market participants would be considered transactions with customers of the trading desk. For derivatives other than options and interest rate derivatives, value means gross notional value. For options, value means delta adjusted notional value. For interest rate derivatives, value means 10-year bond equivalent value. The calculation period is 30 days, 60 days, and 90 days and the measurement frequency is daily.
Section 248.3(d)(3) specifies that proprietary trading does not include any purchase or sale of a security by a banking entity for the purpose of liquidity management in accordance with a documented liquidity management plan of the banking entity that (1) specifically contemplates and authorizes the particular securities to be used for liquidity management purposes, the amount, types, and risks of these securities that are consistent with liquidity management, and the liquidity circumstances in which the particular securities may or must be used; (2) requires that any purchase or sale of securities contemplated and authorized by the plan be principally for the purpose of managing the liquidity of the banking entity, and not for the purpose of short-term resale, benefitting from actual or expected short-term price movements, realizing short-term arbitrage profits, or hedging a position taken for such short-term purposes; (3) requires that any securities purchased or sold for liquidity management purposes be highly liquid and limited to securities the market, credit and other risks of which the banking entity does not reasonably expect to give rise to appreciable profits or losses as a result of short-term price movements; (4) limits any securities purchased or sold for liquidity management purposes, together with any other instruments purchased or sold for such purposes, to an amount that is consistent with the banking entity's near-term funding needs, including deviations from normal operations of the banking entity or any affiliate thereof, as estimated and documented pursuant to methods specified in the plan; (5) includes written policies and procedures, internal controls, analysis and independent testing to ensure that the purchase and sale of securities that are not permitted under section 248.6(a) or (b) are for the purpose of liquidity management and in accordance with the liquidity management plan described in this paragraph; and (6) is consistent with the appropriate agency's supervisory requirements, guidance, and expectations regarding liquidity management.
Section 248.4(b)(3)(i)(A) provides that a trading desk or other organizational unit of another banking entity with more than $50 billion in trading assets and liabilities is not a client, customer, or counterparty unless the trading desk documents how and why a particular trading desk or other organizational unit of the entity should be treated as a client, customer, or counterparty of the trading desk for purposes of section 248.4(b).
Section 248.5(c) requires documentation for certain purchases or sales of a financial instrument for risk-mitigating hedging purposes that is: (1) Not established by the specific trading desk establishing the underlying positions, contracts, or other holdings the risks of which the hedging activity is designed to reduce; (2) established by the specific trading desk establishing or responsible for the underlying positions, contracts, or other holdings but that is not specifically identified in the trading desk's written policies and procedures; or (3) established to hedge aggregated positions across two or more trading desks. In connection with any purchase or sale that meets these specified circumstances, a banking entity must, at a minimum and contemporaneously with the purchase or sale, document (1) the specific, identifiable risk(s) of the identified positions, contracts, or other holdings of the banking entity that the purchase or sale is designed to reduce; (2) the specific risk-mitigating strategy that the purchase or sale is designed to fulfill; and (3) the trading desk or other business unit that is establishing and responsible for the hedge. The banking entity must also create and retain records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with this section for at least
Section 248.11(a)(2) requires that a banking entity must create a written plan or similar documentation in order to acquire or retain an ownership interest in a covered fund that is organized and offered by the banking entity pursuant to that exemption. The covered fund must be organized and offered only in connection with the provision of bona fide trust, fiduciary, investment advisory, or commodity trading advisory services and only to persons that are customers of such services of the banking entity. The written plan or similar documentation must outline how the banking entity intends to provide advisory or other similar services to its customers through organizing and offering the covered fund.
Section 248.20(a) requires each banking entity to develop a compliance program reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with the prohibitions and restrictions on proprietary trading and covered fund activities and investments set forth in section 13 of the BHC Act. For a banking entity with total consolidated assets over $10 billion, the compliance program from section 248.20(b) must include: (1) Written policies and procedures reasonably designed to document, describe, monitor and limit trading activities, including setting and monitoring required limits set out in sections 248.4 and 248.5 and activities and investments with respect to a covered fund (including those permitted under sections 248.3 through 248.6 or sections 248.11 through 248.14) to ensure that all activities and investments conducted by the banking entity that are subject to section 13 of the BHC Act and Subpart D of Regulation VV comply with section 13 of the BHC Act and applicable regulations; (2) a system of internal controls reasonably designed to monitor compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and Subpart D of Regulation VV and to prevent the occurrence of activities or investments that are prohibited by section 13 of the BHC Act and applicable regulations; (3) a management framework that clearly delineates responsibility and accountability for compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and Subpart D of Regulation VV and includes appropriate management review of trading limits, strategies, hedging activities, investments, incentive compensation, and other matters identified in this part or by management as requiring attention; (4) independent testing and audit of the effectiveness of the compliance program conducted periodically by qualified personnel of the banking entity or by a qualified outside party; (5) training for trading personnel and managers, as well as other appropriate personnel, to effectively implement and enforce the compliance program; and (6) records sufficient to demonstrate compliance with section 13 of the BHC Act and applicable regulations, which a banking entity must promptly provide to the Board upon request and retain for a period of no less than five years or such longer period as required by the Board.
Section 248.20(c) specifies that the compliance program of a banking entity must satisfy the requirements and other standards contained in Appendix B, if (1) the banking entity engages in proprietary trading permitted under subpart B and is required to comply with the reporting requirements of section 248.20(d); (2) the banking entity has reported total consolidated assets as of the previous calendar year end of $50 billion or more or, in the case of a foreign banking entity, has total U.S. assets as of the previous calendar year end of $50 billion or more (including all subsidiaries, affiliates, branches and agencies of the foreign banking entity operating, located or organized in the United States); or (3) the Board notifies the banking entity in writing that it must satisfy the requirements and other standards contained in Appendix B. Appendix B provides enhanced minimum standards for compliance programs for banking entities that meet the thresholds in section 248.20(c) as described above. These include the establishment, maintenance, and enforcement of the enhanced compliance program and meeting the minimum written policies and procedures, internal controls, management framework, independent testing, training, and recordkeeping. The program must: (1) Be reasonably designed to identify, document, monitor, and report the permitted trading and covered fund activities and investments; identify, monitor, and promptly address the risk of these covered activities and investments and potential areas of noncompliance; and prevent activities or investments prohibited by, or that do not comply with, section 13 of the BHC Act and this part; (2) establish and enforce appropriate limits on covered activities and investments, including limits on size, scope, complexity, and risks of individual activities or investments consistent with the requirements of section 13 of the BHC Act and this part; (3) subject the effectiveness of the compliance program to periodic independent review and testing, and ensure that internal audit, corporate compliance, and internal control functions involved in review and testing are effective and independent; (4) make senior management and others accountable for effective implementation of compliance program and ensure that board of directors and chief executive officer (or equivalent) of the banking entity review effectiveness of the compliance program; and (5) facilitate supervision and examination by the relevant agencies of permitted trading and covered fund activities and investments.
Section 248.20(d) provides that certain banking entities engaged in certain proprietary trading activities must comply with the reporting requirements described in Appendix A. A banking entity subject to these requirements must also, for any quantitative measurement furnished to the appropriate agency pursuant to section 248.20(d) and Appendix A, create and maintain records documenting the preparation and content of these reports, as well as such information as is necessary to permit the appropriate agency to verify the accuracy of such reports, for a period of five years from the end of the calendar year for which the measurement was taken.
Section 248.20(e) specifies additional recordkeeping requirements for covered funds. Any banking entity that has more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets as reported on December 31 of the previous two calendar years must maintain records that include: (1) Documentation of the exclusions or exemptions other than sections 3(c)(1) and 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 relied on by each fund sponsored by the banking entity (including all subsidiaries and affiliates) in determining that such fund is not a covered fund; (2) for each fund sponsored by the banking entity (including all subsidiaries and affiliates) for which the banking entity relies on one or more of the exclusions from the definition of covered fund provided by sections 248.10(c)(1), 248.10(c)(5), 248.10(c)(8), 248.10(c)(9), or 248.10(c)(10) of subpart C of the final rule, documentation supporting the banking entity's determination that the fund is not a covered fund pursuant to one or more of those exclusions; (3) for each seeding vehicle described in sections 248.10(c)(12)(i) or 248.10(c)(12)(iii) of subpart C that will
Pursuant to section 248.20(f)(1), a banking entity that does not engage in activities or investments pursuant to subpart B or subpart C (other than trading activities permitted pursuant to section 248.6(a) of subpart B) may satisfy the requirements of section 248.20 by establishing the required compliance program prior to becoming engaged in such activities or making such investments (other than trading activities permitted pursuant to section 248.6(a) of subpart B).
Pursuant to section 248.20(f)(2) a banking entity with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or less as reported on December 31 of the previous two calendar years that engages in activities or investments pursuant to subpart B or subpart C (other than trading activities permitted under section 248.6(a)) may satisfy the requirements of section 248.20 by including in its existing compliance policies and procedures appropriate references to the requirements of section 13 and this part and adjustments as appropriate given the activities, size, scope, and complexity of the banking entity.
Section 248.11(a)(8)(i) requires that a banking entity must clearly and conspicuously disclose, in writing, to any prospective and actual investor in the covered fund (such as through disclosure in the covered fund's offering documents) (1) that “any losses in [such covered fund] will be borne solely by investors in [the covered fund] and not by [the banking entity]; therefore, [the banking entity's] losses in [such covered fund] will be limited to losses attributable to the ownership interests in the covered fund held by [the banking entity] in its capacity as investor in the [covered fund] or as beneficiary of a carried interest held by [the banking entity]”; (2) that such investor should read the fund offering documents before investing in the covered fund; (3) that the “ownership interests in the covered fund are not insured by the FDIC, and are not deposits, obligations of, or endorsed or guaranteed in any way, by any banking entity” (unless that happens to be the case); and (4) the role of the banking entity and its affiliates and employees in sponsoring or providing any services to the covered fund.
As required information, the information submitted under sections 248.12(e) and 248.20(d) of the rule can be withheld under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) if disclosure would result in substantial competitive harm (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). The information required to be submitted meets this test, as detailed below. In addition, the information is “contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared . . . for the use of ” the Board, and thus may be withheld under exemption 8 of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). Under section 248.12(e), the banking entity, as part of any request to extend the period to divest ownership of a covered fund, must provide to the agency (among other information): The total exposure of the banking entity to the covered fund and its materiality to the institution; the risks and costs of disposing of, or maintaining the fund, within the applicable period; and the contractual terms governing the banking entity's interest in the covered fund. Among the types of information required to be submitted under section 248.20(d) and Appendix A are (1) risk and position limits and usage; (2) risk factor sensitivities; (3) Value-at-Risk and stress Value-at-Risk; (4) comprehensive profit and loss attribution; (5) inventory turnover; (6) inventory aging; and (7) customer facing trade ratio. Disclosure of this type of internal proprietary business information would clearly cause substantial competitive harm.
Regarding the information contained in the rule subject to recordkeeping requirements only, no issues of confidentiality normally would arise. If such information were gathered by the Federal Reserve during the course of supervisory examinations and inspections, however, such information normally would be deemed exempt under exemption 8 of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8)). The information collected in response to these recordkeeping requirements would be confidential commercial and financial information of the type normally exempt from disclosure under exemption 4 of FOIA, if gathered by the Federal Reserve (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)). Such information includes: The banking entity's liquidity management plan to qualify for certain regulatory exclusions under section 248.3(d)(3); documentation requirements for certain hedging transactions or exemptions under sections 248.5(c) and 248.11(a)(2); and a detailed compliance program (or equivalent trading policies and procedures) under sections 248.20(b)-(f).
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning statement and acknowledgment Standard Form (SF) 1413.
Submit comments on or before October 2, 2017.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0014 by any of the following methods:
•
•
Ms. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, via telephone 202-969-7207 or via email to
SF 1413, Statement and Acknowledgment, is used by all executive agencies, including the Department of Defense, to obtain a statement from contractors that the proper clauses have been included in subcontracts. The form is used by the prime contractor to identify and report all applicable subcontracts (all tiers) awarded under the prime contract, identify specific scopes of work the subcontractors will be performing, subcontract award date, and subcontract number, and provide formal notification to the applicable subcontractors of the labor laws and associated clauses they are responsible for complying with.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0014, Statement and Acknowledgment (SF 1413), in all correspondence.
The PJAC evaluation will yield information about the efficacy of applying procedural justice principles via a set of alternative services to the current contempt process. It will generate extensive knowledge regarding how PJAC programs operate, the effects the programs have, and whether their benefits exceed their costs. The information gathered will be critical to informing future policy decisions related to contempt.
The PJAC evaluation will include the following three interconnected components or “studies”:
2.
3.
This 30-Day Notice covers the following data collection activities: (1) Staff data entry for random assignment; (2) Study MIS to track program participation; (3) Staff and community partner interview topic guide; (4) Participant interview topic guide; and (5) Participant survey tracking letter.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the fiscal year (FY) 2018 fee rates for certain
Jason Lewis, Office of Management, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rm. 2046, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-796-5957, email:
Section 107 of FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353) added section 743 to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-31) to provide FDA with the authority to assess and collect fees from, in part: (1) The responsible party for each domestic facility and the U.S. agent for each foreign facility subject to a reinspection, to cover reinspection-related costs; (2) the responsible party for a domestic facility and an importer who does not comply with a recall order, to cover food
In addition, as stated in the September 2011 Guidance, FDA is in the process of considering various issues associated with the assessment and collection of importer reinspection fees. The fee rates set forth in this notice will be used to determine any importer reinspection fees assessed in FY 2018.
FDA is required to estimate 100 percent of its costs for each activity in order to establish fee rates for FY 2018. In each year, the costs of salary (or personnel compensation) and benefits for FDA employees account for between 50 and 60 percent of the funds available to, and used by, FDA. Almost all of the remaining funds (operating funds) available to FDA are used to support FDA employees for paying rent, travel, utility, information technology (IT), and other operating costs.
Full-time equivalent (FTE) reflects the total number of regular straight-time hours—not including overtime or holiday hours—worked by employees, divided by the number of compensable hours applicable to each fiscal year. Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory time off, and other approved leave categories are considered “hours worked” for purposes of defining FTE employment.
In general, the starting point for estimating the full cost per direct work hour is to estimate the cost of an FTE or paid staff year. Calculating an Agency-wide total cost per FTE requires three primary cost elements: Payroll, non-payroll, and rent.
The FY 2018 FDA-wide average cost for payroll (salaries and benefits) is $154,638; non-payroll—including equipment, supplies, IT, general and administrative overhead—is $89,224; and rent, including cost allocation analysis and adjustments for other rent and rent-related costs, is $23,922 per paid staff year, excluding travel costs.
Summing the average cost of an FTE for payroll, non-payroll, and rent, brings the FY 2018 average fully supported cost to $267,783 per FTE, excluding travel costs. FDA will use this base unit fee in determining the hourly fee rate for reinspection and recall order fees for FY 2018 prior to including domestic or foreign travel costs as applicable for the activity.
To calculate an hourly rate, FDA must divide the FY 2018 average fully supported cost of $267,783 per FTE by the average number of supported direct FDA work hours in FY 2016—the last FY for which data are available. See Table 1.
Dividing the full-time equivalent in FY 2018 ($267,783) by the total number of supported direct work hours available for assignment in FY 2016 (1,160) results in an average fully supported cost of $231 (rounded to the nearest dollar), excluding inspection travel costs, per supported direct work hour in FY 2016.
To adjust the hourly rate for FY 2018, FDA must estimate the cost of inflation in each year for FY 2017 and FY 2018. FDA uses the method prescribed for estimating inflationary costs under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) provisions of the FD&C Act (section 736(c)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379h(c)(1)), the statutory method for inflation adjustment in the FD&C Act that FDA has used consistently. FDA previously determined the FY 2017 inflation rate to be 1.5468 percent; this rate was published in the FY 2017 PDUFA user fee rates notice in the
In FY 2016, FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) spent a total of $5,185,331 for domestic regulatory inspection travel costs and General Services Administration Vehicle costs related to FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) field activities programs. The total ORA domestic travel costs spent is then divided by the 9,755 CFSAN and CVM domestic inspections, which averages a total of $532 per inspection. These inspections average 33.61 hours per inspection. Dividing $532 per inspection by 33.61 hours per inspection results in a total and an additional cost of $16 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per hour spent for domestic inspection travel costs in FY 2016. To adjust for the $16 per hour additional domestic cost inflation increases for FY 2017 and FY 2018, FDA must multiply the FY 2017 PDUFA inflation rate adjustor (1.015468) times the FY 2018 PDUFA inflation rate adjustor (1.016868) times the $16 additional domestic cost, which results in an estimated cost of $17 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per paid hour in addition to $231 for a total of $248 per paid hour ($231 plus $17) for each direct hour of work requiring domestic inspection travel. FDA will use these rates in charging fees in FY 2018 when domestic travel is required.
In FY 2016, ORA spent a total of $2,166,592 on 344.31 foreign inspection trips related to FDA's CFSAN and CVM field activities programs, which averaged a total of $6,293 per foreign inspection trip. These trips averaged 3 weeks (or 120 paid hours) per trip. Dividing $6,293 per trip by 120 hours per trip results in a total and an additional cost of $52 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per paid hour spent for foreign inspection travel costs in FY 2016. To adjust $52 for inflationary increases in FY 2017 and FY 2018, FDA must multiply it by the same inflation factors mentioned previously in this document (1.015468, 1.016868), which results in an estimated cost of $54 (rounded to the nearest dollar) per paid hour in addition to $231 for a total of $285 per paid hour ($231 plus $54) for each direct hour of work requiring foreign inspection travel. FDA will use these rates in charging fees in FY 2018 when foreign travel is required.
The fee will be assessed for a reinspection conducted under section 704 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 374) to determine whether corrective actions have been implemented and are effective and compliance has been achieved to the Secretary of Health and Human Services' (the Secretary) (and, by delegation, FDA's) satisfaction at a facility that manufactures, processes, packs, or holds food for consumption necessitated as a result of a previous inspection (also conducted under section 704) of this facility, which had a final classification of Official Action Indicated (OAI) conducted by or on behalf of FDA, when FDA determined the non-compliance was materially related to food safety requirements of the FD&C Act. FDA considers such non-compliance to include non-compliance with a statutory or regulatory requirement under section 402 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342) and section 403(w) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343(w)). However, FDA does not consider non-compliance that is materially related to a food safety requirement to include circumstances where the non-compliance is of a technical nature and not food safety related (
Under section 743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act, FDA is directed to assess and collect fees from “the responsible party for each domestic facility (as defined in section 415(b) (21 U.S.C. 350d(b))) and the United States agent for each foreign facility subject to a reinspection” to cover reinspection-related costs.
Section 743(a)(2)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act defines the term “reinspection” with respect to domestic facilities as “1 or more inspections conducted under section 704 subsequent to an inspection conducted under such provision which identified non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of th[e] Act, specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved to the Secretary's satisfaction.”
The FD&C Act does not contain a definition of “reinspection” specific to foreign facilities. In order to give meaning to the language in section 743(a)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act to collect fees from the U.S. agent of a foreign facility subject to a reinspection, the Agency is using the following definition of “reinspection” for purposes of assessing and collecting fees under section 743(a)(1)(A), with respect to a foreign facility, “1 or more inspections conducted by officers or employees duly designated by the Secretary subsequent to such an inspection which identified non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act, specifically to determine whether compliance has been achieved to the Secretary's (and, by delegation, FDA's) satisfaction.”
This definition allows FDA to fulfill the mandate to assess and collect fees from the U.S. agent of a foreign facility in the event that an inspection reveals non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act, causing one or more subsequent inspections to determine whether compliance has been achieved to the Secretary's (and, by delegation, FDA's) satisfaction. By requiring the initial inspection to be conducted by officers or employees duly designated by the Secretary, the definition ensures that a foreign facility would be subject to fees only in the event that FDA, or an entity designated to act on its behalf, has made the requisite identification at an initial inspection of non-compliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act. The definition of “reinspection-related costs” in section 743(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act relates to both a domestic facility reinspection and a foreign facility reinspection, as described in section 743(a)(1)(A).
The FD&C Act states that this fee is to be paid by the responsible party for each
The fee is based on the number of direct hours spent on such reinspections, including time spent conducting the physical surveillance and/or compliance reinspection at the facility, or whatever components of such an inspection are deemed necessary, making preparations and arrangements for the reinspection, traveling to and from the facility, preparing any reports, analyzing any samples or examining any labels if required, and performing other activities as part of the OAI reinspection until the facility is again determined to be in compliance. The direct hours spent on each such reinspection will be billed at the appropriate hourly rate shown in table 2.
The fee will be assessed for not complying with a recall order under section 423(d) (21 U.S.C. 350l(d)) or section 412(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350a(f)) to cover food recall activities associated with such order performed by the Secretary (and by delegation, FDA) (section 743(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act). Non-compliance may include the following: (1) Not initiating a recall as ordered by FDA; (2) not conducting the recall in the manner specified by FDA in the recall order; or (3) not providing FDA with requested information regarding the recall, as ordered by FDA.
Section 743(a)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act states that the fee is to be paid by the responsible party for a domestic facility (as defined in section 415(b) of the FD&C Act) and an importer who does not comply with a recall order under section 423 or under section 412(f) of the FD&C Act. In other words, the party paying the fee would be the party that received the recall order.
The fee is based on the number of direct hours spent on taking action in response to the firm's failure to comply with a recall order. Types of activities could include conducting recall audit checks, reviewing periodic status reports, analyzing the status reports and the results of the audit checks, conducting inspections, traveling to and from locations, and monitoring product disposition. The direct hours spent on each such recall will be billed at the appropriate hourly rate shown in table 2.
An invoice will be sent to the responsible party for paying the fee after FDA completes the work on which the invoice is based. Payment must be made within 90 days of the invoice date in U.S. currency by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. Detailed payment information will be included with the invoice when it is issued.
Under section 743(e)(2) of the FD&C Act, any fee that is not paid within 30 days after it is due shall be treated as a claim of the U.S. Government subject to provisions of subchapter II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the fee rates and payment procedures for fiscal year (FY) 2018 generic new animal drug user fees. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2013 (AGDUFA II), authorizes FDA to collect user fees for certain abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, for certain generic new animal drug products, and for certain sponsors of such abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and/or investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs. This notice establishes the fee rates for FY 2018.
Visit FDA's Web site at
Section 741 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-21) establishes three different types of user fees: (1) Fees for certain types of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs; (2) annual fees for certain generic new animal drug products; and (3) annual fees for certain sponsors of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and/or investigational submissions for generic new animal drugs (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)). When certain conditions are met, FDA will waive or reduce fees for generic new animal drugs intended solely to provide for a minor use or minor species indication (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(d)).
For FY 2014 through FY 2018, the FD&C Act establishes aggregate yearly base revenue amounts for each of these fee categories (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(b)). Base revenue amounts established for fiscal years after FY 2014 are subject to adjustment for workload (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(c)). The target revenue amounts for each fee category for FY 2018, after the adjustment for workload, are as follows: For application fees, the target revenue amount is $2,355,000; for product fees, the target revenue amount is $3,532,000; and for sponsor fees, the target revenue amount is $3,532,000.
For FY 2018, the generic new animal drug user fee rates are: $193,000 for each abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug other than those subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(4)); $96,500 for each abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4); $8,195 for each generic new animal drug product; $76,250 for each generic new animal drug sponsor paying 100 percent of the sponsor fee; $57,188 for each generic new animal drug sponsor paying 75 percent of the sponsor fee; and $38,125 for each generic new animal drug sponsor paying 50 percent of the sponsor fee. FDA will issue invoices for
AGDUFA II, Title II of Public Law 113-14, specifies that the aggregate revenue amount for FY 2018 for abbreviated application fees is $2,117,000 and each of the other two generic new animal drug user fee categories, annual product fees and annual sponsor fees, is $3,175,000 each (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(b)).
The amounts established in AGDUFA II for each year for FY 2014 through FY 2018 include an inflation adjustment; therefore, no further inflation adjustment is required.
For each FY beginning after FY 2014, AGDUFA II provides that statutory fee revenue amounts shall be further adjusted to reflect changes in review workload. (See 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(c)(2).)
FDA calculated the average number of each of the four types of applications and submissions specified in the workload adjustment provision (abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, manufacturing supplemental abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, investigational generic new animal drug study submissions, and investigational generic new animal drug protocol submissions) received over the 5-year period that ended on September 30, 2013 (the base years), and the average number of each of these types of applications and submissions over the most recent 5-year period that ended on June 30, 2017.
The results of these calculations are presented in the first two columns in table 1. Column 3 reflects the percent change in workload over the two 5-year periods. Column 4 shows the weighting factor for each type of application, reflecting how much of the total FDA generic new animal drug review workload was accounted for by each type of application or submission in the table during the most recent 5 years. Column 5 is the weighted percent change in each category of workload and was derived by multiplying the weighting factor in each line in column 4 by the percent change from the base years in column 3. At the bottom right of table 1, the sum of the values in column 5 is calculated, reflecting a total change in workload of 51.4457 percent for FY 2018. This is the workload adjuster for FY 2018.
Over the last year FDA has continued to see more sponsors getting involved in the generic animal drug approval process, including pioneer sponsors. This has contributed to sustained increases in the number of ANADAs, manufacturing supplements, and protocols submitted. Additionally, more sponsors continue to pursue drug approvals that do not qualify for a waiver from the requirement to conduct an in vivo bioequivalence study. For this reason we are seeing a large sustained increase in the number of generic investigational new animal drug study submissions.
As a result, the statutory revenue amount for each category of fees for FY 2018 ($2,117,000 for application fees and $3,175,000 for both product and sponsor fees) must now be increased by 51.4457 percent, for a total fee revenue target in FY 2018 of $12,822,907 for fees from all three categories before the offset for excess collections through FY 2018. The target for application fee revenue before the offset is $2,117,000 × 151.4457 percent, for a total of $3,206,105, rounded to the nearest dollar. The target for product fee revenue before the offset is $3,175,000 × 151.4457 percent, for a total of $4,808,401, rounded to the nearest dollar, and the target for sponsor fee revenue before the offset is the same as for product fees ($4,808,401, rounded to the nearest dollar).
Under the provisions of the FD&C Act, if the sum of the cumulative amount of the fees collected for FY 2014 through FY 2016, and the amount of fees estimated to be collected for FY 2017, exceeds the cumulative amount appropriated for fees for FY 2014 through FY 2017, the excess shall be credited to FDA's appropriation account and subtracted from the amount of fees that FDA would otherwise be authorized to collect for FY 2018 (see section 741(g)(4) of the FD&C Act).
Table 2 shows the amounts specified in appropriation acts for each year from FY 2014 through FY 2017, and the amounts FDA has collected for FY 2014, FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017 as of June 30, 2017, and an additional $11,810,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars) that FDA estimates it will collect in FY 2017 based on historical data. Table 2 shows the estimated cumulative difference between AGDUFA II fee amounts specified in appropriation acts for FY 2014 through FY 2017 and AGDUFA II fee amounts collected.
The cumulative fees collected for FY 2014 through FY 2017 are estimated to be $3,404,273 greater than the cumulative fee amounts specified in appropriation acts during this same period. Reducing the workload adjusted amount of $12,822,907 by the AGDUFA II offset of $3,404,273 results in an amount of $9,419,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars), before the final year adjustment.
Reducing the fees to achieve the offset-adjusted target revenue (as a percentage of workload-adjusted target revenue) yields the following revenue by fee type: The target for application fee revenue after the offset is $9,419,000 × 25 percent, for a total of $2,355,000, rounded to the nearest thousand. The target for product fee revenue after the offset is $9,419,000 × 37.5 percent, for a total of $3,532,000, rounded to the nearest thousand, and the target for sponsor fee revenue after the offset is the same as for product fees ($3,532,000, rounded to the nearest thousand).
Under the provisions of the FD&C Act, for FY 2018 the Secretary of Health and Human Services may, in addition to the workload adjustment, further increase the fees if such an adjustment is necessary to provide for not more than 3 months of operating reserves of carryover user fees for the process for the review of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs for the first 3 months of FY 2019. If such an adjustment is necessary, the rationale for the amount of this increase shall be contained in the annual notice establishing fees for FY 2018 (see section 741(c)(3) of the FD&C Act).
After calculating the operating reserves and estimating the balance as of the beginning of FY 2019, FDA estimates that the AGDUFA program will have sufficient funds for the operating reserves; thus, FDA will not be performing a final year adjustment for FY 2019 because FDA has determined such an adjustment to be unnecessary.
Each person that submits an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug shall be subject to an application fee, with limited exceptions (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(1)). The term “abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug” means an abbreviated application for the approval of any generic new animal drug submitted under section 512(b)(2) (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(k)(1)). The application fees are to be set so that they will generate $2,355,000 in fee revenue for FY 2018.
To set fees for abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs to realize $2,355,000, FDA must first make some assumptions about the number of fee-paying abbreviated applications it will receive during FY 2018.
The Agency knows the number of applications that have been submitted in previous years. That number fluctuates from year to year. FDA is making estimates and applying different assumptions for two types of full fee submissions: Original submissions of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs and “reactivated” submissions of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs. Any original submissions of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs that were received by FDA before July 1, 2008, were not assessed fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(1)(A)). Some of these non-fee-paying submissions were later resubmitted on or after July 1 because the initial submission was not approved by FDA (
Also, under AGDUFA II, an abbreviated application for an animal generic drug subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act and submitted on or after October 1, 2013, shall be subject to 50 percent of the fee applicable to all other abbreviated applications for a generic new animal drug (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(1)(C)(ii)).
Regarding original submissions of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs, FDA is assuming that the number of applications that will pay fees in FY 2018 will equal the average number of submissions over the 5 most recently completed years of the AGDUFA program (FY 2012-FY 2016). FDA believes that this is a reasonable approach after 8 complete years of experience with this program.
The average number of original submissions of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs over the 5 most recently completed years is 10 applications not subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act and 4.4 submissions subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4). Each of the submissions described under section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act pays 50 percent of the fee paid by the other applications and will be counted as one half of a fee. Adding all of the applications not subject to the criteria in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act and 50 percent of the number that are subject to such criteria results in a total of 12.2 anticipated full fees.
In prior years, FDA had estimated the number of reactivations of abbreviated applications for generic new animal drugs that had been originally submitted prior to July 1, 2008. Over the years, that number has decreased to the point that
Based on the previous assumptions, FDA is estimating that it will receive a total of 12.2 fee-paying generic new animal drug applications in FY 2018 (10 original applications paying a full fee and 4.4 applications paying a half fee).
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2018 so that the estimated 12.2 abbreviated applications that pay the fee will generate a total of $2,355,000. To generate this amount, the fee for a generic new animal drug application, rounded to the nearest hundred dollars, will have to be $193,000, and for those applications that are subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act, 50 percent of that amount, or $96,500.
The generic new animal drug product fee (also referred to as the product fee) must be paid annually by the person named as the applicant in an abbreviated application or supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug product submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360), and who had an abbreviated application or supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug product pending at FDA after September 1, 2008 (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(2)). The term “generic new animal drug product” means each specific strength or potency of a particular active ingredient or ingredients in final dosage form marketed by a particular manufacturer or distributor, which is uniquely identified by the labeler code and product code portions of the national drug code, and for which an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug or supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug has been approved (21 U.S.C. 379j-21(k)(6)). The product fees are to be set so that they will generate $3,532,000 in fee revenue for FY 2018.
To set generic new animal drug product fees to realize $3,532,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of products for which these fees will be paid in FY 2018. FDA gathered data on all generic new animal drug products that have been submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act and matched this to the list of all persons who FDA estimated would have an abbreviated new animal drug application or supplemental abbreviated application pending after September 1, 2008. As of June 2017, FDA estimates a total of 431 products submitted for listing by persons who had an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug or supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug pending after September 1, 2008. Based on this, FDA believes that a total of 431 products will be subject to this fee in FY 2018.
In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by generic new animal drug product fees in FY 2018, FDA is assuming that less than two products invoiced will qualify for minor use/minor species fee waiver (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(d)). FDA has kept this estimate at zero percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 completed years of the AGDUFA program.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 431 products will be subject to product fees in FY 2018.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2018 so that the estimated 431 products that pay fees will generate a total of $3,532,000. To generate this amount will require the fee for a generic new animal drug product, rounded to the nearest $5, to be $8,195.
The generic new animal drug sponsor fee (also referred to as the sponsor fee) must be paid annually by each person who: (1) Is named as the applicant in an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug, except for an approved application for which all subject products have been removed from listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act, or has submitted an investigational submission for a generic new animal drug that has not been terminated or otherwise rendered inactive and (2) had an abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug, supplemental abbreviated application for a generic new animal drug, or investigational submission for a generic new animal drug pending at FDA after September 1, 2008 (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(k)(7) and 379j-21(a)(3), respectively). A generic new animal drug sponsor is subject to only one such fee each fiscal year (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(3)(C)). Applicants with more than six approved abbreviated applications will pay 100 percent of the sponsor fee; applicants with more than one and fewer than seven approved abbreviated applications will pay 75 percent of the sponsor fee; and applicants with one or fewer approved abbreviated applications will pay 50 percent of the sponsor fee (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(a)(3)(C)). The sponsor fees are to be set so that they will generate $3,532,000 in fee revenue for FY 2018.
To set generic new animal drug sponsor fees to realize $3,532,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of sponsors who will pay these fees in FY 2018. FDA now has 8 complete years of experience collecting these sponsor fees. Based on the number of firms that meet this definition and the average number of firms paying fees at each level over the 5 most recently completed years of the AGDUFA program (FY 2012 through FY 2016), FDA estimates that in FY 2018, 14 sponsors will pay 100 percent fees, 17 sponsors will pay 75 percent fees, and 42 sponsors will pay 50 percent fees. That totals the equivalent of 47.75 full sponsor fees (14 × 100 percent or 14, plus 17 × 75 percent or 12.75, plus 42 × 50 percent or 21).
FDA estimates that about 3 percent of all of these sponsors, or 1.43, may qualify for a minor use/minor species fee waiver (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-21(d)). FDA has kept the estimate of the percentage of sponsors that will not pay fees at 3 percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 completed years of the AGDUFA program.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that the equivalent of 46.32 full sponsor fees (47.75 minus 1.43) are likely to be paid in FY 2018.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2018 so that the estimated equivalent of 46.32 full sponsor fees will generate a total of $3,532,000. To generate this amount will require the 100 percent fee for a generic new animal drug sponsor, rounded to the nearest $50, to be $76,250. Accordingly, the fee for those paying 75 percent of the full sponsor fee will be $57,188, and the fee for those paying 50 percent of the full sponsor fee will be $38,125.
The fee rates for FY 2018 are summarized in table 3.
The FY 2018 fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for an abbreviated new animal drug application subject to fees under AGDUFA II that is submitted on or after October 1, 2017. The payment must be made in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank by one of the following methods: Wire transfer, electronically, check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order made payable to the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using an electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH), also known as eCheck) or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
When paying by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order, please write your application's unique Payment Identification Number, beginning with the letters “AG”, on the upper right-hand corner of your completed Animal Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet. Also write the FDA post office box number (P.O. Box 979033) on the enclosed check, bank draft, or money order. Mail the payment and a copy of the completed Animal Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979033, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
When paying by wire transfer, it is required that the invoice number is included; without the invoice number the payment may not be applied. If the payment amount is not applied, the invoice amount would be referred to collections. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee, it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full. Use the following account information when sending a wire transfer: U.S. Department of the Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Account Name: Food and Drug Administration, Account No.: 75060099, Routing No.: 021030004, Swift No.: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., 14th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
To send a check by a courier such as Federal Express, the courier must deliver the check and printed copy of the cover sheet to: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979033, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (
It is important that the fee arrives at the bank at least a day or two before the abbreviated application arrives at FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). FDA records the official abbreviated application receipt date as the later of the following: The date the application was received by CVM, or the date U.S. Bank notifies FDA that your payment in the full amount has been received, or when the U.S. Department of the Treasury notifies FDA of payment. U.S. Bank and the United States Treasury are required to notify FDA within 1 working day, using the Payment Identification Number described previously.
The tax identification number of FDA is 53-0196965. (
Step One—Create a user account and password. Log onto the AGDUFA Web site at
Step Two—Create an Animal Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, transmit it to FDA, and print a copy. After logging into your account with your user name and password, complete the steps required to create an Animal Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet. One cover sheet is needed for each abbreviated animal drug application. Once you are satisfied that the data on the cover sheet is accurate and you have finalized the cover sheet, you will be able to transmit it electronically to FDA and you will be able to print a copy of your cover sheet showing your unique Payment Identification Number.
Step Three—Send the payment for your application as described in section VII.A of this document.
Step Four—Please submit your application and a copy of the completed Animal Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet to the following address: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Document Control Unit (HFV-199), 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
By December 31, 2017, FDA will issue invoices and payment instructions for product and sponsor fees for FY 2018 using this fee schedule. Fees will be due by January 31, 2018. FDA will issue invoices in November 2018 for any products and sponsors subject to fees for
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the fiscal year (FY) 2018 rates for the establishment and re-inspection fees related to entities that compound human drugs and elect to register as outsourcing facilities under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). The FD&C Act authorizes FDA to assess and collect an annual establishment fee from outsourcing facilities, as well as a re-inspection fee for each re-inspection of an outsourcing facility. This document establishes the FY 2018 rates for the small business establishment fee ($5,364), the non-small business establishment fee ($17,364), and the re-inspection fee ($16,093) for outsourcing facilities; provides information on how the fees for FY 2018 were determined; and describes the payment procedures outsourcing facilities should follow. These fee rates are effective October 1, 2017, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2018.
For more information on human drug compounding and outsourcing facility fees, visit FDA's Web site at:
The Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) contains important provisions relating to the oversight of compounding human drugs. Title I of this law, the Compounding Quality Act, created a new section 503B in the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353b). Under section 503B of the FD&C Act, a human drug compounder can become an “outsourcing facility.”
Outsourcing facilities, as defined in section 503B(d)(4) of the FD&C Act, are facilities that meet all of the conditions described in section 503B(a), including registering with FDA as an outsourcing facility and paying an annual establishment fee. If the conditions of section 503B are met, a drug compounded by or under the direct supervision of a licensed pharmacist in an outsourcing facility is exempt from three sections of the FD&C Act: (1) Section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use; (2) section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) concerning the approval of human drug products under new drug applications (NDAs) or abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs); and (3) section 582 (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1) concerning drug supply chain security requirements. Drugs compounded in outsourcing facilities are not exempt from the requirements of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) concerning current good manufacturing practice requirements for drugs.
Section 744K of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-62) authorizes FDA to assess and collect the following fees associated with outsourcing facilities: (1) An annual establishment fee from each outsourcing facility and (2) a re-inspection fee from each outsourcing facility subject to a re-inspection (see section 744K(a)(1) of the FD&C Act). Under statutorily defined conditions, a qualified applicant may pay a reduced small business establishment fee (see section 744K(c)(4) of the FD&C Act).
FDA announced in the
Section 744K(c)(2) of the FD&C Act specifies the annual inflation adjustment for outsourcing facility fees. The inflation adjustment has two components: One based on FDA's payroll costs and one based on FDA's non-payroll costs for the first 3 of the 4 previous fiscal years. The payroll component of the annual inflation adjustment is calculated by taking the average change in FDA's per-full time equivalent (FTE) personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B) in the first 3 of the 4 previous fiscal years (see section 744K(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act). FDA's total annual spending on PC&B is divided by the total number of FTEs per fiscal year to determine the average PC&B per FTE.
Table 1 summarizes the actual cost and FTE data for the specified fiscal years, and provides the percent change from the previous fiscal year and the average percent change over the first 3 of the 4 fiscal years preceding FY 2018. The 3-year average is 2.2354 percent.
Section 744K(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act specifies that this 2.2354 percent should be multiplied by the proportion of PC&B to total costs of an average FDA FTE for the same 3 fiscal years.
The payroll adjustment is 2.2354 percent multiplied by 49.6819 percent, or 1.1106 percent.
Section 744K(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act specifies that the portion of the inflation adjustment for non-payroll costs for FY 2018 is equal to the average annual percent change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers (U.S. City Average; Not Seasonally Adjusted; All items; Annual Index) for the first 3 years of the preceding 4 years of available data, multiplied by the proportion of all non-PC&B costs to total costs of an average FDA FTE for the same period.
Table 2 provides the summary data for the percent change in the specified CPI for U.S. cities. These data are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and can be found on its Web site:
Section 744K(c)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act specifies that this 1.0008 percent should be multiplied by the proportion of all non-PC&B costs to total costs of an average FTE for the same 3 fiscal years. The proportion of all non-PC&B costs to total costs of an average FDA FTE for FYs 2014 to 2016 is 50.3181 percent (100 percent−49.6819 percent = 50.3181 percent). Therefore, the non-pay adjustment is 1.0008 percent times 50.3181 percent, or 0.5036 percent.
The PC&B component (1.1106 percent) is added to the non-PC&B component (0.5036 percent), for a total inflation adjustment of 1.6142 percent (rounded). Section 744K(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act specifies that one is added to that figure, making the inflation adjustment 1.016142.
Section 744K(c)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act provides for this inflation adjustment to be compounded after FY 2015. This factor for FY 2018 (1.6142 percent) is compounded by adding one to it, and then multiplying it by one plus the inflation adjustment factor for FY 2017 (5.5792 percent), as published in the
Section 744K(c)(3) of the FD&C Act specifies that in addition to the inflation adjustment factor, the establishment fee for non-small businesses is to be further adjusted for a small business adjustment factor. Section 744K(c)(3)(B) of the FD&C Act provides that the small business adjustment factor is the adjustment to the establishment fee for non-small businesses that is necessary to achieve total fees equaling the amount that FDA would have collected if no entity qualified for the small business exception in section 744K(c)(4) of the FD&C Act. Additionally, section 744K(c)(5)(A) states that in establishing the small business adjustment factor for a fiscal year, FDA shall provide for the crediting of fees from the previous year to the next year if FDA overestimated the amount of the small business adjustment factor for such previous fiscal year.
Therefore, to calculate the small business adjustment to the establishment fee for non-small businesses for FY 2018, FDA must estimate: (1) The number of outsourcing facilities that will pay the reduced fee for small businesses for FY 2018 and (2) the total fee revenue it would have collected if no entity had qualified for the small business exception (
With respect to (1), FDA estimates that 12 entities will qualify for small business exceptions and will pay the reduced fee for FY 2018. With respect to (2), to estimate the total number of entities that will register as outsourcing facilities for FY 2018, FDA used data submitted by outsourcing facilities through the voluntary registration process, which began in December 2013. Accordingly, FDA estimates that 76 outsourcing facilities, including 12 small businesses, will be registered with FDA in FY 2018.
If the projected 76 outsourcing facilities paid the full inflation-adjusted fee of $16,093, this would result in total revenue of $1,223,068 in FY 2018 ($16,093 × 76). However, 12 of the entities that are expected to register as outsourcing facilities for FY 2018 are projected to qualify for the small business exception and to pay one-third of the full fee ($5,364 × 12), totaling $64,368 instead of paying the full fee ($16,093 × 12), which would total $193,116. This would leave a potential shortfall of $128,748 ($193,116−$64,368).
Additionally, section 744K(c)(5)(A) of the FD&C Act states that in establishing the small business adjustment factor for a fiscal year, FDA shall provide for the crediting of fees from the previous year to the next year if FDA overestimated the amount of the small business adjustment factor for such previous fiscal year. FDA has determined that it is appropriate to credit excess fees collected from the last completed fiscal year, due to the inability to conclusively determine the amount of excess fees from the fiscal year that is in progress at the time this calculation is made. This crediting is done by comparing the small business adjustment factor for the last completed fiscal year, FY 2016 ($1,771), to what would have been the small business adjustment factor for FY
The calculation for what the small business adjustment would have been if FDA had estimated perfectly begins by determining the total target collections (15,000 × [inflation adjustment factor] × [number of registrants]). For the most recent complete fiscal year, FY 2016, this was $1,061,480 ($15,610 × 68). The actual FY 2016 revenue from the 68 total registrants (
The difference between the small business adjustment factor used in FY 2016 and the small business adjustment factor that would have been used had FDA estimated perfectly, is $764 ($1,771−$1,007). The $764 is then multiplied by the number of actual registrants who paid the standard fee for FY 2016 (62), which provides us a total excess collection of $47,385 in FY 2016.
Therefore, to calculate the small business adjustment factor for FY 2018, FDA subtracts $47,385 from the projected shortfall of $128,748 for FY 2018 to arrive at the numerator for the small business adjustment amount, which equals $81,363. This number divided by 64 (the number of expected non-small businesses for FY 2018) is the small business adjustment amount for FY 2018, which is $1,271.
The amount of the establishment fee for a qualified small business is equal to $15,000 multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor for that fiscal year, divided by three (see section 744K(c)(4)(A) and (c)(1)(A) of the FD&C Act). The inflation adjustment factor for FY 2018 is 1.072835. See section II.A.1 for the methodology used to calculate the FY 2018 inflation adjustment factor. Therefore, the establishment fee for a qualified small business for FY 2018 is one third of $16,093, which equals $5,364 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
Under section 744K(c) of the FD&C Act, the amount of the establishment fee for a non-small business is equal to $15,000 multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor for that fiscal year, plus the small business adjustment factor for that fiscal year, and plus or minus an adjustment factor to account for over- or under-collections due to the small business adjustment factor in the prior year. The inflation adjustment factor for FY 2018 is 1.072835. The small business adjustment amount for FY 2018 is $1,271. See section II.A.2 for the methodology used to calculate the small business adjustment factor for FY 2018. Therefore, the establishment fee for a non-small business for FY 2018 is $15,000 multiplied by 1.072835 plus $1,271, which equals $17,364 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
Section 744K(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act provides that the amount of the FY 2018 re-inspection fee is equal to $15,000, multiplied by the inflation adjustment factor for that fiscal year. The inflation adjustment factor for FY 2018 is 1.072835. Therefore, the re-inspection fee for FY 2018 is $15,000 multiplied by 1.072835, which equals $16,093 (rounded to the nearest dollar). There is no reduction in this fee for small businesses.
Once an entity submits registration information and FDA has determined that the information is complete, the entity will incur the annual establishment fee. FDA will send an invoice to the entity, via email to the email address indicated in the registration file, or via regular mail if email is not an option. The invoice will contain information regarding the obligation incurred, the amount owed, and payment procedures. A facility will not be registered as an outsourcing facility until it has paid the annual establishment fee under section 744K of the FD&C Act. Accordingly, it is important that facilities seeking to operate as outsourcing facilities pay all fees immediately upon receiving an invoice. If an entity does not pay the full invoiced amount within 15 calendar days after FDA issues the invoice, FDA will consider the submission of registration information to have been withdrawn and adjust the invoice to reflect that no fee is due.
Outsourcing facilities that registered in FY 2017 and wish to maintain their status as an outsourcing facility in FY 2018 must register during the annual registration period that lasts from October 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. Failure to register and complete payment by December 31, 2017, will result in a loss of status as an outsourcing facility on January 1, 2018. Entities should submit their registration information no later than December 10, 2017, to allow enough time for review of the registration information, invoicing, and payment of fees before the end of the registration period.
FDA will issue invoices for each re-inspection after the conclusion of the re-inspection, via email to the email address indicated in the registration file or via regular mail if email is not an option. Invoices must be paid within 30 days.
1. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck) or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
2. If paying with a paper check: Checks must be in U.S. currency from a U.S. bank and made payable to the Food and Drug Administration. Payments can be mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979033, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. If a check is sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver the check to: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979033, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This U.S. Bank address is for courier delivery only. If you have any questions concerning courier delivery, contact the U.S. Bank at 314-418-4013).
3. When paying by wire transfer, the invoice number must be included. Without the invoice number the payment may not be applied. Regarding re-inspection fees, if the payment amount is not applied, the invoice amount will be referred to collections. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee, it is required that the outsourcing facility add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full. Use the following account information when sending a wire transfer: New York Federal Reserve Bank, U.S. Dept of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, Acct. No. 75060099, Routing No. 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., 14th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. If needed, FDA's tax identification number is 53-0196965.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will hold a webinar for stakeholders on August 23, 2017, to provide stakeholders with a status update on the process of FDA and industry discussions on an Over-the-Counter (OTC) Monograph user fee program that began in July 2016. FDA will also provide an overview of proposed performance goals and procedures related to a potential new OTC monograph user fee program. This webinar is intended to be a followup to the June 10, 2016, public meeting and the September 6, 2016, stakeholder webinar on a potential new OTC monograph user fee program.
FDA will hold a webinar for stakeholders on Wednesday, August 23, 2017, from 12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. EDT.
Mary Vienna, Office of Executive Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20903-0002, 301-796-4150, email:
On June 10, 2016, FDA held a public meeting on a potential new user fee program for nonprescription (over-the-counter or OTC) monograph drugs. In the announcement of the public meeting in the
FDA will hold a webinar for stakeholders on August 23, 2017, to provide stakeholders with a status update on the process of FDA and industry discussions on an OTC Monograph user fee program that began in July 2016. FDA will also provide an overview of proposed performance goals and procedures related to a potential new OTC monograph user fee program. This webinar is intended to be a followup to the June 10, 2016, public meeting and the September 6, 2016, stakeholder webinar on a potential new OTC monograph user fee program.
Meeting minutes from FDA and industry discussions on a new OTC monograph user fee program can be found at:
Additional background information on OTC monograph drugs (such as how OTC drugs can be marketed, and the differences between marketing through approved applications and marketing under the monographs), factors FDA considers important in developing a user-fee program, and the questions for which FDA asked the public to consider and provide input, can be found in the
FDA is seeking participation at the webinar by stakeholders, including scientific and academic experts, health care professionals, representatives of patient and consumer advocacy groups, and representatives of the OTC monograph industry. Participating in the webinar is free. The webinar format
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the rates and payment procedures for fiscal year (FY) 2018 animal drug user fees. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Animal Drug User Fee Amendments of 2013 (ADUFA III), authorizes FDA to collect user fees for certain animal drug applications and supplements, for certain animal drug products, for certain establishments where such products are made, and for certain sponsors of such animal drug applications and/or investigational animal drug submissions. This notice establishes the fee rates for FY 2018.
Visit FDA's Web site at
Section 740 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-12) establishes four different types of user fees: (1) Fees for certain types of animal drug applications and supplements; (2) annual fees for certain animal drug products; (3) annual fees for certain establishments where such products are made; and (4) annual fees for certain sponsors of animal drug applications and/or investigational animal drug submissions (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)). When certain conditions are met, FDA will waive or reduce fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(d)).
For FY 2014 through FY 2018, the FD&C Act establishes aggregate yearly base revenue amounts for each fiscal year (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(1)). Base revenue amounts established for years after FY 2014 are subject to adjustment for inflation and workload (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)). Fees for applications, establishments, products, and sponsors are to be established each year by FDA so that the percentages of the total revenue that are derived from each type of user fee will be as follows: Revenue from application fees shall be 20 percent of total fee revenue; revenue from product fees shall be 27 percent of total fee revenue; revenue from establishment fees shall be 26 percent of total fee revenue; and revenue from sponsor fees shall be 27 percent of total fee revenue (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(2)).
For FY 2018, the animal drug user fee rates are: $238,100 for an animal drug application; $119,050 for a supplemental animal drug application for which safety or effectiveness data are required and for an animal drug application subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(d)(4)); $6,175 for an annual product fee; $88,750 for an annual establishment fee; and $75,150 for an annual sponsor fee. FDA will issue invoices for FY 2018 product, establishment, and sponsor fees by December 31, 2017, and payment will be due by January 31, 2018. The application fee rates are effective for applications submitted on or after October 1, 2017, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2018. Applications will not be accepted for review until FDA has received full payment of application fees and any other animal drug user fees owed under the Animal Drug User Fee program (ADUFA program).
ADUFA III, Title I of Public Law 113-14, specifies that the aggregate fee revenue amount for FY 2018 for all animal drug user fee categories is $21,600,000 (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)(1)(B)).
The fee revenue amount established in ADUFA III for FY 2015 and subsequent fiscal years are subject to an inflation adjustment (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(2)).
The component of the inflation adjustment for payroll costs shall be one plus the average annual percent change in the cost of all personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B) paid per full-time equivalent position (FTE) at FDA for the first three of the four preceding fiscal years, multiplied by the proportion of PC&B costs to total FDA costs for the first three of the four preceding fiscal years (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(2)(A) and (B)). The data on total PC&B paid and numbers of FTE paid, from which the average cost per FTE can be derived, are published in FDA's Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees.
Table 1 summarizes that actual cost and FTE data for the specified fiscal years, and provides the percent change from the previous fiscal year and the average percent change over the first of the 4 fiscal years preceding FY 2018. The 3-year average is 2.2354 percent.
The statute specifies that this 2.2354 percent should be multiplied by the proportion of PC&B costs to total FDA costs. Table 2 shows the amount of PC&B and the total amount obligated by FDA for the same 3 FYs.
The payroll adjustment is 2.2354 percent multiplied by 49.6819 percent (or 1.1106 percent).
The statute specifies that the portion of the inflation adjustment for non-payroll costs for FY 2018 is the average annual percent change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers (Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV; not seasonally adjusted; all items less food and energy; annual index) for the first 3 of the preceding 4 years of available data multiplied by the proportion of all costs other than PC&B costs to total FDA costs (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(2)(C)). Table 3 provides the summary data for the percent change in the specified CPI for the Baltimore-Washington area. The data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is shown in table 3.
To calculate the inflation adjustment for non-pay costs, we multiply the 1.7277 percent by the proportion of all costs other than PC&B to total FDA costs. Since 49.6819 percent was obligated for PC&B as shown in table 2, 50.3181 percent is the portion of costs other than PC&B (100 percent −49.6819 percent = 50.3181 percent). The non-payroll adjustment is 1.7277 percent times 50.3181 percent, or 0.8693 percent.
Next, we add the payroll component (1.1106 percent) to the non-pay component (0.8693 percent), for a total inflation adjustment of 1.9799 percent for FY 2018.
ADUFA III provides for the inflation adjustment to be compounded each fiscal year after FY 2014 (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(2)). The factor for FY 2018 (1.9799 percent) is compounded by adding 1 and then multiplying by 1 plus the inflation adjustment factor for FY 2017 (6.0746 percent), as published in the
A workload adjustment will be calculated to the inflation adjusted fee revenue amount established in ADUFA III for FY 2015 and subsequent fiscal years (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(3)).
FDA calculated the average number of each of the five types of applications and submissions specified in the workload adjustment provision (animal drug applications, supplemental animal drug applications for which data with respect to safety or efficacy are required, manufacturing supplemental animal drug applications, investigational animal drug study submissions, and investigational animal drug protocol submissions) received over the 5-year period that ended on September 30, 2013 (the base years), and the average number of each of these types of applications and submissions over the most recent 5-year period that ended June 30, 2017.
The results of these calculations are presented in the first two columns of table 4. Column 3 reflects the percent change in workload over the two 5-year periods. Column 4 shows the weighting factor for each type of application, reflecting how much of the total FDA animal drug review workload was accounted for by each type of application or submission in the table during the most recent five years. Column 5 is the weighted percent change in each category of workload, and was derived by multiplying the weighting factor in each line in column 4 by the percent change from the base years in column 3. At the bottom right of table 4 the sum of the values in column 5 is added, reflecting a total change in workload of 5.4599 percent for FY 2018. This is the workload adjuster for FY 2018.
FDA experienced an increase in the number of new animal drug applications (NADAs) and supplemental NADAs with safety or effectiveness data. Over the last several years FDA has seen an increase in the number of animal drug products brought by animal drug sponsors for review in the drug evaluation process. These new animal drug products come from both existing animal drug sponsors as well as sponsors new to the animal drug market. The increase in new animal drug products has contributed to an increase in the number of protocol submissions and NADAs submitted for many novel drug classes and novel indications for both food-producing animals and companion animals. FDA can expect that the increases in reviewed protocols will lead in the near future to an increase in the number of Investigational Study Submissions and NADAs or supplemental NADAs as sponsors work their products through the regulatory review process. Additionally, FDA has seen an increase in the number of animal drug sponsors pursuing multiple changes to their existing NADAs (
Under section 740(g)(4) of the FD&C Act, if the sum of the cumulative amount of the fees collected for FY 2014 through FY 2016, and the amount of fees estimated to be collected for FY 2017, exceeds the cumulative amount appropriated for fees for FY 2014 through FY 2017, the excess shall be credited to FDA's appropriation account and subtracted from the amount of fees that FDA would otherwise be authorized to collect for FY 2018 under the FD&C Act. (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(g)(4)).
Table 5 shows the amounts specified in appropriation acts for each year from FY 2014 through FY 2017, and the amounts FDA has collected for FY 2014, FY 2015, FY 2016, and FY 2017 as of June 30, 2017, and an additional $21,941,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars) that FDA estimates it will collect in FY 2017 based on historical data. Table 5 shows the estimated cumulative difference between ADUFA fee amounts specified in appropriation acts for FY 2014 through FY 2017 and ADUFA fee amounts collected.
The cumulative fees collected for FY 2014 through FY 2017 are estimated to be $6,548,646 greater than the cumulative fee amounts specified in appropriation acts during this same period. Reducing the inflation and workload adjusted amount of $24,641,504 by the ADUFA III offset of $6,548,646 results in an amount of $18,093,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand), before the final year adjustment.
Under section 740(c)(4) of the FD&C Act, for FY 2018 the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) may, in addition to the inflation and workload adjustments, further increase the fees if such an adjustment is necessary to provide for not more than 3 months of operating reserves of carryover user fees for the process for the review of animal drug applications for the first 3 months of FY 2019. If such an adjustment is necessary, the rationale for the amount of this increase must be included in the annual notice establishing fees for FY 2018 (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(c)(4)).
After calculating the operating reserves and estimating the balance as of the beginning of FY 2019, FDA estimates that the ADUFA program will have sufficient funds for the operating reserves, thus FDA will not be performing a final year adjustment for
ADUFA III specifies that the revenue amount of $18,093,000 for FY 2018 is to be divided as follows: 20 percent, or a total of $3,619,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars), is to come from application fees; 27 percent, or a total of $4,885,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars), is to come from product fees; 26 percent, or a total of $4,704,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars), is to come from establishment fees; and 27 percent, or a total of $4,885,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars), is to come from sponsor fees (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(b)).
Each person that submits an animal drug application or a supplemental animal drug application shall be subject to an application fee, with limited exceptions (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(1)). The term “animal drug application” means an application for approval of any new animal drug submitted under section 512(b)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-11(1)). A “supplemental animal drug application” is defined as a request to the Secretary to approve a change in an animal drug application which has been approved, or a request to the Secretary to approve a change to an application approved under section 512(c)(2) of the FD&C Act for which data with respect to safety or effectiveness are required (21 U.S.C. 379j-11(2)). The application fees are to be set so that they will generate $3,619,000 in fee revenue for FY 2018. The fee for a supplemental animal drug application for which safety or effectiveness data are required and for an animal drug application subject to criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act is to be set at 50 percent of the animal drug application fee (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(1)(A)(ii)).
To set animal drug application fees and supplemental animal drug application fees to realize $3,619,000 FDA must first make some assumptions about the number of fee-paying applications and supplements the Agency will receive in FY 2018.
The Agency knows the number of applications that have been submitted in previous years. That number fluctuates from year to year. In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal drug application fees in FY 2018, FDA is assuming that the number of applications that will pay fees in FY 2018 will equal the average number of submissions over the five most recent completed years of the ADUFA program (FY 2012 to FY 2016). FDA believes that this is a reasonable approach after 13 completed years of experience with this program.
Over the five most recent completed years, the average number of animal drug applications that would have been subject to the full fee was 8.2. Over this same period, the average number of supplemental applications for which safety or effectiveness data are required and applications subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act that would have been subject to half of the full fee was 14.0.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2018 so that the estimated 8.2 applications that pay the full fee and the estimated 14.0 supplemental applications for which safety or effectiveness data are required and applications subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act that pay half of the full fee will generate a total of $3,619,000. To generate this amount, the fee for an animal drug application, rounded to the nearest $100, will have to be $238,100, and the fee for a supplemental animal drug application for which safety or effectiveness data are required and for applications subject to the criteria set forth in section 512(d)(4) of the FD&C Act will have to be $119,050.
The animal drug product fee (also referred to as the product fee) must be paid annually by the person named as the applicant in a new animal drug application or supplemental new animal drug application for an animal drug product submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360), and who had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application pending at FDA after September 1, 2003 (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(2)). The term “animal drug product” means each specific strength or potency of a particular active ingredient or ingredients in final dosage form marketed by a particular manufacturer or distributor, which is uniquely identified by the labeler code and product code portions of the national drug code, and for which an animal drug application or a supplemental animal drug application has been approved (21 U.S.C. 379j-11(3)). The product fees are to be set so that they will generate $4,885,000 in fee revenue for FY 2018.
To set animal drug product fees to realize $4,885,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of products for which these fees will be paid in FY 2018. FDA developed data on all animal drug products that have been submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act and matched this to the list of all persons who had an animal drug application or supplement pending after September 1, 2003. As of June 2017, FDA estimates that there are a total of 815 products submitted for listing by persons who had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application pending after September 1, 2003. Based on this, FDA estimates that a total of 815 products will be subject to this fee in FY 2018.
In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal drug product fees in FY 2018, FDA is assuming that 3 percent of the products invoiced, or 24, will not pay fees in FY 2018 due to fee waivers and reductions. FDA has kept this estimate at 3 percent this year, based on historical data over the past five completed years of the ADUFA program. Based on experience over the first 13 completed years of the ADUFA program, FDA believes that this is a reasonable basis for estimating the number of fee-paying products in FY 2018.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 791 (815 minus 24) products will be subject to product fees in FY 2018.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2018 so that the estimated 791 products that pay fees will generate a total of $4,885,000. To generate this amount will require the fee for an animal drug product, rounded to the nearest $5, to be $6,175.
The animal drug establishment fee (also referred to as the establishment fee) must be paid annually by the person who: (1) Owns or operates, directly or through an affiliate, an animal drug establishment; (2) is named as the applicant in an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application for an animal drug product submitted for listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act; (3) had an animal drug application or
To set animal drug establishment fees to realize $4,704,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of establishments for which these fees will be paid in FY 2018. FDA developed data on all animal drug establishments and matched this to the list of all persons who had an animal drug application or supplement pending after September 1, 2003. As of June 2017, FDA estimates that there are a total of 60 establishments owned or operated by persons who had an animal drug application or supplemental animal drug application pending after September 1, 2003. Based on this, FDA believes that 60 establishments will be subject to this fee in FY 2018.
In estimating the fee revenue to be generated by animal drug establishment fees in FY 2018, FDA is assuming that 11 percent of the establishments invoiced, or seven, will not pay fees in FY 2018 due to fee waivers and reductions. FDA has kept this estimate at 11 percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 completed years. Based on experience over the past 13 completed years of the ADUFA program, FDA believes that this is a reasonable basis for estimating the number of fee-paying establishments in FY 2018.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 53 establishments (60 minus 7) will be subject to establishment fees in FY 2018.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2018 so that the estimated 53 establishments that pay fees will generate a total of $4,704,000. To generate this amount will require the fee for an animal drug establishment, rounded to the nearest $50, to be $88,750.
The animal drug sponsor fee (also referred to as the sponsor fee) must be paid annually by each person who: (1) Is named as the applicant in an animal drug application, except for an approved application for which all subject products have been removed from listing under section 510 of the FD&C Act, or has submitted an investigational animal drug submission that has not been terminated or otherwise rendered inactive and (2) had an animal drug application, supplemental animal drug application, or investigational animal drug submission pending at FDA after September 1, 2003 (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-11(6) and 379j-12(a)(4)). An animal drug sponsor is subject to only one such fee each fiscal year (see 21 U.S.C. 379j-12(a)(4)). The sponsor fees are to be set so that they will generate $4,885,000 in fee revenue for FY 2018.
To set animal drug sponsor fees to realize $4,885,000, FDA must make some assumptions about the number of sponsors who will pay these fees in FY 2018. Based on the number of firms that would have met this definition in each of the past 13 completed years of the ADUFA program, FDA estimates that a total of 198 sponsors will meet this definition in FY 2018.
A review of our records indicates that 35 percent of these sponsors will qualify for a minor use/minor species fee waiver or reduction (21 U.S.C. 379j-12(d)(1)(D)). Based on the Agency's experience to date with sponsor fees, FDA's current best estimate is that an additional 32 percent will qualify for other waivers or reductions, for a total of 67 percent of the sponsors invoiced, or 133, who will not pay fees in FY 2018 due to fee waivers and reductions. FDA has kept this estimate at 67 percent this year, based on historical data over the past 5 completed years of the ADUFA program. FDA believes that this is a reasonable basis for estimating the number of fee-paying sponsors in FY 2018.
Accordingly, the Agency estimates that a total of 65 sponsors (198 minus 133) will be subject to and pay sponsor fees in FY 2018.
FDA must set the fee rates for FY 2018 so that the estimated 65 sponsors that pay fees will generate a total of $4,885,000. To generate this amount will require the fee for an animal drug sponsor, rounded to the nearest $50, to be $75,150.
The fee rates for FY 2018 are summarized in Table 6.
The appropriate application fee established in the new fee schedule must be paid for an animal drug application or supplement subject to fees under ADUFA III that is submitted on or after October 1, 2017. The payment must be made in U.S. currency by one of the following methods: Wire transfer, electronically, check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order made payable to the Food and Drug Administration. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck) or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at
When paying by check, bank draft, or U.S. postal money order, please write your application's unique Payment Identification Number (PIN), beginning with the letters AD, on the upper right-hand corner of your completed Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet. Also write the FDA post office box number (P.O. Box 979033) on the enclosed check, bank draft, or money order. Mail the payment and a copy of the completed Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979033, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. When paying by wire transfer, the invoice number needs to be included; without the invoice number, the payment may not be applied. If the payment amount is not applied, the invoice amount would be referred to collections. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. If the financial institution charges a wire transfer fee, it is required to add that amount to the payment to ensure that the invoice is paid in full.
Use the following account information when sending a payment by wire transfer: U.S. Department of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, FDA Deposit Account Number: 75060099, U.S. Department of Treasury routing/transit number: 021030004, SWIFT Number: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., 14th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.
To send a check by a courier such as Federal Express, the courier must deliver the check and printed copy of the cover sheet to: U.S. Bank, Attn: Government Lockbox 979033, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (
It is important that the fee arrives at the bank at least a day or two before the application arrives at FDA's CVM. FDA records the official application receipt date as the later of the following: The date the application was received by FDA's CVM, or the date U.S. Bank notifies FDA that your payment in the full amount has been received, or when the U.S. Treasury notifies FDA of receipt of an electronic or wire transfer payment. U.S. Bank and the U.S. Treasury are required to notify FDA within 1 working day, using the PIN described previously.
The tax identification number of FDA is 53-0196965. (
Step One—Create a user account and password. Log on to the ADUFA Web site at
Step Two—Create an Animal Drug User Cover Sheet, transmit it to FDA, and print a copy. After logging into your account with your user name and password, complete the steps required to create an Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet. One cover sheet is needed for each animal drug application or supplement. Once you are satisfied that the data on the cover sheet is accurate and you have finalized the cover sheet, you will be able to transmit it electronically to FDA and you will be able to print a copy of your cover sheet showing your unique PIN.
Step Three—Send the payment for your application as described in section VIII.A.
Step Four—Please submit your application and a copy of the completed Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet to the following address: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, Document Control Unit (HFV-199), 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
By December 31, 2017, FDA will issue invoices and payment instructions for product, establishment, and sponsor fees for FY 2018 using this fee schedule. Payment will be due by January 31, 2018. FDA will issue invoices in November 2018 for any products, establishments, and sponsors subject to fees for FY 2018 that qualify for fees after the December 2017 billing.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 1, 2017.
To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to
Amber Sanford, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-8867,
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
The draft guidance entitled “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” provides guidance on the process for the submission and review of a De Novo classification request (hereafter a “De Novo request”) under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)), also known as the De Novo classification process. This process provides a pathway to class I or class II classification for medical devices for which general controls or general and special controls provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but for which there is no legally marketed predicate device.
The proposed collection of information is necessary to satisfy the previously mentioned statutory requirements for implementing this voluntary submission program.
In the
Upon further review of the information collection, it has come to our attention that the 60-day notice did not include an estimated hour burden for requests for withdrawal or estimated operating and maintenance costs for eCopy,
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA estimates from past experience with the De Novo classification program that the complete process involved with the program under section 513(f)(2)(i) of the FD&C Act takes approximately 100 hours, and the complete process under section 513(f)(2)(ii) of the FD&C Act takes approximately 180 hours. This includes the time for any supplements or amendments to the original submission. We estimate that requests for withdrawal take approximately 10 minutes. The average burdens per response are based upon estimates by FDA administrative and technical staff who are familiar with the requirements for submission of a De Novo request (and related materials), have consulted and advised manufacturers on the submissions, and have reviewed the documentation submitted.
Respondents to the information collection are medical device manufacturers seeking to market medical device products that have been classified into class III under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. It is expected that the number of De Novo requests will reach a steady rate of approximately 52 submissions per year. We expect that we will receive approximately five requests for withdrawal per year.
The operating and maintenance cost for a De Novo submission includes the cost of printing, shipping, and the eCopy. We estimate the cost burden for a De Novo submission to be $121.30 ($90 printing + $30 shipping + $1.30 eCopy). The annual cost estimate for De Novo submissions is $6,308 (rounded) (52 submissions × $121.30). We estimate the cost for a request for withdrawal to be $1 (rounded) ($0.09 printing 1 page + $0.03 shipping + $1.30 eCopy). The annual cost estimate for requests for withdrawal is $5.
The draft guidance also refers to currently approved information collections found in FDA regulations. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, are approved under OMB control number 0910-0120.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Antibacterial Therapies for Patients With an Unmet Medical Need for the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Diseases.” The purpose of the guidance is to assist sponsors in the development of new antibacterial drugs to treat serious bacterial diseases in patients with an unmet medical need, including patients who have a serious bacterial disease for which effective antibacterial drugs are limited or lacking. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued July 2, 2013.
Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.
You may submit comments 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:
• Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• 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 comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Submit written requests for single copies of this 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 G. Toerner, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6244, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1300.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Antibacterial Therapies for Patients With an Unmet Medical Need for the Treatment of Serious Bacterial Diseases.” The purpose of this guidance is to assist sponsors in the development of new antibacterial drugs for the treatment of serious bacterial diseases in patients with an unmet medical need, including patients who have a serious bacterial disease for which effective antibacterial drugs are limited or lacking.
Efforts to develop new antibacterial drugs have diminished in the past few decades. Because bacteria continue to develop resistance to available antibacterial drugs, a situation of unmet medical need has arisen in which patients with serious bacterial diseases have limited or in some cases no alternative antibacterial drugs available for treatment. To foster new antibacterial drug development that will have the potential to keep pace with continued selective pressures of antibacterial resistance, FDA is exploring approaches to help streamline development programs for new
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance of the same name issued July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39737). After consideration of comments received in response to the draft guidance, FDA updated the guidance to include clarifications about trial designs for streamlined development programs and statistical approaches. In addition, the guidance outlines development approaches for antibacterial drugs that are pathogen-focused (
FDA notes that section 3042 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255), which establishes a limited population pathway for certain antibacterial and antifungal drugs (LPAD) that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening infection in a limited population of patients with unmet needs, was enacted shortly before publication of this guidance. Some antibacterial drugs that are candidates for a streamlined development program may also be candidates for LPAD. FDA intends to issue separate guidance regarding LPAD. Sponsors are encouraged to discuss proposed approaches with the Division of Anti-Infective Products.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866.
This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR parts 312 and 314 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 and 0910-0001, respectively.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Advisory Committee on Children and Disasters (NACCD) will hold a public meeting on September 7, 2017.
The NACCD meeting is September 7, 2017, from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST.
We encourage members of the public to attend the teleconference. To register, go to
CDR Evelyn Seel, (202) 205-7960,
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), and section 2811A of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 300hh-10a), as added by section 103 of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5), the HHS Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, established the NACCD. The purpose of the NACCD is to provide advice and consultation to the HHS Secretary with respect to the medical and public health needs of children in relation to disasters.
We encourage members of the public to provide written comments that are relevant to the NACCD teleconference prior to September 7, 2017. Send written comments by email via the “Contact Us” link on
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office for Human Research Protections, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), a program office in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than September 18, 2017.
Nominations should be mailed or delivered to Dr. Jerry Menikoff, Director, Office for Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852. Nominations will not be accepted by email or by facsimile.
Julia Gorey, Executive Director, SACHRP, Office for Human Research Protections, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 200, Rockville, MD 20852, telephone: 240-453-8141. A copy of the Committee charter and list of the current members can be obtained by contacting Ms. Gorey, accessing the SACHRP Web site at
The Committee provides advice on matters pertaining to the continuance and improvement of functions within the authority of HHS directed toward protections for human subjects in research. Specifically, the Committee provides advice relating to the responsible conduct of research involving human subjects with particular emphasis on special populations such as neonates and children, prisoners, the decisionally impaired, pregnant women, embryos and fetuses, individuals and populations in international studies, investigator conflicts of interest and populations in which there are individually identifiable samples, data or information.
In addition, the Committee is responsible for reviewing selected ongoing work and planned activities of the OHRP and other offices/agencies within HHS responsible for human subjects protection. These evaluations may include, but are not limited to, a review of assurance systems, the application of minimal research risk standards, the granting of waivers, education programs sponsored by OHRP, and the ongoing monitoring and oversight of institutional review boards and the institutions that sponsor research.
The individuals selected for appointment to the Committee can be invited to serve a term of up to four years. Committee members receive a stipend and reimbursement for per diem and any travel expenses incurred for attending Committee meetings and/or conducting other business in the interest of the Committee. Interested applicants may self-nominate.
Nominations should be typewritten. The following information should be included in the package of material submitted for each individual being nominated for consideration: (1) A letter of nomination that clearly states the name and affiliation of the nominee, the basis for the nomination (
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of HHS Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that individuals from a broad representation of geographic areas, women and men, ethnic and minority groups, and the disabled are given consideration for membership on HHS Federal advisory committees. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status.
Individuals who are selected to be considered for appointment will be required to provide detailed information regarding their financial holdings, consultancies, and research grants or contracts. Disclosure of this information is necessary in order to determine if the selected candidate is involved in any activity that may pose a potential conflict with the official duties to be performed as a member of SACHRP.
42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The Committee is governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of meetings of the National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Advisory Council.
The meetings 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 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
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 instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) in collaboration with the NCI Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (MATCH) trial leadership (NCT 02465060) invites applications for Clinical Laboratory Improvements Program (CLIA) certified/accredited laboratories that test tumor specimens from patients utilizing Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) assays to participate in the NCI MATCH trial. The NCI MATCH trial has implemented a new process for identifying patients for arms with rare variant eligibility criteria. Laboratories will contact any of the approximately 1100 sites that have activated NCI MATCH if a specimen sent from one of these sites has a rare variant that would potentially make the patient eligible for one of the treatment arms open in this initiative.
LOIs should be submitted to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH) on or before 5:00 p.m. EST on January 31, 2018.
Submit LOIs by email to
Questions about this request for LOIs should be directed to
NCI-MATCH aims to establish whether patients with tumor mutations, amplifications or translocations in one of the genetic pathways of interest are likely to derive clinical benefit (primary objective: Objective response; secondary objective: Progression-free survival of at least 6 months) if treated with agents targeting that specific pathway in a single-arm design (see current arms below).
Patients with histologically documented solid tumors, lymphomas and multiple myeloma whose disease has progressed following at least one line of standard systemic therapy or for whom no standard therapy exists are eligible if they meet the eligibility criteria for the trial. Further information about the NCI-MATCH trial may be found at
The selected collaborating laboratories may only act (
CLIA accredited/certified laboratories located in the United States may be
Candidate laboratories should
The arms that are included in the rare variant protocol amendment are:
Following an acceptable eligibility review to the NCI MATCH screening committee, the laboratory would execute a confidentiality agreement with the NCI and will be provided with a detailed list of eligibility and exclusion variants for arms in which the lab has interest. The lab would then be required to submit an application within 3 months for review by the NCI-MATCH steering committee. Candidate laboratories will be required to meet the following general requirements:
• Testing must be performed in a CLIA-certified or -accredited laboratory located in the United States.
• Assays must be on tumor tissue only (including lymphoma and myeloma). Assays using circulating nucleic acids will not be accepted at this time.
• Laboratory NGS panels must be analytically and clinically validated, with performance characteristics as follows:
Laboratories must supply the following information in their application:
• Laboratory NGS test panels must interrogate actionable mutations of interest (aMOIs) required for enrollment into the Rare Variant Arms (see table above). Applicant laboratories must state the MATCH arms in which they would like to participate.
•
• As it is important that the dataset used for analysis in NCI MATCH be as robust as possible, the laboratory NGS test will require qualification, during which the performance of the laboratory will be compared with the NCI-MATCH central laboratory test to ensure good agreement with that assay. Concordance between the results from each lab and results of the NCI MATCH NGS assay run on an archived specimen will be tracked; if concordance falls below 90% for SNVs and indels, or 80% for CNVs, the laboratory must be willing to address these issues with the NCI MATCH team. If they cannot be addressed to the satisfaction of the NCI MATCH team, the laboratory may be eliminated from participation in NCI MATCH.
• Laboratories shall NOT advertise that they are screening laboratories for MATCH eligibility. Any press release or public disclosure requires clearance by NCI and NCI MATCH.
• Laboratories must agree to use the existing workflow established by the NCI MATCH trial to identify patients for the Rare Variant Arms. This includes use of the MATCH Rare Variant
• Prior to participation, laboratories must enter into a collaboration agreement with NCI. A sample agreement is available upon request. As part of such a collaboration agreement, laboratories must agree to provide the licensing rights described in the CTEP IP Option to the Pharmaceutical Collaborators who provided agents for the NCI MATCH trial (
• No reimbursement for these activities (testing or notification of sites of NCI MATCH eligibility) exists.
Qualified laboratories serving underserved populations are encouraged to participate.
How to apply:
1. Submit letter of interest (LOI) as described above under “Letter of Interest and Collaboration Agreement” to
2. LOIs will be accepted until January 31, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. LOIs will be reviewed on a monthly basis, with those arriving by the 15th day of the month being reviewed and answered by the 15th day of the following month.
3. Notification of acceptance, non-acceptance or questions from Steering Committee will be sent to the designated contact person as soon as the LOI has been reviewed. This notification will include further instructions if a full application is invited.
4. Applications that have not been submitted within 3 months of notification of acceptance will be de-activated, and a new LOI must then be submitted if the laboratory wishes to participate in NCI MATCH.
5. DO NOT send a full application until you are invited to do so.
Review criteria for LOI:
• Laboratory is a CLIA certified or accredited laboratory within the United States.
• Academic laboratories must have NCI MATCH open at their site.
• Laboratory has adequate sensitivity, specificity.
• Laboratory tests tumor tissue for rare variants as described in NCI MATCH.
• Laboratory agrees to provide needed information for evaluation of the analytical validity of the test.
• Laboratory is likely to refer at least 100 patients to NCI MATCH based on detection of rare variants in the past.
• Laboratory agrees to contact sites regarding NCI MATCH eligibility.
• Laboratory agrees to a collaboration with NCI as detailed above.
Review criteria for full application:
• Laboratory NGS assay interrogates inclusionary and all exclusionary variants for arms in which the laboratory will participate.
• Laboratory supplies evidence that the assay meets analytical requirements as detailed above.
• Laboratories are capable of contacting clinical sites, tracking activity, and of referring at least 100 patients to the study based on detection of rare variants in the past.
• Laboratories agree to execute a collaboration agreement with NCI, as well as to data sharing and sharing publication rights.
• Laboratories agree to abide by the procedures in place for the MATCH study and to collaborate fully with the MATCH team.
For more information, contact
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2); notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c) (4) and 552b(c) (6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The purpose of this meeting is to evaluate requests for preclinical development resources for potential new therapeutics for the treatment of cancer. The outcome of the evaluation will provide information to internal NCI committees that will decide whether NCI should support requests and make available contract resources for development of the potential therapeutic to improve the treatment of various forms of cancer. The research proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposed research projects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Toby Hecht, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Development Experimental Therapeutics Program, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 3W110, Rockville, MD 20850, (240) 276-5683,
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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 Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Advisory Committee for Women's Services (ACWS) on August 10, 2017.
The meeting will include discussions on the role of SAMHSA's Office of the Chief Medical Officer and emerging issues for women; a follow-up discussion on the Office of Women's Health Report on Women and Opioids; the invisibility of American Indian/American Native women; Legislative updates, including the Cures Act and the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act; and a conversation with the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use.
The meeting is open to the public and will be held at SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD, 20857, in Conference Room 5E45. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person (below) by August 2, 2017. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact person on or before August 2, 2017. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.
The meeting may be accessed via telephone. To attend on site, obtain the call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at
Substantive meeting information and a roster of Committee members may be obtained either by accessing the SAMHSA Committees' Web
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for reinstatement, without change, of the following collection of information: 1625-0002, Application for Vessel Inspection, Waiver, and Continuous Synopsis Record without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 2, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0105] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection, and other important information describing the Collection. There is one ICR for each Collection.
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0105], and must be received by October 2, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0030, Oil and Hazardous Materials Transfer Procedures without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 2, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2017-0109] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet at
Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of Information Management, telephone 202-475-3532, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995;
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0109], and must be received by October 2, 2017.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day Notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0067 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Email. Submit comments to:
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice and request for comments; revision of an existing collection of information.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0001 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only
(1) Email. Submit comments to:
(2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of the Secretary, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of determination.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, pursuant to law, that it is necessary to waive certain laws, regulations and other legal requirements in order to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border of the United States near the city of San Diego in the state of California.
This determination takes effect on August 2, 2017.
The principal mission requirements of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) include border security and the detection and prevention of illegal entry into the United States. Border security is critical to the nation's national security. Recognizing the critical importance of border security, Congress has ordered DHS to achieve and maintain operational control of the international land border. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Congress defined “operational control” as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, 2, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1701 note). Consistent with that mandate from Congress, the President's Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements directed executive departments and agencies to deploy all lawful means to secure the southern border. Executive Order 13767, § 1. To achieve this end, the President directed, among other things, that I take immediate steps to prevent all unlawful entries into the United States, to include the immediate construction of physical infrastructure to prevent illegal entry. Executive Order 13767, § 4(a).
Congress has provided the Secretary of Homeland Security with a number of authorities necessary to carry out DHS's border security mission, including the border security provisions described above. One of these authorities is found at section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”). Public Law 104-208, Div. C, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-554 (Sept. 30, 1996) (8 U.S.C 1103 note), as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231, 302, 306 (May 11, 2005) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, Public Law 109-367, § 3, 120 Stat. 2638 (Oct. 26, 2006) (8 U.S.C. 1103 note), as amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. E, Title V, § 564, 121 Stat. 2090 (Dec. 26, 2007). In section 102(a) of IIRIRA, Congress provided that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take such actions as may be necessary to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in areas of high illegal entry into the United States. In section 102(b) of IIRIRA, Congress has called for the installation of additional fencing, barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors on the southwest border. Finally, in section 102(c) of IIRIRA, Congress granted to the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to waive all legal requirements that I, in my sole discretion, determine necessary to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads authorized by section 102 of IIRIRA.
The United States Border Patrol's San Diego Sector is one of the busiest Sectors in the Nation. For example, in fiscal year 2016 alone, the United States Border Patrol apprehended over 31,000 illegal aliens and seized approximately 9,167 pounds of marijuana and approximately 1,317 pounds of cocaine in the San Diego Sector. To be sure, the construction of border infrastructure and other operational improvements have improved border security in the San Diego Sector; however, more work needs to be done. The San Diego Sector remains an area of high illegal entry for which there is an immediate need to construct additional border barriers and roads.
To begin to meet the need for additional border infrastructure within the San Diego Sector, DHS will immediately implement various border infrastructure projects. These projects will focus on an approximately fifteen mile segment of the border within the San Diego Sector that starts at the Pacific Ocean and extends eastward. This approximately fifteen mile segment of the border is referred to herein as the “Project Area” and is more specifically described in Section 2 below.
All of the projects that DHS will undertake within the Project Area will further Border Patrol's ability to deter and prevent illegal crossings. For example, DHS will replace existing primary fencing in the Project Area. The
I determine that the following area in the vicinity of the United States border, located in the state of California within the United States Border Patrol's San Diego Sector, which is referred to herein as the Project Area, is an area of high illegal entry: Starting at the Pacific Ocean and extending to approximately one mile east of Border Monument 251.
There is presently a need to construct physical barriers and roads, including the infrastructure projects described in Section 1, in the vicinity of the border of the United States to deter illegal crossings in the Project Area. In order to ensure the expeditious construction of the barriers and roads in the Project Area, I have determined that it is necessary that I exercise the authority that is vested in me by section 102(c) of IIRIRA as amended.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 102(c) of IIRIRA, I hereby waive in their entirety, with respect to the construction of roads and physical barriers (including, but not limited to, accessing the Project Area, creating and using staging areas, the conduct of earthwork, excavation, fill, and site preparation, and installation and upkeep of physical barriers, roads, supporting elements, drainage, erosion controls, and safety features) in the Project Area, the following statutes, including all federal, state, or other laws, regulations and legal requirements of, deriving from, or related to the subject of, the following statutes, as amended: The National Environmental Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970) (42 U.S.C. 4321
This waiver does not repeal the previous waiver published in the
I reserve the authority to make further waivers from time to time as I may determine to be necessary under section 102 of IIRIRA, as amended.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting 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
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 1, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be directed to the OMB USCIS Desk Officer via email at
You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make. For additional information please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
(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; and
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment (draft EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. We also announce receipt of an application for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and receipt of a draft habitat conservation plan (draft HCP). CED Lost Hills Solar, LLC has applied for an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act for the Lost Hills Solar Project in Kern County, California. The permit would authorize the take of the federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox incidental to the construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of the solar project. Application for the permit requires the preparation of an HCP with measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impacts of incidental take to the maximum extent practicable. The purpose of the EA is to assess the effects of issuing the permit and implementing the draft HCP on the natural and human environment.
To ensure consideration, written comments must be received by September 1, 2017.
•
•
Justin Sloan, Senior Wildlife Biologist, San Joaquin Valley Division; or Patricia Cole, Chief, San Joaquin Valley Division, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office address (see
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA), prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544
The proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with NEPA. The draft EA was prepared to analyze the impacts of issuing an ITP based on the draft HCP and to inform the public of the proposed action, any alternatives, and associated impacts, and to disclose any irreversible commitments of resources.
For the purposes of NEPA, the Proposed Action Alternative presented in the Draft EA is compared to the No-Action Alternative. The No-Action Alternative represents estimated future conditions to which the Proposed Action's estimated future conditions can be compared.
The Service would issue an ITP to the applicants for a period of 45 years for certain covered activities (described below). The applicant has requested an ITP for one covered species (described below), currently listed as endangered under the Act.
The geographic scope of the draft HCP encompasses 540 acres, including a 477-acre parcel, along with a 500-foot buffer around the northern part of the parcel within which monitoring activities would take place. The project will occupy approximately 160 acres of the habitat conservation plan (HCP) area, with 133 acres disturbed during project construction.
The proposed section 10 ITP would allow take of one covered species resulting from certain covered activities in the proposed HCP area. The applicant is requesting incidental take authorization for this covered species that could be affected by activities identified in the draft HCP. The draft HCP covers construction, operations and maintenance, and decommissioning of the solar site (collectively, covered activities).
The San Joaquin kit fox (
Under the No-Action Alternative, the Service would not issue an ITP to the applicant, and the draft HCP would not be implemented. Under this alternative, the applicant would not construct the proposed solar project.
We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this notice, the draft EA, and the draft HCP. We particularly seek comments on the following:
1. Biological information concerning the species;
2. Relevant data concerning the species;
3. Additional information concerning the range, distribution, population size, and population trends of the species;
4. Current or planned activities in the area and their possible impacts on the species;
5. The presence of archeological sites, buildings and structures, historic events, sacred and traditional areas, and other historic preservation concerns, which are required to be considered in project planning by the National Historic Preservation Act; and
6. Any other environmental issues that should be considered with regard to the proposed development and permit action.
Before including your address, phone number, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—might 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.
Issuance of an incidental take permit is a Federal proposed action subject to compliance with NEPA. We will evaluate the application, associated documents, and any public comments we receive as part of our NEPA compliance process and to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If, subsequent to our NEPA compliance process, we determine that those requirements are met, we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the covered species.
We publish this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce our intent to prepare a draft environmental analysis/document under the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (NEPA), for the proposed issuance of an incidental take permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the draft General Conservation Plan for Oil and Gas Activities in Santa Barbara County (GCP). The GCP is being developed to streamline environmental permitting and compliance with the ESA for proponents engaged in geophysical exploration (seismic), development, extraction, storage, transport, remediation, and/or distribution of crude oil, natural gas, and/or other petroleum products, and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas pipelines and well field infrastructure. The GCP is a conservation plan as required under the ESA for issuance of incidental take permits. Participation in the GCP would be voluntary. ITP holders would be authorized for incidental take of threatened and endangered wildlife species that could result from the activities covered under the GCP. The GCP would include conservation measures for an endangered plant species that would also be covered under the plan. We also are announcing the initiation of a public scoping process to engage Federal, tribal, State, and local governments and the public in the identification of issues and concerns, potential impacts, and possible alternatives to the proposed action. The Service is inviting input regarding development of a draft environmental analysis/document, which will evaluate the impacts to the human environment associated with issuance of ITPs and implementation of the GCP and alternatives.
In order to be included in the analysis, all comments must be received or postmarked on or before September 1, 2017.
Please provide comments in writing, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Rachel Henry, by U.S. mail (see
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to prepare either a draft environmental analysis/document under the National Environmental Policy Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). Under section 3 of the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm” is further defined by regulation as an act that actually kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is also further defined in the regulations as an intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the Secretary of the Interior may authorize the taking of federally listed wildlife species if such taking occurs incidental to otherwise legal activities and where a conservation plan has been developed under section 10(a)(2)(A) that describes: (1) The impact that will likely result from such taking; (2) the steps an applicant will take to minimize and mitigate that take to the maximum extent practicable and the funding that will be available to implement such steps; (3) the alternative actions to such taking that an applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized; and (4) other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan. Issuance criteria under section 10(a)(2)(B) for an incidental take permit require the Service to find that: (1) The taking will be incidental to otherwise lawful activities; (2) an applicant will, to the
A primary purpose of the scoping process is to receive suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives to consider when drafting the environmental analysis/document, and to identify significant issues and reasonable alternatives related to the Service's proposed action (issuance of ITPs under the GCP). In order to ensure that we identify a range of issues and alternatives related to the proposed action, we invite comments and suggestions from all interested parties. We will conduct a review of this project according to the requirements of NEPA and its regulations, other relevant Federal laws, regulations, policies, and guidance, and our procedures for compliance with applicable regulations. Once the draft environmental analysis/document and draft GCP are prepared, we will offer further opportunities for public comment on the content of the NEPA document and the GCP through an appropriate public comment period.
The proposed action is issuance of an incidental take permit for the covered species to proponents engaged in geophysical exploration (seismic), development, extraction, storage, transport, remediation, and/or distribution of crude oil, natural gas, and/or other petroleum products, and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas pipelines and well field infrastructure. The proposed GCP, which must meet the requirements in section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act, would be developed by the Service and implemented by proponents that are issued ITPs under the plan. This will allow for a comprehensive mitigation approach for authorized impacts, which will result in more effective conservation, while at the same time providing a more efficient mechanism for permit processing for the Service and proponents.
Actions covered under the requested incidental take permit may include possible take of covered species associated with activities including, but not limited to, geophysical exploration (seismic), development, extraction, storage, transport, remediation, and/or distribution of crude oil, natural gas, and/or other petroleum products, and construction, maintenance, operation, repair, and decommissioning of oil and gas pipelines and well field infrastructure. The proposed permits would provide coverage for a period of the specified lifetime of each individual project permitted under the GCP. This proposed plan would not circumvent the need for project compliance with other permit requirements for oil and gas projects or other required approval processes that may include county hearings and local approval. The species covered under the requested incidental take permit are the California tiger salamander (
We seek information regarding other reasonable alternatives during this scoping period and will evaluate the impacts associated with such alternatives in the draft environmental analysis/document.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that the 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. Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we use in preparing the draft environmental analysis/document, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Service's Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office in Ventura, California (see
We publish this notice in compliance with the NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1501.7, 1506.6, and 1508.22), the Department of the Interior's NEPA implementing regulations at 43 CFR 46.235, and section 10(c) of the ESA.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation and the State of South Dakota entered into a compact superseding an existing Tribal-State compact governing Class III gaming; this notice announces approval of the Proposed Gaming Compact Between the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation and the State of South Dakota governing Class III gaming.
This notice is applicable as of August 2, 2017.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to publish in the
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting comments on the significance of properties nominated before July 8, 2017, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted by August 17, 2017.
Comments may be sent via U.S. Postal Service and all other carriers to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240.
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before July 8, 2017. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, written comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
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.
Nominations submitted by State Historic Preservation Officers:
An additional documentation has been received for the following resources:
Nominations submitted by Federal Preservation Officers:
The State Historic Preservation Officer reviewed the following nomination and responded to the Federal Preservation Officer within 45 days of receipt of the nomination and supports listing the property in the National Register of Historic Places.
60.13 of 36 CFR part 60.
United States International Trade Commission.
August 10, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
August 8, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the presiding administrative law judge's (“ALJ”) initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 22) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon settlement.
Panyin A Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at
The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-1034 on January 11, 2017, based on a complaint filed by Memory Technologies, LLC of Las Vegas, Nevada (“Memory Tech.”). 82
On June 22, 2017, Memory Tech. and SanDisk filed a joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon settlement. On June 27, 2017, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion.
On July 13, 2017, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon settlement. The ALJ found that the joint motion complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)) and that the parties provided confidential and public copies of the settlement agreement. The ALJ further found that terminating the investigation would not be contrary to the public interest.
The Commission has determined not to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
August 11, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission:
Notice is hereby given that, on June 29, 2017, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and VSC5 Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 3, 2014, VSC5 Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice of application.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before September 1, 2017. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before September 1, 2017.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA
The Attorney General has delegated his authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Assistant Administrator of the DEA Diversion Control Division (“Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on November 22, 2016, Cambrex High Point, Inc., 4180 Mendenhall Oaks Parkway, High Point, North Carolina 27265 applied to be registered as an importer of poppy straw concentrate (9670), a basic class of controlled substance listed in schedule II.
The company plans to import the listed controlled substance to bulk manufacture into other controlled substances for sale to its customers.
Office of Job Corps, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the U.S. Department of Labor (the Department or DOL) issues this notice to propose the closure of the Homestead Job Corps Center (Homestead) in Homestead, Florida, based on an evaluation of the center. This notice seeks public comment on the proposal to close Homestead.
To be ensured consideration, comments must be submitted in writing on or before September 1, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number ETA-2016-0003, by only one of the following methods:
Lenita Jacobs-Simmons, National Director, Office of Job Corps, ETA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-4463, Washington, DC 20210; Telephone (202) 693-3000 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at (877) 889-5627 (TTY/TDD).
Established in 1964, Job Corps is a national program administered by ETA in the Department. It is the nation's largest federally-funded, primarily residential training program for at-risk youth, ages 16 to 24. Through 125 centers in 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, Job Corps seeks to change lives through education and job training for in-demand careers. Job Corps serves at-risk young people who are overcoming major challenges, which can include deep poverty, homelessness, or multiple foster care placements, by providing them with the academic, career technical, and employability skills to enter the workforce, enroll in post-secondary education, or enlist in the military. The program represents the core American value that no matter who you are or where you come from, you should have the opportunity to succeed.
Large and small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and Native American tribes manage and operate 99 of the Job Corps centers through contractual agreements with the Department of Labor, which are awarded pursuant to federal procurement rules. Twenty-six Civilian Conservation Centers (CCCs) are operated through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Job Corps receives annual funding to operate centers, administer the program, and build, maintain, expand, or upgrade a limited number of new and existing facilities.
The Department is continuously taking steps to ensure that Job Corps' resources are used to deliver the best possible results for students. As part of these ongoing efforts, the Department may determine that closing a center will allow Job Corps to more effectively serve its students. Since 2014, the Department has closed two centers.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which became effective on July 1, 2015, directs DOL to “establish written criteria that the Secretary shall use to determine when a Job Corps center supported under this part is to be closed and how to carry out such closure[.]” 29 U.S.C. 3211(c)(1). The Department has published three criteria upon which it may propose to close a center:
1. A methodology for selecting a center for closure based on its chronic low performance, first described in an August 2014
2. An agreement between the Secretaries of Labor and Agriculture to close a CCC, as described in the March 9, 2016, FRN; and
3. An evaluation of the effort required to provide a high-quality education and training program at the center, as described in the March 9, 2016, FRN.
Closure may be based on any one of the three criteria, and a single criterion may be applied independently of the others. Thus, while a center may qualify for closure under more than one criterion, DOL may choose to rely on only one criterion when deciding to propose a center for closure. These criteria have been previously established; therefore, the Department does not seek comments on these criteria in response to this Notice.
Prior to making a decision to propose a center's closure, the Department also applies the Additional Considerations first discussed in the August 2014 notice and described below.
As described in the March 9, 2016, FRN, after applying any of the three closure criterion identified above, the Department will consider the following factors, as appropriate, when deciding whether it should propose a center for closure:
The Department is committed to providing services in a broad geographic area. When deciding to propose a center for closure, DOL will ensure that it maintains at least one Job Corps center in each state, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The program will also take into consideration whether a center's closure would have a disproportionate
When proposing closure for chronic low performance, the Department will not consider any center for which it does not have sufficient data to evaluate that center's performance. Because this Notice does not propose a closure based on performance, this consideration does not apply to the proposed closures discussed below.
When applying the performance-based methodology, the Department will consider evidence of recent performance improvement. Therefore, a center will be removed from closure consideration based on performance-based closure criteria if it is performing in the top half of centers in the most recent full year of performance data. Again, because this notice does not propose a closure based on performance, this consideration does not apply to the proposed closures discussed below.
Job Corps currently serves a diverse student population and remains committed to serving disadvantaged youth from all backgrounds. In making final closure decisions under any of the three criteria identified in Section A above, we will consider whether a center's closure would result in a significant reduction in student diversity within the overall Job Corps system.
For the reasons discussed below, Job Corps proposes to close the Homestead Job Corps Center under the third criterion—an evaluation of the effort required to provide a high-quality education and training program at the center, as described in the March 9, 2016, FRN.
Some centers, for a variety of reasons, face more difficult challenges than others in providing a safe, secure environment where participants can receive high-quality education and training. Some challenges develop over time, while others arise more rapidly. Challenges may involve the condition of the facility, its proximity to relevant job markets, the ability of the center to attract students, the impact of one-time events, or a host of other factors. Addressing these challenges may require sustained efforts that involve significant programmatic, staff, capital, organizational, and/or other investments and resources, and sometimes these challenges continue regardless of the contractor or entity operating the center. Even with such a commitment, it may be difficult to achieve positive outcomes for students.
In such a situation, Job Corps will carefully assess the following:
1. The ongoing needs of the center against those of the program overall.
2. The effort required to provide and maintain a high-quality, safe, and productive living and learning environment.
3. Whether that effort is likely to ultimately produce an outcome that contributes to the program's overall strength and integrity.
After reviewing all relevant information, the Department may decide to propose a center for closure.
Following an evaluation of continuing center operations using the framework outlined above, the Department proposes to close the Homestead Job Corps Center. The Homestead Job Corps Center has been inactive since September 2015, after the homicide of a Job Corps student in an area adjacent to campus.
The tragedy highlighted design problems at the facility which negatively affected the safety and security of the center. Homestead has operated on the grounds of a former Air Force base, with students trained and housed across a 40-acre campus layout with a public street running through the middle, dividing the campus into two separate and distinct parts. A review of Homestead's physical plant and campus layout conducted by Job Corps' Engineering Support Contractor after the suspension of operations concluded that the inefficient layout, as well as the lack of any barrier around the campus periphery, resulted in unsafe center conditions that would have to be addressed before DOL could reactivate the center. The best and most cost effective approach for creating a safe, secure environment at the center for students and staff would be to consolidate the center onto a unified, smaller, 30-acre campus layout with a surrounding fence. However, even these necessary improvements could cost as much as $13 million, a significant portion of the $75 million Job Corps has been appropriated annually for construction and repairs at all 125 Job Corps centers in recent years.
The Department has concluded that investing so much in remaking Homestead's campus is not the best use of limited resources. More than 25 percent of Job Corps' more than 4,000 buildings are over 50 years old, leading to a repair and construction backlog of more than $470 million. Spending nearly one-fifth of the program's construction budget to alter this site's grounds and facilities and remedy its presently identified deficiencies would significantly impact Job Corps' ability to make needed repairs and improvements at other centers. This is not a prudent use of the Department's resources, particularly given the successful maintenance of opportunities at the other four centers in Florida and the Southeast generally. In order to provide functional, safe, and secure campuses for as many students as possible given the limited resources available, DOL has determined students in Florida and across the country will be better served if Job Corps' construction and repair budget—and the time, personnel, and effort required to administer the use of these funds—is allotted across the entire system to improve the conditions of as many centers and as many students as possible.
Additionally, the events leading to the suspension of activities at the Homestead campus may for the foreseeable future serve as a significant disincentive for students to attend the center, negatively impacting its operations by reducing the number of students on center and reducing its cost effectiveness. Job Corps is intensely focused on safety and security, and is presently working to demonstrate to potential and enrolled students and their families that Job Corps is a safe and welcoming place. As the criminal case involving the murder continues to move through the criminal justice system, Job Corps operations at Homestead will continue to face intense scrutiny, complicating and hindering the process of recruiting, educating, and training at-risk students at this site.
Despite the change in the Homestead Center's operating status, Job Corps has maintained the same capacity to serve students from Florida since operations were temporarily suspended. In the wake of the Homestead tragedy, Job Corps transferred 189 students to other centers, primarily in Florida and the Southeast region, as it reassessed the safety and security of the property. The Job Corps program has robust capacity in Florida, a state where there are four other centers, including the Miami Job
After studying (1) the ongoing needs of the center against those of the program overall, (2) the effort needed to provide and maintain a high-quality, safe, and productive living and learning environment, and (3) whether that effort is likely to ultimately produce an outcome that contributes to the program's overall strength and integrity, the Department concluded that closing the Homestead Job Corps Center is in the best interest of the program.
After completing this evaluation, the Department then applied the relevant additional considerations outlined in the March 2016 FRN and discussed above in Section II.B and determined that these considerations did not preclude closure of the Homestead Job Corps Center.
The Department now requests public comments on its proposal to close the Homestead Job Corps Center.
The Department's process for closing Job Corps centers will follow the requirements of section 159(j) of the WIOA, which include the following:
• The proposed decision to close a particular center is announced in advance to the general public through publication in the
• A reasonable comment period, not to exceed 30 days, is established for interested individuals to submit written comments to the Secretary; and
• The Member of Congress who represents the district in which such center is located is notified within a reasonable period of time in advance of any final decision to close the center.
This Notice serves as the public announcement of the decision to close the Homestead Job Corps Center. The Department is providing a 30-day period—the maximum amount of time allowed for comment under WIOA sec. 159(j)—for interested individuals to submit written comments on the proposed decision to close this center.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA” or “the Agency”) announces the application of Jardon and Howard Technologies, Incorporated (“JHT” or “the applicant”) for a permanent variance from several provisions in OSHA's standards that regulate commercial diving operations. Additionally, the applicant requests an interim order based on the conditions specified in the variance application. JHT's variance request is based on the conditions that were specified in the alternate standards that OSHA granted to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) on September 5, 2014. OSHA announces its preliminary finding to grant the permanent variance, and also announces that it is granting the applicant's request for an interim order. OSHA invites the public to submit comments on whether to grant the applicant a permanent variance based on the conditions specified in the notice.
Submit comments, information, documents in response to this notice, and request for a hearing on or before September 1, 2017. The interim order specified by this notice becomes effective on August 2, 2017, and shall remain in effect until it is modified or revoked, or until OSHA publishes a decision on the permanent variance application, whichever occurs first.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
On September 25, 2015, Jardon and Howard Technologies, Incorporated, (“JHT” or “the applicant”), submitted an application for a permanent, multi-state variance under Section 6(d) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“OSH Act”; 29 U.S.C. 655) and 29 CFR 1905.11 (“Variances and other relief under section 6(d)”), from provisions of OSHA's commercial diving operations (CDO) standard that regulate the use of inflatable flotation devices and decompression chambers (Exhibit OSHA-2015-0024-0001, Request for Variance). JHT's application also requested an interim order pending OSHA's decision on the variance application. JHT's corporate offices are located at 2710 Discovery Drive, Suite 600, Orlando, FL 32826, and JHT also identified two field office locations as places of employment involved in its variance application: (1) NOAA/NOS Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina, 28516; and (2) NOAA CCFHBR Laboratory, 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, South Carolina, 29412. After receiving JHT's variance application, OSHA sent two rounds of follow-up questions to JHT, on October 13, 2015 and June 27, 2016, to which JHT responded on November 16, 2015 and July 27, 2016, respectively (
Specifically, the applicant seeks a permanent variance and interim order from the provisions of OSHA's CDO standard that require:
(1) A buoyancy compensator to have an inflation source separate from the breathing gas supply when used for SCUBA diving (29 CFR 1910.430(d)(3));
(2) use of an inflatable flotation device capable of maintaining the diver at the surface in a face-up position, having a manually activated inflation source independent of the breathing supply, an oral inflation device, and an exhaust valve (29 CFR 1910.430(d)(4));
(3) the employer to instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber which is at the dive location for at least one hour after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate) for any dive outside the no-decompression limits, deeper than 100 feet of sea water (fsw), or using mixed gas as a breathing mixture (29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2));
(4) the employer to make available at the dive location a decompression chamber capable of recompressing the diver at the surface to a minimum of 165 fsw (6 ATA) (29 CFR 1910.423(c)(1));
(5) the employer to make available within 5 minutes of the dive location a dual-lock, multiplace decompression chamber (29 CFR 1910.423(c)(3)); and
(6) that self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA) diving not be conducted at depths deeper than 100 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits unless a decompression chamber is ready for use (29 CFR 1910.424(b)(2)).
JHT is a contractor for the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal government agency that conducts and promotes undersea research using a variety of modes, including diving operations. On September 5, 2014, OSHA granted NOAA alternate standards
JHT's divers who conduct diving operations for NOAA typically dive from NOAA-operated “uninspected vessels” in U.S. navigable waters; such diving operations fall under OSHA's jurisdiction.
The applicant contends that the proposed variance conditions outlined in its application provide its workers with a place of employment that is at least as safe and healthful as they would obtain under the existing provisions of OSHA's CDO standard. The applicant certifies that it provided affected
In June 2011, NOAA submitted an application to OSHA proposing a total of 12 alternate standards to 29 CFR 1910, Subpart T, and included with its application extensive introductory, background, and explanatory information in support of the application (
NOAA explained in its application materials that it conducts dives under two major programs: The NOAA Diving Program (NDP) and the National Undersea Research Program (NURP). The NDP primarily supports intramural (within the agency) research programs conducted by personnel within NOAA's major line offices, while NURP primarily supports extramural (outside the agency) research programs conducted by scientists from various academic and marine institutions. The NDP is responsible for overseeing all NOAA and contractor (including JHT) diving personnel, equipment, and activities, and ensuring that dives performed by NOAA and its contractor divers are completed safely and efficiently. The NDP, the NOAA Diving Control and Safety Board, and the NOAA Diving Medical Review Board all work together to ensure that qualified personnel and certified systems are available to safely meet NOAA's undersea research objectives.
NOAA's application also explained that it provides a robust training program to NDP divers, including contractor divers. NOAA stated that the primary training program used to prepare NOAA and contractor divers to perform work is NOAA's three-week, 140-hour “Working Diver” course, which trains divers to perform a wide range of skills utilizing a variety of power and hand tools and specialized equipment. All NOAA divers and contractors are also required to: (1) Have annual refresher training in oxygen administration (academic and practical components); (2) stay current in CPR/AED and First Aid training; (3) maintain proficiency in diving by making at least three dives per quarter; (4) complete an annual swim test; (5) have their life support gear serviced annually by a certified technician; (6) complete an annual skills test to demonstrate their ability to safely operate underwater; and (7) complete annual rescue drills to demonstrate their ability to surface, extricate, treat and evacuate the victim of a diving accident.
NOAA's application further stated that it has developed many advances in diving equipment and procedures that are now widely recognized and accepted as industry best practices. NOAA publishes many of these advances in the “NOAA Diving Manual: Diving for Science and Technology,” which serves as a reference manual for all NDP divers. NOAA also maintains two additional manuals (the “NOAA Scientific Diving Standards and Safety Manual” and the “NOAA Working Diving Standards and Safety Manual”) that provide in-depth operational guidance for all dives, and include the standards, policies, regulations, requirements, and responsibilities for all aspects of NOAA's diving operations.
Additionally, NOAA stated that OSHA's CDO standard, which was first published in 1977, does not account for many of the advancements that have been made in diving technology and safety. For that reason, NOAA sought alternate standards that would permit the NDP to conduct diving operations using equipment and procedures that reflected modern diving advancements. NOAA also stated that OSHA's regulations are not always consistent with other related federal diving regulations, such as 46 CFR 197, Subpart B, which provides safety and health standards for commercial diving operations conducted from vessels and facilities under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard.
As a NOAA contractor, JHT asserts that its divers are required to strictly follow the requirements of the NDP, which include following the conditions of the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards. But, even though NOAA-employed and JHT-employed divers work side-by-side during NDP operations, contractor divers (such as those employed by JHT) are not authorized to dive under the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards. JHT states that its divers undergo exactly the same training as NOAA employees who are also part of the NDP, and that there are no differences between NOAA and JHT divers regarding medical clearance procedures and standards, training materials, equipment used, equipment maintenance, and diving procedures used (
OSHA's standards regulating the buoyancy control of inflatable flotation devices include requirements that: (1) When used for SCUBA diving, a buoyancy compensator shall have an inflation source separate from the breathing gas supply (29 CFR 1910.430(d)(3)); and (2) an inflatable flotation device capable of maintaining the diver at the surface in a face-up position, having a manually activated inflation source independent of the breathing supply, an oral inflation device, and an exhaust valve shall be used for SCUBA diving (29 CFR 1910.430(d)(4)).
Following the terms of the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards, JHT's variance application seeks permission to use modern buoyancy compensator devices (BCDs) that deviate from the requirements in 1910.430(d)(3) and (d)(4) that such devices have an inflation source that is “separate from” or “independent of” the diver's breathing gas. NOAA's application for the alternate standards explained that the overwhelming majority of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) BCDs are designed to use the diver's breathing gas for inflation, making it difficult to comply with OSHA's requirement for a BCD to have an independent inflation source. According to NOAA, older systems that utilize separate, non-breathing gas inflation sources—particularly, carbon-dioxide cartridges—pose potential safety problems for the diver, including potential cartridge failure, and accidental activation, leading to an unexpected and potentially dangerous over-inflation of the BCD, which could cause a rapid and uncontrolled ascent of the diver to the surface. NOAA's application stated that industry recognition of these inherent safety problems prompted manufacturers to discontinue production of systems relying on such inflation sources. NOAA also explained that using a diver's emergency air supply to inflate the BCD is potentially problematic, as connecting the BCD to an auxiliary cylinder would impede a diver who is “ditching” components of a SCUBA unit during an emergency, and would also create additional points of potential equipment failure and entanglement. JHT echoed NOAA's concerns regarding the use of BCDs that are inflated by a source other than the diver's breathing gas (
The training that NOAA provides to its divers and contractors, including JHT, mitigates the risk of using breathing gas to inflate BCDs. NDP divers are trained to continually monitor their gas supplies and return to the surface with no less than 500 psi in their SCUBA cylinders, and NOAA stated that this practice, which has been used for more than 30 years, has proven to be an effective method for managing a diver's breathing gas. NDP divers are also trained in techniques to manually inflate their BCDs, both underwater and at the surface, to control their buoyancy. NOAA also explained that the amount of gas needed to inflate a BCD is minimal compared to the amount of breathing gas that is available in a standard SCUBA cylinder, and that most BCDs can be fully inflated with a volume of gas equivalent to that consumed in three or fewer breaths, and therefore asserted that taking such small amounts of gas from the SCUBA cylinder would have minimal effect on the duration of a dive.
Under the alternate conditions that OSHA granted NOAA in the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards, which JHT adopts as the proposed conditions for the variance, NDP divers may use BCDs that are inflated by the breathing gas supply so long as all divers carry an independent reserve cylinder of breathing gas with a separate regulator, which allows divers to orally inflate their BCDs using gas from their reserve gas supplies even if their primary breathing gas supply is depleted. When granting the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards, OSHA explained that this requirement is consistent with 29 CFR 1910.424(c)(4), which requires SCUBA divers to carry a reserve breathing-gas supply. As OSHA stated in the preamble to the CDO standard final rule (42 FR 37650, 37633), “[a reserve] supply is essential to the safety of the SCUBA diver,” and employers must take precautions to “assure that the air reserve will not be depleted inadvertently during the dive.” OSHA ultimately concluded that NOAA's proposed alternate standard provides equivalent safety protection to divers as 1910.430(d)(3) so long as the diver carries a reserve breathing gas supply, does not connect the reserve breathing gas to the BCD's inflation source, and uses the BCD in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
Further, OSHA noted in the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards that 1910.430(d)(4)'s requirement that SCUBA divers use a BCD with a manually activated inflation source (
Additionally, JHT's proposed variance conditions would follow the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards by replacing 1910.430(d)(4)'s requirement that BCDs used for SCUBA dives be capable of maintaining the diver at the surface in a “face-up position” with a requirement that the BCD be capable of maintaining the diver at the surface in a “positively buoyant state.” NOAA's application materials explained that the majority of COTS BCDs available today are not designed to maintain unconscious divers in a face-up position on the surface, as systems capable of meeting that requirement have inherent safety-related problems that lead most manufacturers to abandon them in favor of more modern systems.
Specifically, NOAA asserted that the only BCD able to maintain a diver in a face-up position at the surface was the “horse-collar” style BCD, which has been widely replaced by jacket-style BCDs (also known as stabilizing, or stab, jackets) or back-mounted systems, both of which have greater operational and safety features compared to the older style. NOAA explained that newer BCDs have more lift, fewer straps (reducing entanglement hazards, particularly when ditching the BCD in an emergency, or when used in conjunction with a weight harness), require fewer steps to don, will not choke divers when fully inflated on the surface, and most significantly, do not impede operation of chest-mounted drysuit inflation valves. Additionally, NOAA explained that the inability of stab-jacket or back-mounted BCDs to maintain a diver in a face-up position is off-set by NOAA's requirement that divers always dive in buddy pairs (or be line-tended), and receive training in the proper technique for inflating their buddy's BCD while keeping their buddy's head face-up during rescues. Accordingly, NOAA stated that the chance of a stricken diver drowning while wearing a BCD that does not provide for face-up flotation is very remote. JHT added that horse-collar BCDs were not originally designed for emergency buoyancy ascents, and many are thus not equipped with the over-pressure relief valves that are essential for safe emergency ascents.
When granting the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards, OSHA noted that the preamble to the CDO final rule explained that “[t]he provision for an inflatable flotation device for SCUBA diving [was] given design specifications because an improperly designed device can be a greater safety hazard than aid” (42 FR 37650, 37666). BCDs were not
OSHA determined that those conditions would provide NOAA's divers with protection equivalent to the CDO standard, and JHT's proposed variance includes the very same conditions under which OSHA approved the NOAA's Alternate Diving Standards for NOAA-employed NDP divers. As stated above, there are no differences in the training requirements, medical clearance procedures and standards, equipment use and maintenance requirements, or diving procedures that apply to NOAA-employed and JHT-employed divers who conduct diving operations for the NDP. Additionally, OSHA believes that diver safety is best promoted where diving safety rules are clear and consistently applicable to all divers at a worksite. Accordingly, OSHA accepts JHT's proposal to adopt the conditions from the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards as the basis for its requested variance from the inflatable flotation device requirements in 1910.430(d)(3) and (d)(4), and has preliminarily decided to grant the interim order and permanent variance to JHT on those same conditions.
OSHA's standards regulating the availability and use of decompression chambers require that: (1) For any dive outside the no-decompression limits, deeper than 100 fsw, or using mixed gas as a breathing mixture, the employer shall instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber which is at the dive location for at least one hour after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate) (1910.423(b)(2)); (2) for mixed gas diving shallower than 300 fsw, or diving outside the no-decompression limits shallower than 300 fsw, a decompression chamber capable of recompressing the diver at the surface to a minimum of 165 fsw (6 ATA) shall be available at the dive location, and must be dual-lock, multiplace, and accessible within 5 minutes of the dive location (1910.423(c)(1) and (c)(3)(i)-(iii)); and (3) SCUBA dives shall not be conducted at depths deeper than 100 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits unless a decompression chamber is ready for use (1910.424(b)(2)).
Adopting the conditions of the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards, JHT's application proposes conditions that would allow it deviate from these decompression chamber availability and capability requirements in OSHA's CDO standard. As OSHA explained when it granted the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards, the purpose of having a decompression chamber available and ready for use at a dive site is to treat decompression sickness (DCS) and arterial gas embolism (AGE). DCS may occur from breathing air or mixed gases at diving depths and durations that require decompression, while AGE may result from over-pressurizing the lungs, usually following a rapid ascent to the surface during a dive without proper exhalation. In the event that DCS or AGE develops, a decompression chamber, oxygen or treatment gas mixtures, and treatment tables and instructions must be readily available to treat these conditions effectively. Decompression chambers provide the most effective therapy—recompression—for DCS and AGE.
First, JHT's proposed variance would adopt the conditions of the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards that permit NOAA to deviate from the requirement of 1910.423(b)(2) that the employer instruct all divers who dive deeper than 100 fsw remain awake and in the vicinity of a decompression chamber for one hour after the dive, and the requirement of 1910.424(b)(2) that SCUBA diving not be conducted at depths deeper than 100 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits unless a decompression chamber is “ready for use.” In other words, Sections 1910.423(b)(2) and 1910.424(b)(2) require that any diver who conducts a dive deeper than 100 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits to remain alert and near a decompression chamber for at least one hour to ensure immediate treatment should DCS or AGE develop. Addressing the 100 fsw limit in the preamble to the CDO rule, OSHA stated:
By adding a depth limit to the decompression chamber requirement, the standard sets a specified depth at which all diving operations will require a chamber, eliminating the safety hazard inherent in operations which are planned below that depth . . . . OSHA believes that this provision will result in recompression capability being available for the great majority of diving situations where the probability of its being needed is greatest.
In its application, NOAA sought permission to conduct SCUBA dives within the no-decompression limit up to 130 fsw (rather than 100 fsw) without triggering the decompression chamber requirements in 1910.423(b)(2) and 1910.424(b)(2). In support, NOAA cited statistics published by the U.S. Navy (USN) indicating that no-decompression dives to 130 fsw actually pose a lower risk of DCS to divers than no-decompression dives to 100 fsw, and also cited the extremely low DCS incident rate that NOAA has observed in no-decompression SCUBA dives that it has conducted between 101 and 130 fsw since 2000.
When granting NOAA alternate standards to 1910.423(b)(2) and 1910.424(b)(2), OSHA explained that the CDO standard sets the 100 fsw limit based on the increased risk of developing DCS and AGE on dives deeper than 100 fsw. However, OSHA explained that the Agency amended the CDO standard in 2004 to permit employers of recreational diving instructors and diving guides to comply with an alternative set of decompression chamber requirements (
OSHA explained in the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards that it created this exemption for recreational diving instructors and diving guides because the Agency determined that the elevated levels of oxygen in nitrox breathing-gas mixtures reduced the incidence of DCS compared to breathing air at the same depths, and therefore
After considering the statistics and information regarding NDP operations that NOAA submitted, OSHA concluded that NOAA's proposed alternate standards would provide equivalent protection to the CDO standard when NDP divers use air or nitrox breathing-gas mixtures with SCUBA, so long as NOAA complies with the no-decompression provisions of Appendix C of 29 CFR 1910, Subpart T (
(a) For diving conducted while using nitrox breathing-gas mixtures, the employer must ensure that each diver remains within the no-decompression limits specified for single and repetitive air diving and published in the 2001 NOAA Diving Manual or the report entitled “Development and Validation of No-Stop Decompression Procedures for Recreational Diving: The DSAT Recreational Dive Planner,” published in 1994 by Hamilton Research Ltd. (known commonly as the “1994 DSAT No-Decompression Tables”).
(b) An employer may permit a diver to use a dive-decompression computer designed to regulate decompression when the dive-decompression computer uses the no-decompression limits specified in paragraph 5(a) of this appendix, and provides output that reliably represents those limits.
Additionally, JHT's application would adopt the conditions of the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards that permit NOAA to deviate from the decompression chamber availability and capability requirements in 1910.423(c)(1) (that employers have a 6 ATA chamber at the dive location) and 1910.423(c)(3) (that the chamber be dual-lock, multiplace, and located within five minutes of the dive location). In its original application to the Agency, NOAA proposed alternate standards that would have permitted it to use a 2.8 ATA, mono-lock chamber available within two (2) hours of the dive location for all working dives conducted deeper than 130 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits. NOAA explained that complying with 1910.423(c)(1) and (c)(3) requires employers to use a large enough boat to carry and transport a large and powerful decompression chamber to the dive site, but most NDP dives are conducted from small boats, which are launched from larger ships or land-based facilities. Accordingly, NOAA sought permission to use light-weight, portable decompression systems, which it referred to as “hyperlite chambers,” to transport injured divers from dive sites to larger chambers located elsewhere. Additionally, NOAA sought to make the hyperlite chamber available within two hours, rather than within five minutes, of the dive location for dives conducted deeper than 130 fsw or outside the no-decompression limits.
OSHA did not grant NOAA the alternate standards based on these proposed conditions, but rather granted revised alternate standards in order to ensure that NOAA divers would receive equivalent protection to the CDO standard. Regarding the chamber
Regarding the proposed chamber-
After considering the information that NOAA submitted regarding the NDP's diving operations, OSHA determined that, for no-decompression dives using air or nitrox that are 130 fsw or less, a four-hour travel delay to a 6 ATA chamber provides NDP divers with protection equivalent to the CDO standard, so long as NOAA meets the medical-treatment provisions of Appendix C to the CDO rule (
Based on its technical review of the JHT's application, the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards, and related
As previously stated in this notice, JHT seeks a permanent variance from several provisions of OSHA's CDO standard in order to carry out NDP diving projects conducted from NOAA vessels in accordance with the conditions of the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards. JHT's land-based operations, which are responsible for managing and administering these diving projects, are located at: (1) NOAA CCEHBR Laboratory, 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, South Carolina, 29412; and (2) NOAA/NOS Center for Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research, 101 Pivers Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina, 28516. JHT conducts diving operations with NOAA with essentially no geographical limitations, and have conducted diving operations in various navigable waters within OSHA's geographical authority, including the navigable waters of the Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, the Florida Keys, the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean (
Twenty-eight state safety and health plans have been approved by OSHA under section 18 of the OSH Act.
Under 29 CFR 1902.8(c), an employer may apply to Federal OSHA for a variance where a state standard is identical to a federal standard addressed to the same hazard, and the variance would be applicable to employment or places of employment in more than one state, including at least one state with an approved plan. Of the twenty-eight State Plans, only California, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington have promulgated their own state diving standards; Arizona has adopted 29 CFR 1910, subpart T with the exception of one provision that is not germane to this application,
JHT certified in its application that it has not filed an application for a permanent variance on the same material facts with a State Plan program. JHT's variance application fits the parameters of 29 CFR 1902.8, and Federal OSHA's action on this application will be deemed prospectively an authoritative interpretation of JHT's compliance obligations regarding the applicable state standards in the places of employment covered by the application. As part of the permanent variance process, OSHA's Directorate of Cooperative and State Programs will notify all State Plans that are potentially affected by JHT's variance application, and the states will have the opportunity to comment.
This section describes the alternative means of compliance with the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.430(d)(3), 1910.430(d)(4), 1910.423(b)(2), 1910.423(c)(1), 1910.423(c)(3), and 1910.424(b)(2), and provides additional detail regarding the proposed conditions that form the basis of JHT's application for an interim order and permanent variance. As indicated earlier in this notice, JHT is seeks the interim order and permanent variance based on proposed conditions derived from the conditions of the alternate standards that OSHA granted to NOAA on September 5, 2014 (Exhibit OSHA-2015-0024-0003, OSHA's Comments and Decisions to NOAA's Request for an
The interim order/proposed permanent variance will/would apply only to JHT commercial diving operations that are conducted for NOAA as part of the NDP from a NOAA vessel. Additionally, coverage is/would be limited to the work situations specified under the “Scope and application” section of Subpart T, Commercial Diving Operations (1910.401(a)), and will/would not apply to commercial diving operations that are already exempted under 1910.401(a)(2).
The interim order only applies to JHT's employees when they conduct diving operations under the NDP, as would the permanent variance should OSHA decide to grant it.
In proposed condition B, OSHA defines a number of abbreviations used in the interim order/proposed permanent variance. OSHA believes that defining these abbreviations serves to clarify and standardize their usage, thereby enhancing the applicant's and its employees' understanding of the conditions specified by the interim order/proposed permanent variance.
This proposed condition will/would require that, when using a buoyancy compensator device (BCD) for SCUBA diving, JHT will/would ensure that: The device is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; is capable of being inflated orally and via the diver's primary breathing gas supply; and, all divers carry an independent reserve cylinder of breathing gas with a separate regulator that could be used for BCD inflation in an emergency. It will/would also require that, when SCUBA diving, JHT will/would ensure divers use an inflatable flotation device that is: Capable of maintaining the diver at the surface in a positively buoyant state; and, has a manually activated inflation source, an oral inflation device, and an exhaust valve. Also, when SCUBA diving, JHT will/would ensure divers are never permitted to dive alone unless they are line-tended and provided with topside support.
Based upon the technical review of the proposed alternate conditions described above (
This proposed condition will/would require that, for any dive that is outside the no-decompression limits or deeper than 130 fsw or using mixed gas with a percentage of oxygen less than air as a breathing mixture, JHT will/would instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber which is at the dive location for at least one hour after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate). Additionally, for any dive using air or a nitrox breathing-gas mixture within the no-decompression limits that is deeper than 100 fsw but no deeper than 130 fsw, JHT will/would make available within four hours of the dive location a dual-lock and multi-place decompression chamber capable of recompressing the diver at the surface to a minimum of 165 fsw (6 ATA). JHT will/would also be required to meet the medical-treatment provisions of Appendix C to the CDO rule (
Based upon the technical review of the proposed alternate conditions regarding its use of decompression chambers (
OSHA added this proposed condition, which will/would require JHT to develop and implement an effective qualification and training program for its affected divers that, at a minimum, meets the requirements set forth in 29 CFR 1910.410 qualifications of a dive team. The proposed condition specifies that as members of the NDP, JHT's affected divers must/would be required to successfully complete the three-week, 140-hour “Working Diver” course that trains NOAA and contractor divers to perform a wide range of skills utilizing a variety of power and hand tools and specialized equipment. The proposed condition also specifies that JHT's diver must/would be required to complete NDP's diver training requirements, which include: (1) Instruction in the conditions of the proposed variance; (2) annual refresher training in oxygen administration (academic and practical components); (3) instruction in maintaining current CPR/AED and First Aid certification; (4) maintaining proficiency in diving by making at least three (3) dives per quarter; (5) completing and passing an annual swim test; (6) completing and passing an annual skills test to demonstrate the diver's ability to safely operate underwater; (7) successfully completing one or more annual rescue drills to demonstrate the diver's ability to surface, extricate, treat and evacuate the victim of a diving accident; and (8) instruction in properly verifying that the diver's life support gear was serviced annually by a certified technician.
OSHA believes that having well-trained and qualified divers performing the required dive tasks ensures that they recognize, and respond appropriately to underwater safety and health hazards. These qualification and training requirements will/would enable affected JHT divers to cope effectively with emergencies, as well as the discomfort and physiological effects of hyperbaric exposure, thereby preventing injury, illness, and fatalities.
OSHA also includes proposed condition F, which will/would require the applicant to maintain records of specific factors associated with each dive. The information gathered and recorded under this provision, in concert with the information provided under proposed condition G (using OSHA 301 Incident Report form to investigate and record dive-related recordable injuries as defined by 29 CFR 1904.4, 1904.7, 1904.8 through 1904.12), will/would enable the applicant and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the interim order and proposed permanent variance in preventing DCS and other dive-related injuries and illnesses.
OSHA added this proposed condition to JHT's application in order to ensure that the applicant provides timely notification regarding the continued use and effectiveness of the proposed conditions in maintaining the safety and health of affected divers and preventing dive-related incidents.
Under this proposed condition, the applicant will/would be required to: (1) Notify the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities (OTPCA) and the Area Office closest to the dive location of any recordable injuries, illnesses, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, loss of an eye, or fatality that occur as a result of diving operations within eight (8) hours of the incident; (2) provide OTPCA and the Area Office closest to the dive location within twenty-four (24) hours of the incident with a copy of the incident investigation report (using OSHA 301 form); (3) include on the OSHA 301 form information on the diving conditions associated with the recordable injury or illness, the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented; (4) provide its certification that it informed affected divers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation; (5) notify OTPCA and the Area Office closest to the dive location within fifteen (15) working days should the applicant need to revise its dive procedures to accommodate changes in its diving operations that affect its ability to comply with the conditions of the proposed permanent variance; and (6) by the fifteenth (15th) of January, at the beginning of each new calendar year, provide OTPCA, and the Area and Regional Offices closest to the preceding year's dive locations, with a report summarizing the dives completed during the year just ended and evaluating the effectiveness of the variance conditions in providing a safe and healthful work environment and in preventing dive-related incidents.
It should be noted that the requirement of completing and submitting the dive-related (recordable) incident investigation report (OSHA 301 form) will/would be more restrictive than the current recordkeeping requirement of completing the OSHA 301 form within seven (7) calendar days of the incident (29 CFR 1904.29(b)(3)). This modified and more stringent incident investigation and reporting requirement will/would be restricted to dive-related (recordable) incidents only. Providing notification will/would be essential because time is a critical element in OSHA's ability to determine the continued effectiveness of the variance conditions in preventing dive-related incidents, and the applicant's identification and implementation of appropriate corrective and preventive actions.
Further, these notification requirements will/would enable the applicant, its employees, and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the proposed permanent variance in providing the requisite level of safety to the applicant's divers, and based on this determination, whether to revise or revoke the conditions of the proposed permanent variance. Timely notification will/would permit OSHA to take whatever action may be necessary and appropriate to prevent further injuries and illnesses. Providing notification to affected employees will/would inform them of the precautions taken by the applicant to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Additionally, this proposed condition also will/would require the applicant to notify OSHA if it ceases to do business, has a new address or location for its main office, or transfers the operations covered by the proposed permanent variance to a successor company. Further, the condition will/would specify that OSHA must approve the transfer of the interim order or proposed permanent variance to a successor company. These requirements will/would: (1) Provide assurance that the successor company has knowledge of, and would comply with, the conditions specified by the interim order or proposed permanent variance; (2) allow OSHA to communicate effectively with the applicant regarding the status of the interim order or proposed permanent variance; and (3) expedite the Agency's administration and enforcement of the
In Addition to a permanent variance, JHT requested an interim order, which would remain in effect until the Agency modifies or revokes the interim order, or until the Agency makes a decision on its application for a permanent variance, whichever occurs first. During this interim period, the applicant is required to comply fully with the conditions of the interim order as an alternative to complying with the inflatable flotation device requirements of 29 CFR 1910.430(d)(3) and (4), and the decompression chamber requirements of 29 CFR 1910.423(b)(2), (c)(1), and (c)(3), and 1910.424(b)(2).
As described earlier in this notice, JHT proposes to adopt the conditions of the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards, which were granted to NOAA on September 5, 2014, as the conditions of the interim order and permanent variance. In addition to adopting the NOAA Alternate Diving Standards' conditions for deviating from the applicable inflatable flotation device and decompression chamber provisions of Subpart T, OSHA added several conditions, which the Agency believes are necessary to ensure the safety of JHT's divers who conduct commercial diving operations for NOAA under the NDP.
After comprehensively reviewing the record discussed above, the Agency preliminarily finds that when the employer complies with the conditions of the proposed variance, the working conditions of the applicant's workers would be at least as safe and healthful as if the employer complied with the working conditions specified by 29 CFR 1910.430(d)(3), 1910.430(d)(4), 1910.423(b)(2), 1910.423(c)(1), 1910.423(c)(3), and 1910.424(b)(2). Accordingly, OSHA is issuing an interim order to the applicant pursuant to the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.11(c). In lieu of complying with the provisions listed of Subpart T specified above, the applicant will: (1) Comply with the conditions listed below in Section V (“Specific Conditions of the Interim Order and the Application for a Permanent Variance”) of this notice for as long as the interim order remains in effect; (2) comply fully with all other applicable provisions of 29 CFR part 1910; and (3) provide a copy of this
After comprehensively reviewing the evidence, OSHA has preliminarily determined that the proposed conditions will provide a place of employment as safe and healthful as that provided by 29 CFR 1910.430(d)(3), 1910.430(d)(4), 1910.423(b)(2), 1910.423(c)(1), 1910.423(c)(3), and 1910.424(b)(2). The following conditions apply to the interim order that OSHA is granting to JHT. In addition, these conditions specify the alternative means of compliance that OSHA proposes for JHT's requested permanent variance from the above-listed provisions of Subpart T of 29 CFR part 1910. The conditions will/would apply to all of JHT's commercial diving operations conducted from NOAA vessels under the NOAA Diving Program (NDP). These conditions include:
1. This interim order/permanent variance applies/would apply only to JHT's commercial diving operations conducted for NOAA under the NDP from a NOAA vessel.
2. The interim order/permanent variance only applies/would apply to JHT diving operations that are covered under Subpart T of 29 CFR part 1910 (
3. The interim order/permanent variance will/would not apply to commercial diving operations exempted by 29 CFR 1910.401(a)(2), including diving operations performed solely for instructional purposes, using open-circuit, compressed-air SCUBA and conducted within the no-decompression limits; diving performed solely for search, rescue, or related public safety purposes by or under the control of a governmental agency; or; diving for research, development, or related purposes involving human subjects, as governed by 45 CFR part 46 or equivalent rules or regulations established by another federal agency; and scientific diving. To qualify for the scientific diving exemption, all of the requirements in 29 CFR 1910.401(a)(2)(iv) and Appendix B to 29 CFR part 1910, subpart T, must be met.
4. Except for the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.430(d)(3), 1910.430(d)(4), 1910.423(b)(2), 1910.423(c)(1), 1910.423(c)(3), and 1910.424(b)(2), JHT must/would be required to comply fully with all other applicable provisions of Subpart T of 29 CFR part 1910 when conducting commercial diving operations.
5. The interim order will remain in effect until the Agency publishes a final decision on the application for a permanent variance, or until the Agency modifies or revokes the interim order in accordance with 29 CFR 1905.13, whichever occurs first.
Abbreviations used throughout this proposed permanent variance would include the following:
1. When using a BCD for SCUBA diving, JHT will/would ensure that: The device is used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; is capable of being inflated orally and via the diver's primary breathing gas supply; and all divers carry an independent reserve cylinder of breathing gas with a separate regulator that could be used for BCD inflation in an emergency.
2. When SCUBA diving, JHT will/would ensure that divers use an inflatable flotation device that is: Capable of maintaining the diver at the surface in a positively buoyant state; and have a manually activated inflation source, an oral inflation device, and an exhaust valve.
3. When SCUBA diving, JHT will/would ensure that divers are never permitted to dive alone unless they are line-tended and provided with topside support (as a minimum, topside support includes a designated person-in-charge and a standby diver).
1. For any dive that is outside the no-decompression limits or deeper than 130 fsw or using mixed gas with a percentage of oxygen less than air as a breathing mixture, JHT will/would instruct the diver to remain awake and in the vicinity of the decompression chamber, which is at the dive location for at least one hour after the dive (including decompression or treatment as appropriate).
2. For any dive using air or a nitrox breathing-gas mixture within the no-decompression limits that is deeper than 100 fsw but no deeper than 130 fsw, JHT will/would make available within four hours of the dive location, a decompression chamber capable of recompressing the diver at the surface to a minimum of 165 fsw (6 ATA).
3. For any dive using air or nitrox breathing-gas mixture within the no-decompression limits that is deeper than 100 fsw but no deeper than 130 fsw, JHT will/would make available a decompression chamber that is: dual-lock, multiplace, and located within four hours of the dive location.
4. JHT
5. JHT will/would be prohibited from conducting SCUBA diving using air or nitrox breathing-gas mixture at depths deeper than 100 fsw but no deeper than 130 fsw, or outside the no-decompression limits, unless a 6 ATA decompression chamber is ready for use (diving operations performed for instructional purposes in accordance with § 1910.401(a)(2)(i) are exempt).
6. When using a nitrox breathing-gas mixture, JHT will/would have to meet the no-decompression provisions of Appendix C to the CDO rule (
JHT will/would be required to:
1. Develop and implement an effective qualification and training program for its affected divers that as a minimum, meets the requirements set forth in 29 CFR 1910.410 qualifications of a dive team;
2. Ensure that each affected diver (including, but not limited to, current and newly assigned to be involved in diving operations under the NDP) successfully completes NOAA's three-week, 140-hour “Working Diver” course;
3. Ensure that the diver training program also includes the following: (a) Instruction in the conditions of the proposed variance; (b) annual refresher training in oxygen administration (academic and practical components); (c) instruction in maintaining current CPR/AED and First Aid certification; (d) maintaining proficiency in diving by making at least three (3) dives per quarter; (e) completing and passing an annual swim test; (f) completing and passing an annual skills test to demonstrate the diver's ability to safely operate underwater; (g) successfully completing one or more annual rescue drills to demonstrate the diver's ability to surface, extricate, treat and evacuate the victim of a diving accident; and (h) instruction in properly verifying that the diver's life support gear was serviced annually by a certified technician;
4. Document the training in order to provide a means of tracking the training received by divers and, consequently, to prompt JHT to update that training if necessary.
JHT will/would be required to:
1. Maintain records of recordable injuries that occur as a result of diving operations conducted for NOAA under the NDP;
2. Ensure that the information gathered and recorded under this provision, in concert with the information provided under proposed condition G (using OSHA 301 Incident Report form to investigate and record dive-related recordable injuries as defined by 29 CFR 1904.4, 1904.7, 1904.8 through 1904.12), would enable the JHT and OSHA to determine the effectiveness of the proposed permanent variance in preventing DCS and other dive-related injuries and illnesses.
JHT will/would be required to:
1. Notify the OTPCA and the Area Office closest to the dive location of any recordable injuries, illnesses, in-patient hospitalizations, amputations, loss of an eye, or fatality that occur as a result of diving operations within eight (8) hours of the incident;
2. Provide OTPCA and the Area Office closest to the dive location within twenty-four (24) hours of the incident with a copy of the incident investigation report (using OSHA 301 form);
3. Include on the OSHA 301 form information on the diving conditions associated with the recordable injury or illness, the root-cause determination, and preventive and corrective actions identified and implemented;
4. Provide its certification that it informed affected divers of the incident and the results of the incident investigation;
5. Notify OTPCA and the Area Office closest to the dive location within fifteen (15) working days should the applicant need to revise its dive procedures to accommodate changes in its diving operations that affect its ability to comply with the conditions of the proposed permanent variance;
6. Obtain OSHA's written approval prior to implementing the revision in its dive procedures to accommodate changes in its diving operations that affect its ability to comply with the conditions in the proposed permanent variance;
7. By the fifteenth (15th) of January, at the beginning of each new calendar year, provide OTPCA, and the Area and Regional Offices closest to the preceding year's dive locations, with a report summarizing the dives completed during the year just ended and evaluating the effectiveness of the variance conditions in providing a safe and healthful work environment and in preventing dive-related incidents;
8. Notify OSHA if it ceases to do business, has a new address or location for its main office, or transfers the operations covered by the proposed permanent variance to a successor company; and
9. Ensure that OSHA would approve the transfer of the interim order or permanent variance to a successor company.
OSHA will publish a copy of this notice in the
Thomas M. Galassi, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 655(d), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1905.11.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft test plan; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting public comment on the draft test plan entitled, “High Energy Arcing Faults (HEAFs) in Electrical Equipment Phase 2,” in order to receive feedback from the widest range of interested parties and to ensure that all information relevant to developing this document is available to the NRC staff.
Submit comments by September 1, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Nicholas Melly, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2392; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0168 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0168 in the subject line of your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.
The purpose of this test program is to better understand the fire risk presented by high energy arc fault phenomena and to characterize physical parameters such as the thermal conditions, pressure effects, and electrical conductive products of combustion created by HEAFs occurring primarily in electrical cabinets and bus ducts. The experimental data will be used by the NRC to determine the adequacy of existing HEAF zone of influences (ZOIs) damage models and support revisions to those methods if necessary. Additionally, phase 2 of testing will focus on the HEAFs involving aluminum components as it pertains to both increased physical damage states and potential product of combustion electrical conductivity concerns. This research is also being proposed as an international nuclear safety research project.
Currently, there are two available methods to model HEAF damage. Electrical enclosure guidance is contained in NUREG/CR-6850 (EPRI 1011989), “EPRI/NRC-RES Fire PRA Methodology for Nuclear Power Facilities Volume 2: Detailed Methodology,” Appendix M (ADAMS Accession No. ML15167A411). This model is limited because it was largely derived from empirical evidence from one single well-documented HEAF event that occurred at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 3, on February 3, 2001. A second method that focuses on damage involving bus duct HEAF events can be found in NUREG/CR-6850 (EPRI 1019259) Supplement 1, “Fire Probabilistic Risk Assessment Methods Enhancements”, Section 7 “Bus Duct (Counting) Guidance for High-Energy Arcing Faults (FAQ 07-0035)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML15167A550).
Both methods employ a “one size fits all” ZOI methodology that prescribes a damage zone around an initiating component. These ZOIs prescribe damage to potentially vulnerable electrical or electromechanical components nearby such as cables, transformers, ventilation fans, other cabinets, etc. The international Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) experimental HEAF Project was created in an attempt to take an exploratory scientific approach to better understand the HEAF phenomena and produce data that could be used to better inform fire modeling techniques for postulating a realistic damage range of HEAF scenarios. The report can be downloaded here:
This draft test plan describes the NRC's next phase of testing necessary to better understand the HEAF phenomena and to characterize the damage involving thermal conditions, pressure effects, and electrically conductive deposits on nearby surfaces created by HEAFs occurring in electrical cabinets and bus ducts. The results of this program will provide qualitative information on the impact of HEAFs on
This document is not intended for interim use. The NRC will review public comments received on the document, incorporate suggested changes as appropriate, and make the final test plan available. Consistent with past experimental programs, the final test plan will be considered a living document.
Changes to the final test plan can, and likely will be made during the testing phase as insights and observations from the testing develop that would suggest changes are necessary to ensure valuable data from experiments is being obtained.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is providing notice of its adjustment to the procedural schedule to allow for additional time to file comments regarding the Postal Service's filing amending prices and classification language for Move Update. 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.
On June 30, 2017, the Postal Service filed a notice of market dominant price adjustment and classification changes in accordance with 39 U.S.C. 3622 and 39 CFR part 3010.
Comments filed July 20, 2017, did not have the benefit of the Postal Service's responses to CHIR No. 3 or CHIR No. 4 (and had only one day to review and consider the Postal Service's response to CHIR No. 2). The Association for Postal Commerce notes that “a few elements in the Postal Service's filing, and in its proposed Move Update assessment process generally, . . . warrant further explanation.”
The Commission, due to the potential importance of this missing information to the issues of the proceeding (for both informed comments and the Commission's review), finds that commenters and its own review would be prejudiced without equitably tolling the time of filing (and deadlines set by that time of filing). Therefore, the Commission finds it necessary to constructively adjust (toll) the filing date for Postal Service's Notice to July 20, 2017, at which time the Postal Service had provided the bulk of the information necessary to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed changes in its Notice. As a result, commenters may file additional comments by August 9, 2017.
1. Any additional comments are due by August 9, 2017.
2. The Commission's determination, pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.11(d) shall be filed by August 23, 2017.
3. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Thursday, August 7, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.
Washington, DC.
Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Financial Matters.
2. Strategic Issues.
3. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
4. Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Temporary Emergency Committee governance.
The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service has certified that the meeting may be closed under the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes in connection with the September 5, 2017 compliance date for the shortening of the standard settlement cycle from three business days after the trade date (“T+3”) to two business days after the trade date (“T+2”), to (1) delete NYSE Rule 282.65 (Failure to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures) (“Rule 282.65”) and Section 703.02 (part 2) (Stock Split/Stock Rights/Stock Dividend Listing Process) (“Section 703.02 (part 2)”) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (“Listed Company Manual”); (2) delete the preamble and “T” modifier from NYSE Rule 282.65T (Failure to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures) (“Rule 282.65T”) and Section 703.02T (part 2) (Stock Split/Stock Rights/Stock Dividend Listing Process) (“Section 703.02T”) of Listed Company Manual; and (3) establish the operative date of Rule 282.65T and Section 703.02T of the Listed Company Manual. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
In connection with the September 5, 2017 compliance date for shortening of the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2, the Exchange proposes to (1) delete Rule 282.65 and Section 703.02 (part 2) of the Listed Company Manual; (2) delete the preamble and “T” modifier from Rule 282.65T and Section 703.02T of the Listed Company Manual; and (3) establish the operative date of Rule 282.65T and Section 703.02T of the Listed Company Manual as September 5, 2017.
On September 28, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 15c6-1(a) to shorten the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2.
In particular, the following preamble was added to the Rule 282.65 and Section 703.02 (part 2):
“This version of . . . will remain operative until the Exchange files separate proposed rule changes as necessary to establish the operative date of . . . , to delete this version of . . . and preamble, and to remove the preamble text from the version of . . . . In addition to filing the necessary proposed rule changes, the Exchange will announce via Information Memo the operative date of the deletion of this Rule and implementation of . . .”
The following preamble was added to the Rule 282.65T and Section 703.02T:
“The Exchange will file separate proposed rule changes to establish the operative date of . . . , to delete . . . and the preamble text from . . . , and to remove the preamble text from the version of . . . . Until such time, . . . will remain operative. In addition to filing the necessary proposed rule changes, the Exchange will announce via Information Memo the implementation of this Rule and the operative date of the deletion of . . .”
On March 22, 2017, the SEC adopted the proposed amendment to Rule 15c6-1(a) under the Act
In order to comply with the September 5, 2017, transition to T+2 settlement, the Exchange proposes to:
• Delete Rule 282.65 and Section 703.02 (part 2), including the preambles, in their entirety;
• delete the preambles to Rule 282.65T Section 703.02T; and
• delete the “T” modifier in Rule 282.65T and Section 703.02T, which distinguished such rules from the T+3 rules.
The Exchange proposes that the changes described herein would take effect on September 5, 2017, to coincide with the transition to T+2. The Exchange will announce via Information Memo the implementation of Rule 282.65T and Section 703.02T of the Listed Company Manual and the operative date of the deletion of Rule 282.65 and Section 703.02 (part 2).
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by adding clarity as to which rules are operative and when, thereby reducing potential confusion, and making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate. The Exchange also believes that eliminating obsolete material from its rulebook and Listed Company Manual also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by removing confusion that may result from having obsolete material in the Exchange's rulebook and Listed Company Manual. The Exchange believes that eliminating such obsolete material would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency, thereby reducing potential confusion.
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. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather facilitate the industry's transition to a T+2 regular-way settlement cycle. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will serve to promote clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes in connection with the September 5, 2017 compliance date for the shortening of the standard settlement cycle from three business days after the trade date (“T+3”) to two business days after the trade date (“T+2”), to (1) delete NYSE American Rules 14—Equities, 64—Equities, 235—Equities, 236—Equities, 257—Equities, 282—Equities. Supplementary Material .65, and Sections 510 and 512 of the NYSE American Company Guide (“Company Guide”); (2) delete the preamble and “T” modifier from NYSE American Rules 14T—Equities, 64T—Equities, 235T—Equities, 236T—Equities, 257T—Equities, and 282.65—Equities, and Sections 510T and 512T of the Company Guide; and (3) establish the operative date of Rules 14T—Equities, 64T—Equities, 235T—Equities, 236T—Equities, 257T—Equities, and 282 65T—Equities, and Sections 510T and 512T of the Company Guide. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
In connection with the September 5, 2017 compliance date for shortening of the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2, the Exchange proposes to delete:
• Rule 14—Equities (Non-Regular Way Settlement Instructions for Orders);
• Rule 64—Equities (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks),
• Rule 235—Equities (Ex-Dividend, Ex-Rights);
• Rule 236—Equities (Ex-Warrants);
• Rule 257—Equities (Deliveries After Ex-Date);
• Rule 282.65 (Failure to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures); and
• Sec. 510 (Three Day Delivery Plan) and Sec. 512 (Ex-Dividend Procedure) of the Company Guide.
The Exchange further proposes to delete the preamble and “T” modifier from the following rules:
• Rule 64T—Equities (Bonds, Rights and 100-Share-Unit Stocks);
• Rule 236T—Equities (Ex-Warrants);
• Rule 257T—Equities (Deliveries After Ex-Date);
• 282.65T (Failure to Deliver and Liability Notice Procedures); and
• Sec. 510T (Two Day Delivery Plan) and Sec. 512T (Ex-Dividend Procedure).
The Exchange proposes that the operative date for these changes would be September 5, 2017 to conform to the compliance date for T+2.
On September 28, 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) proposed amendments to Rule 15c6-1(a) to shorten the standard settlement cycle from T+3 to T+2.
In particular, the following preamble was added to Rules 14, 64, 235, 236, 257, and 282.65, and Sec. 510 and Sec. 512 of the Company Guide:
“This version of . . . will remain operative until the Exchange files separate proposed rule changes as necessary to establish the operative date of . . . to delete this version of . . . and preamble, and to remove the preamble text from the version of . . . In addition to filing the necessary proposed rule changes, the Exchange will announce via Information Memo the operative date of the deletion of this Rule and implementation of revised . . .”
The following preamble was added to Rules 14T, 64T, 235T, 236T, 257T, and 282.65T, as well as Sections 510T and 512T of the Company Guide:
“The Exchange will file separate proposed rule changes to establish the operative date of . . ., to delete . . . and the preamble text from . . ., and to remove the preamble text from the version of . . . Until such time, . . . will remain operative. In addition to filing the necessary proposed rule changes, the Exchange will announce via Information Memo the implementation of this Rule and the operative date of the deletion of . . .”
On March 22, 2017, the SEC adopted the proposed amendment to Rule 15c6-
In order to comply with the September 5, 2017 transition to T+2 settlement, the Exchange proposes to:
• Delete Rules 64, 236, 257, 282.65, and Sec. 510 and Sec. 512 of the Company Guide, including the preambles, in their entirety;
• delete the text of Rules 14 and 235, including the preambles, and retain the title of each rule and the legend providing that the rule will not be applicable to trading in the Pillar platform;
• delete the preambles to Rules 14T, 64T, 235T, 236T, 257T, 282.65T and Sec. 510T and 512T of the Company Guide; and
• delete the “T” modifier in Rules 64T, 236T, 257T, 282.65T and Sec. 510T and 512T of the Company Guide which distinguished such rules from the T+3 rules.
The Exchange proposes that the changes described herein would take effect on September 5, 2017, to coincide with the transition to T+2. The Exchange will announce via Information Memo the implementation of Rules 14T, 64T, 235T, 236T, 257T, 282.65T and Sec. 510T and 512T of the Company Guide and the operative date of the deletion of Rules 64, 236, 257, 282.65, and Sec. 510 and Sec. 512 of the Company Guide.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by adding clarity as to which rules are operative and when, thereby reducing potential confusion, and making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate. The Exchange also believes that eliminating obsolete material from its rulebook also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market by removing confusion that may result from having obsolete material in the Exchange's rulebook. The Exchange believes that eliminating such obsolete material would not be inconsistent with the public interest and the protection of investors because investors will not be harmed and in fact would benefit from increased transparency, thereby reducing potential confusion.
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. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather facilitate the industry's transition to a T+2 regular-way settlement cycle. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change will serve to promote clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on the marketplace and facilitating investor protection.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt transaction fees in connection with the Exchange's transition to a fully-automated cash equities market. The Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on July 24, 2017. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On January 29, 2015, the Exchange announced the implementation of Pillar, which is an integrated trading technology platform designed to use a single specification for connecting to the equities and options markets operated by the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) and New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”).
To effect its transition to Pillar, the Exchange adopted the rule numbering framework of the NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (“NYSE Arca Equities”) rules for Exchange cash equities trading on the Pillar trading platform.
In connection with this transition, the Exchange proposes to amend its Price List to adopt a new pricing model for trading on the Pillar platform.
The proposed changes would apply to transactions executed in all trading sessions in securities priced at or above and below $1.00.
The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective July 24, 2017.
The Exchange proposes the following transaction fees for trading on its Pillar trading platform.
The Exchange also proposes to add the following legend immediately before those current fees and credits in the
The Exchange proposes to summarize general information applicable to fees for the Pillar trading platform in three bullets under the first heading in the Price List titled “Pillar Trading Platform.”
The first bullet would provide that rebates are indicated by parentheses.
The second bullet would provide that, for purposes of determining transaction fees and credits based on requirements based on quoting levels, average daily volume (“ADV”), and consolidated ADV (“CADV”), the Exchange may exclude shares traded any day that (1) the Exchange is not open for the entire trading day and/or (2) a disruption affects an Exchange system that lasts for more than 60 minutes during regular trading hours. The second proposed bullet would reproduce the language in footnote 6 of the current Price List.
Finally, the Exchange would state that Electronic Designated Market Maker (“eDMM”)
The Exchange proposes the following transactions fees for all transactions other than transactions by an eDMM in securities assigned to an eDMM under heading I titled “Transaction Fees (other than for Transactions by an eDMM in Securities Assigned to an eDMM)”:
The Exchange does not propose to charge a fee for executions on the Exchange of displayed orders that add liquidity to the Exchange. The proposal would apply to securities priced at or above $1.00 as well as below $1.00.
For securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange proposes to charge $0.0002 per share for executions on the Exchange of non-displayed orders that add liquidity to the Exchange.
For securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange proposes to charge 0.25% of the total dollar value of the transaction for executions on the Exchange of non-displayed orders that add liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to charge $0.0002 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.25% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00 for all executions on the Exchange that remove liquidity from the Exchange. As noted below, the same fees would apply to eDMM transactions that remove liquidity from the Exchange.
For securities priced at or above $1.00 as well as below $1.00, the Exchange proposes to charge a fee of $0.0005 per share for executions at the open and close.
Following the transition to Pillar, Exchange DMMs will be electronic access only,
Immediately below the new proposed heading, the Exchange proposes to summarize certain general information applicable to eDMM fees and credits in three introductory bullets.
The first bullet would provide that, unless an eDMM qualifies for a higher rebate, eDMMs in NYSE American
The second bullet would define “Core Trading Hours” to mean the hours of 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time through 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time or such other hours as may be determined by the Exchange from time to time. The proposed bullet is consistent with Rule 1.1E(j), which defines “Core Trading Hours.”
Finally, the third bullet would provide that, for each eDMM to qualify for the specified credits, each eDMM must meet the heightened quoting obligations set forth in Rule 7.24E(c).
The Exchange proposes three new subheadings A through C setting forth eDMM transaction fee and credits, eDMM monthly credits, and market data revenue.
Beneath a new subheading A titled “Transaction Fees and Credits,” the Exchange would summarize eDMM fees and credits for transactions that (1) add liquidity to the Exchange, (2) remove liquidity from the Exchange, and (3) for executions at the open and close of trading, as follows:
For transactions in securities with a price at or above $1.00, the Exchange proposes a rebate to eDMMs of $0.0045 per share for displayed transactions that add liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange does not propose to charge for non-displayed transactions that add liquidity to the Exchange in securities with a price at or above $1.00.
For transactions in securities with a price below $1.00, the Exchange proposes a rebate of .25% of total dollar value for displayed transactions that add liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange does not propose to charge for non-displayed transactions that add liquidity to the Exchange in securities with a price below $1.00.
The Exchange does not propose to charge for executions at the open and close for securities priced at or above $1.00 as well as below $1.00.
The Exchange proposes to charge $0.0002 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.25% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00 for all eDMM executions on the Exchange that remove liquidity from the Exchange.
Beneath a new subheading B titled “Monthly Credits,” the Exchange proposes that, in addition to the current rate on transactions, the Exchange would provide additional per security credits for eDMMs if certain requirements are met.
First, the Exchange proposes a $100 per security credit in a month that a security is assigned to the eDMM for securities whose CADV during the previous month would be less than 50,000 shares per day and for which the eDMM quotes at the NBBO at least 25% of the time during Core Trading Hours for that symbol in that month. The credit would be prorated to the number of trading days in a month that a security is assigned to the eDMM.
Second, in addition to the current rate on transactions and the $100 monthly credit, the Exchange proposes to provide a $500 per security credit in a month that a security is assigned to an eDMM, for each security for which the eDMM quotes at the NBBO at least 25% of the time during Core Trading Hours for that symbol in that month up to a maximum of 20 symbols per month per eDMM.
Under new heading C titled “Market Data Revenue,” the Exchange proposes that, for securities with a trading price either at, above or below $1.00, each eDMM would receive all of the market data quote revenue (the “Quoting Share”) in their assigned securities received by the Exchange from the Consolidated Tape Association under the Revenue Allocation Formula of Regulation NMS in any month in which the eDMM quotes at the NBBO at least 25% of time during Core Trading Hours.
Under new heading III titled “Fees for Routing for all ETP Holders,” the Exchange proposes the following fees for routing, which would be applicable to all orders that are routed, including orders from eDMMs in their assigned NYSE American-listed securities.
For executions in securities with a price at or above $1.00 that route to and execute on Away Markets,
For securities priced below $1.00 that route to and execute on Away Markets, the Exchange proposes to charge a fee of 0.30% of the total dollar value of the transaction for executions in an Away Market auction as well as all other executions.
Following the transition to Pillar, trading on the Exchange's Off-Hours Trading Facility will be governed by Rule 7.39E for trading in aggregate-price coupled orders, which is also known as “Crossing Session II.” The Exchange currently charges a fee of $0.0004 per share for multiple stock aggregate priced buy and sell orders in Crossing Session II. Fees for such executions are currently capped at $100,000 per month per member organization.
The Exchange proposes to retain this fee structure without any substantive differences for aggregate-price coupled orders executed in the Off-Hours Trading Facility described in Rule 7.39E. Because such trading would be pursuant to a Pillar rule, the Exchange proposes to set forth the fee under a new heading IV titled “Fees for Off-Hours Trading Facility” in the proposed Price List and omit any reference to Crossing Session II.
Under proposed new heading V titled “Port Fees,” the Exchange proposes fees for the use of ports that (1) that provide connectivity to the Exchange's trading systems (
For order/quote entry ports, the Exchange proposes to charge $250 per port per month. The fee would apply to all market participants. The Exchange proposes not to charge for order/quote entry ports until October 1, 2017. Thereafter, the Exchange proposes to implement the $250 per port per month fee.
Similarly, the Exchange proposes to charge $250 per drop copy port per month. The fee would apply to all market participants. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to specify that only one fee per drop copy port would apply, even if the port receives drop copies from multiple order/quote entry ports.
The Exchange proposes not to charge for drop copy ports until October 1, 2017. Thereafter, the Exchange proposes to implement the $250 per port per month fee.
The Exchange proposes a new heading VI titled “ETP Fee.” The Exchange does not propose to charge a fee to obtain an ETP.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that not charging a fee for liquidity adding displayed orders would encourage price discovery and enhance market quality by encouraging more competitive pricing of displayed orders. The Exchange believes that not charging a fee for liquidity adding displayed orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is designed to facilitate execution of, and enhance
The Exchange believes that charging $0.0002 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.25% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00 for executions on the Exchange of non-displayed orders that add liquidity to the Exchange is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because the proposed rate would be lower than the fee charged by other exchanges.
The Exchange believes that charging $0.0002 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.25% of the total dollar value of the transaction for securities priced below $1.00 for executions on the Exchange that remove liquidity, including eDMM transactions, is reasonable and consistent with the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed fees are less than the comparable fees on other exchanges.
The Exchange believes that charging $0.0005 per share for executions at the open and close for all securities would encourage order flow to maintain the quality of the Exchange's closing auctions for the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange's closing auction is a recognized industry benchmark,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rebate of $0.0045 per share for eDMM displayed transactions that add liquidity to the Exchange in securities with a price at or above $1.00 and the proposed rebate of .25% of total dollar value for eDMM displayed transactions that add liquidity to the in securities with a price below $1.00 are reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory. To qualify for the proposed adding liquidity, monthly and market data credits, each eDMM must satisfy the heightened quoting obligation in for eDMMs in Rule 7.24E(c), which requires the eDMM to maintain a bid or an offer at the NBBO at least 25% of the day as measured across all Exchange-listed securities that have been assigned to the eDMM. The Exchange believes that the proposed rebates based on the heightened quoting obligations in Rule 7.24E(c) would encourage additional displayed liquidity on the Exchange in Exchange-listed securities. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rebates are equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply equally to all eDMMs.
Further, the Exchange believes that not charging eDMMs for non-displayed transactions that add liquidity to the Exchange in all securities is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would encourage additional non-displayed liquidity on the Exchange in Exchange-listed securities. The Exchange believes that not charging eDMMs for adding non-displayed liquidity is not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all eDMMs. In addition, eDMMs have higher quoting obligations than other market participant, which contributes to price discovery and benefits all market participants. As such, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to offer eDMMs fees that are relatively lower than other market participants that do not have such obligations.
The Exchange believes that not charging eDMMs for executions at the open or close in all securities does not constitute an inequitable allocation of dues, fees and other charges as it provides the eDMMs appropriate incentives to act as liquidity providers and would support them in performing their market making function in the Exchange's new automated price-time priority allocation market model on Pillar.
The Exchange believes that the proposed $100 per security credit and the proposed prorating is reasonable in light of lower trading volumes in the applicable securities relatively [sic] to those securities that have a consolidated ADV of less than 50,000 shares. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to prorate the rebate to the number of trading days because it would provide a nexus between, and directly tie, the rebate paid to a eDMM and the number of trading days for which an eDMM has regulatory responsibility for a stock pursuant to Rule 7.24E(c). The Exchange also believes that the proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all eDMMs would be treated the same. The Exchange believes that the proposed additional $500 per security credit is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory for the same reasons.
The Exchange believes that the proposed DMM quoting requirement at the NBBO at least 25% of the time during Core Trading Hours in order to receive in each applicable security 100% of the Quoting Share is reasonable because the proposed requirement would improve quoting and increase adding liquidity across thinly traded securities where there may be fewer liquidity providers. Moreover, the requirement is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would apply equally to all eDMMs. The Exchange notes that the Quoting Share is in addition to the eDMM rebate for providing liquidity and the monthly credit payable to eDMMs for securities with an ADV of less than 50,000 shares during the billing month.
The Exchange believes that its proposed routing fees are a reasonable and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees because the fee would be applicable to all ETP Holders in an equivalent manner. Moreover, the proposed fees for routing shares are also reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are consistent with fees charged on other exchanges. In particular, the Exchange's proposal to charge a fee of $0.0016 per share for executions that route to and execute on Away Market auctions in securities priced at or above $1.00 is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with fees charged on other exchanges.
The proposal to charge $0.0030 for all other executions in securities priced at or above $1.00 that route to and execute on Away Market auctions is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with fees charged on other exchanges.
Finally, the proposal to charge a fee of 0.30% of total dollar value for transactions in securities with a price under $1.00 are reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is consistent with fees charged on other exchanges.
The Exchange believes that retaining the current fee structure for off-hours aggregate-price coupled orders in Pillar without substantive change and moving the fee to the new Pillar section of the Price List utilizing updated references is reasonable because the proposed changes are designed to provide greater specificity and clarity to the Price List, reduce potential confusion, and make the Exchange's rules easier to navigate, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rates for order/quote entry ports and drop copy ports are reasonable because the fees charged for both types of ports are expected to permit the Exchange to offset, in part, its connectivity costs associated with making such ports available, including costs based on software and hardware enhancements and resources dedicated to gateway development, quality assurance, and support. The proposed port fees are also reasonable because the proposed fees are comparable to the rates charged by other venues, and in some cases are less expensive than many of the Exchange's competitors.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for order/quote entry ports is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because charges for order/entry ports being [sic] will be based on the number of ports utilized. This aspect of the proposed rule change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply on an equal basis for all ports on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that these changes to the fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they would apply to all users of order/quote entry ports on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for drop copy ports is reasonable because it will result in a fee being charged for the use of technology and infrastructure provided by the Exchange. In this regard, the Exchange believes that the rate is reasonable because it is comparable to the rate charged by other exchanges for drop copy ports.
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable that only one fee per drop copy port would apply, even if the port receives drop copies from multiple order/quote entry ports, because the purpose of drop copies is such that a trading unit's or a firm's entire order and execution activity is captured. The Exchange believes that the proposed new fee for drop copy ports is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply on an equal basis to all users of drop copy ports and to all drop copy ports on the Exchange. In this regard, all firms will be able to request drop copy ports, as would be the case with order/quote entry ports.
The Exchange believes that not charging member organization [sic] a fee to obtain an ETP on the Exchange is reasonable because it may incentivize broker-dealers to become Exchange member organizations and to direct order flow to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants through increased liquidity and enhanced price discovery.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent [sic]
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
Finally, 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. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees and credits 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. As a result of all of these considerations, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of member organizations or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”) Rules at Chapter IV, Section 6, entitled “Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading.”
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is italicized; deleted text is in brackets.
(a)-(g) No change.
(a) and (b) No change.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision regarding the interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares in this rule, the interval of strike prices on SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (“SPY”)
(d)-(f) No change.
.02-.09 No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NOM Rules at Chapter IV, Section 6, entitled “Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading” by modifying the strike setting regime for the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (“IVV”) options. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the interval setting regime for IVV options to allow $1 strike price intervals above $200.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would make IVV options easier for investors and traders to use and more tailored to their investment needs. Additionally, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on units of the Standard & Poor's Depository
The SPY and IVV ETFs are identical in all material respects. The SPY and IVV ETFs are designed to roughly track the performance of the S&P 500 Index with the price of SPY and IVV designed to roughly approximate 1/10th of the price of the S&P 500 Index. Accordingly, SPY and IVV strike prices—having a multiplier of $100—reflect a value roughly equal to 1/10th of the value of the S&P 500 Index. For example, if the S&P 500 Index is at 1972.56, SPY and IVV options might have a value of approximately 197.26 with a notional value of $19,726. In general, SPY and IVV options provide retail investors and traders with the benefit of trading the broad market in a manageably sized contract. As options with an ETP underlying, SPY and IVV options are listed in the same manner as equity options under the Rules.
However, pursuant to current Supplementary Material .01 to Chapter IV, Section 6, the interval between strike prices in series of options on ETPs, including IVV options will be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less and $5.00 or greater where the strike price is greater than $200. In addition, pursuant to Supplementary Material .07(e) to Chapter IV, Section 6,
The interval between strike prices on Short Term Option Series may be (i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less than $100, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $100 and $150 for all classes that participate in the Short Term Options Series Program; (ii) $0.50 for classes that trade in one dollar increments in Related non-Short Term Options and that participate in the Short Term Option Series Program; or (iii) $2.50 or greater where the strike price is above $150. Related non-Short Term Option series shall be opened during the month prior to expiration of such Related non-Short Term Option series in the same manner as permitted in Supplementary Material to Section 6 at .07 and in the same strike price intervals that are permitted in Supplementary Material to Section 6 at .07.
The Exchange's proposal seeks to narrow the strike price intervals to $1 for IVV options above $200, in effect matching the strike setting regime for strike intervals in IVV options below $200 and matching the strike setting regime applied to SPY options.
Currently, the S&P 500 Index is above 2000. The S&P 500 Index is widely regarded as the best single gauge of large cap U.S. equities and is widely quoted as an indicator of stock prices and investor confidence in the securities market. As a result, individual investors often use S&P 500 Index-related products to diversify their portfolios and benefit from market trends. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that offering a wide range of S&P 500 Index-based options affords traders and investors important hedging and trading opportunities. The Exchange believes that not having the proposed $1 strike price intervals above $200 in IVV significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading possibilities.
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .01(c) of Chapter IV, Section 6 to allow IVV options to trade in $1 increments above a strike price of $200. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .01(c) of Chapter IV, Section 6 to state that notwithstanding other provisions limiting the ability of the Exchange to list $1 increment strike prices on equity and ETF options above $200, the interval between strike prices of series of options on Units of IVV will be $1 or greater. The Exchange believes that by having smaller strike intervals in IVV, investors would have more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the lower $1 interval ascension. The proposed $1 intervals, particularly above the $200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the underlying IVV moving less than 1%.
The Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting regime is in line with the slower movements of broad-based indices. Furthermore, the proposed $1 intervals would allow option trading strategies (such as, for example, risk reduction/hedging strategies using IVV weekly options), to remain viable. Considering the fact that $1 intervals already exist below the $200 price point and that IVV is above the $200 level, the Exchange believes that continuing to maintain the artificial $200 level (above which intervals increase by $5), would have a negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities, and volume.
The Exchange believes that the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities available with IVV options far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing IVV options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above the $200 price point. The proposed strike setting regime would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect values in the underlying S&P 500 Index and allow investors and traders to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in conjunction with the price movement of the underlying.
Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 6, where the next higher available series would be $5 away above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions is effectively negated. Accordingly, to move a position from a $200 strike to a $205 strike pursuant to the current rule, an investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5%, and would not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred. With the proposed rule change, however, the investor would be in a significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options position from a $200 to a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying.
The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for IVV strike prices more precisely aligned with current S&P 500 Index values. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by providing investors the flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions using IVV options. By allowing series of IVV options to be listed in $1 intervals between strike prices over $200, the proposal will moderately augment the potential total number of options series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that Participants will not have a capacity issue due to the proposed rule change.
In addition, the Exchange represents that it does not believe that this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the proposed rule change will allow investors to more easily use IVV options. Moreover, the proposed rule change would allow investors to better trade and hedge positions in IVV options where the strike price is greater than $200, and ensure that IVV options investors are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The rule change proposal allows the Exchange to respond to customer demand to allow IVV options to trade in $1 intervals above a $200 strike price. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule would create additional capacity issues or affect market functionality.
As noted above, ETF options trade in wider $5 intervals above a $200 strike price, whereas options at or below a $200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on the same option class effectively may not be able to execute certain strategies such as, for example, rolling to a higher strike price, simply because of the arbitrary $200 strike price above which options intervals increase by $5. This proposal remedies the situation by establishing an exception to the current ETF interval regime for IVV options to allow such options to trade in $1 or greater intervals at all strike prices.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. Moreover, the proposed rule change is consistent with a prior rule change on NASDAQ PHLX LLC.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange believes it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
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. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that IVV options investors and traders will significantly benefit from the availability of finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1012, entitled “Series of Options Open for Trading.”
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is italicized; deleted text is in brackets.
(a)-(d) No change.
• • •
.01-.04 No change
.05
(a)
(i)-(iii) No change.
(iv) (A) and (B) No change.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provision regarding the interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares in this rule, the interval of strike prices on SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (“SPY”),
(v)-(vii) No change.
(b) and (c) No change.
.06-.13 No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1012, entitled “Series of Options Open for Trading” by modifying the strike setting regime for the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (“IVV”) options. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the interval setting regime for IVV options to allow $1 strike price intervals above $200.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would make IVV options easier for investors and traders to use and more tailored to their investment needs. Additionally, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on units of the Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts Trust (“SPY”),
The SPY and IVV ETFs are identical in all material respects. The SPY and IVV ETFs are designed to roughly track the performance of the S&P 500 Index
However, pursuant to current Commentary .05(a) to Rule 1012, the interval between strike prices in series of options on ETPs, including IVV options will be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less and $5.00 or greater where the strike price is greater than $200. In addition, pursuant to Commentary .11(e) to Rule 1012,
The interval between strike prices on Short Term Option Series may be (i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less than $100, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $100 and $150 for all classes that participate in the Short Term Options Series Program; (ii) $0.50 for classes that trade in one dollar increments in Related non-Short Term Options and that participate in the Short Term Option Series Program; or (iii) $2.50 or greater where the strike price is above $150. Related non-Short Term Option series shall be opened during the month prior to expiration of such Related non-Short Term Option series in the same manner as permitted in Commentary .11 to this Rule 1012 and in the same strike price intervals that are permitted in Commentary .11 to this Rule 1012.
The Exchange's proposal seeks to narrow the strike price intervals to $1 for IVV options above $200, in effect matching the strike setting regime for strike intervals in IVV options below $200 and matching the strike setting regime applied to SPY options.
Currently, the S&P 500 Index is above 2000. The S&P 500 Index is widely regarded as the best single gauge of large cap U.S. equities and is widely quoted as an indicator of stock prices and investor confidence in the securities market. As a result, individual investors often use S&P 500 Index-related products to diversify their portfolios and benefit from market trends. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that offering a wide range of S&P 500 Index-based options affords traders and investors important hedging and trading opportunities. The Exchange believes that not having the proposed $1 strike price intervals above $200 in IVV significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading possibilities.
The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05(a)(iv)(C) of Rule 1012 to allow IVV options to trade in $1 increments above a strike price of $200. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .05(a)(iv)(C) of Rule 1012 to state that notwithstanding other provisions limiting the ability of the Exchange to list $1 increment strike prices on equity and ETF options above $200, the interval between strike prices of series of options on Units of IVV will be $1 or greater. The Exchange believes that by having smaller strike intervals in IVV, investors would have more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the lower $1 interval ascension. The proposed $1 intervals, particularly above the $200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the underlying IVV moving less than 1%.
The Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting regime is in line with the slower movements of broad-based indices. Furthermore, the proposed $1 intervals would allow option trading strategies (such as, for example, risk reduction/hedging strategies using IVV weekly options), to remain viable. Considering the fact that $1 intervals already exist below the $200 price point and that IVV is above the $200 level, the Exchange believes that continuing to maintain the artificial $200 level (above which intervals increase 500% [sic] by $5), would have a negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities, and volume.
The Exchange believes that the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities available with IVV options far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing IVV options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above the $200 price point. The proposed strike setting regime would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect values in the underlying S&P 500 Index and allow investors and traders to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in conjunction with the price movement of the underlying.
Pursuant to Rule 1012, where the next higher available series would be $5 away above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions is effectively negated. Accordingly, to move a position from a $200 strike to a $205 strike pursuant to the current rule, an investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5%, and would not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred. With the proposed rule change, however, the investor would be in a significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options position from a $200 to a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying.
The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for IVV strike prices more precisely aligned with current S&P 500 Index values. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by providing investors the flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions using IVV options. By allowing series of IVV options to be listed in $1 intervals between strike prices over $200, the proposal will moderately augment the potential total number of options series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that members will not have a capacity issue due to the proposed rule change.
In addition, the Exchange represents that it does not believe that this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the proposed rule change will allow investors to more easily use IVV options. Moreover, the proposed rule change would allow investors to better trade and hedge positions in IVV options where the strike price is greater than $200, and ensure that IVV options investors are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The rule change proposal allows the Exchange to respond to customer demand to allow IVV options to trade in $1 intervals above a $200 strike price. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule would create additional capacity issues or affect market functionality.
As noted above, ETF options trade in wider $5 intervals above a $200 strike price, whereas options at or below a $200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on the same option class effectively may not be able to execute certain strategies such as, for example, rolling to a higher strike price, simply because of the arbitrary $200 strike price above which options intervals increase by $5. This proposal remedies the situation by establishing an exception to the current ETF interval regime for IVV options to allow such options to trade in $1 or greater intervals at all strike prices.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. Moreover, the proposed rule change is consistent with a prior rule change.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange believes it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
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. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that IVV options investors and traders will significantly benefit from the availability of finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 515A, MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (“PRIME”) and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism, to state that the Exchange's System
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 515A, MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (“PRIME”) and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism, to state that the Exchange's System will reject an Agency Order if, at the time of receipt of the Agency Order, the option is a component of a complex strategy that is the subject of a cPRIME Auction (as defined below). The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 518, Complex Orders, and Rule 519A, RPM, so that the price and other trade protections contained in those rules address certain new complex order types on the Exchange, as described below. In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05, to state that, unless otherwise specifically set forth in the Rule, the price and other protections contained in Interpretations and Policies .05 (including proposed amendments to the Rule, described below) apply to all complex order types set forth in Rule 518(b), as described below. The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 519A to set forth clearly the manner in which the RPM handles the various complex order types listed in that Rule, as described below.
The Exchange began trading complex orders
The Exchange is proposing to modify Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders, and Rule 519A, RPM, which govern certain price and other trade protection features in the Exchange's System so that they address (through inclusion or exclusion) cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders in those features.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rules 515A, MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (“PRIME”) and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism, to state that the Exchange's System will reject an Agency Order if, at the time of receipt of the Agency Order, the option is a component of a complex strategy that is the subject of a cPRIME Auction (as defined below). The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 518, Complex Orders, Interpretations and Policies .05, Price and Other Protections, and Interpretations and Policies .06, MIAX Order Monitor for Complex Orders (“cMOM”), and Exchange Rule 519A, RPM, by stating in those rules how the new cPRIME Order, cC2C Order, and cQCC Order types will be handled by the System with respect to those price and other protections. The Exchange is also proposing to amend Exchange Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05, to state that, unless otherwise specifically set forth in the Rule, the price and other protections contained in Interpretations and Policies .05 (including proposed amendments to the Rule, described below) apply to all complex order types set forth in Rule 518(b), as described below. The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02, to set forth clearly the manner in which the RPM handles the various complex order types listed in that Rule, as described below.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 515A, MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (“PRIME”) and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism. PRIME is a process by which a Member may electronically submit for execution (“Auction”) an order it represents as agent (“Agency Order”) against principal interest, and/or an Agency Order against solicited interest.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 515A(a)(2) to add cPRIME Orders
The Exchange further believes that, without such a limitation, investors could be faced with an unusually large number of simultaneous PRIME and/or Complex Auctions in the same option in the simple market, or involving the same strategy or components of the same strategy in the complex market, which in turn could impact the orderly function of the markets. The Exchange believes that this limitation is consistent with the Act because it protects investors and the public interest by ensuring orderliness in the PRIME, cPRIME and Complex Auction process.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05, to state that, unless otherwise
The Exchange is proposing to modify Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05, Price and Other Protections, to describe the manner in which the System will handle cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders with respect to the protections described in the Rule. The Exchange is proposing to apply these protections to complex orders so that investors submitting complex orders are better able to manage their risk tolerance levels with respect to complex orders they submit to the Exchange, just as they are currently able to manage their risk tolerance levels with respect to orders in the simple market and certain types of complex orders listed in Rule 518(b).
The remaining proposed amendments to Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05, are intended to exclude certain order types from certain provisions in the Rule.
First, the Exchange proposes to modify Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05(d) to state that the Implied Away Best Bid or Offer (“ixABBO”) Price Protection feature is not available for cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders. The ixABBO price protection feature is a price protection mechanism under which, when in operation as requested by the submitting Member, a buy order will not be executed at a price that is higher than each other single exchange's best displayed offer for the complex strategy, and under which a sell order will not be executed at a price that is lower than each other single exchange's best displayed bid for the complex strategy. The ixABBO is calculated using the best net bid and offer for a complex strategy using each other exchange's displayed best bid or offer on their simple order book. For stock-option orders, the ixABBO for a complex strategy is calculated using the BBO for each component on each individual away options market and the NBBO for the stock component. The ixABBO price protection feature must be engaged on an order-by-order basis by the submitting Member and is not available for complex Standard quotes, complex eQuotes, or cAOC orders.
The ixABBO protection will not be available because this type of protection isn't necessary for these new complex order types. Specifically, with respect to cPRIME Orders, a cPRIME Agency Order is received by the Exchange accompanied by, and guarantees an execution against, a contra-side order at a single price or at multiple prices with a “stop” price outside of which the cPRIME Agency Order, the contra-side order, and auction responses will not be executed.
Current Exchange Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05(e), describes the handling of complex orders when a component of a complex strategy is in a wide market condition,
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05, with respect to wide market conditions. Currently, during free trading, if a wide market condition exists for a component of a complex strategy, trading in the complex strategy will be suspended.
The purpose of this “carve-out” is similar to the purpose of the ixABBO carve-out described above: cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders
The Exchange is also proposing to amend Exchange Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .06(a), to exclude cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders from the System's cMOM feature. cMOM defines a price range outside of which a complex limit order will not be accepted by the System. A complex limit order that is priced through the cMOM range will be rejected. cMOM is a number defined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular. The default price range for cMOM will be greater than or equal to a price through the cNBBO for the complex strategy to be determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular. Such price will not be greater than $2.50. A complex limit order to sell will not be accepted at a price that is lower than the cNBBO bid, and a complex limit order to buy will not be accepted at a price that is higher than the cNBBO offer, by more than cMOM. A complex limit order that is priced through this range will be rejected.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .06(a), by stating that the cMOM price protection feature shall not apply to cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders. Under the proposal, the new order types will therefore not be rejected for being outside of cMOM price parameters upon receipt. The purpose of excluding these complex order types from the cMOM price protection feature is that cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders and cQCC Orders are all guaranteed an execution at a price or prices determined by the participants, and cPRIME Orders are subject to further price improvement. Therefore, the cMOM price protection feature isn't necessary for these complex order types, and thus these complex order types will not be rejected based upon cMOM price parameters. In order to remain consistent in the Rule, the Exchange is also proposing to make a conforming change to Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .06(e). Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to carve out cPRIME, cC2C and cQCC Orders from the Rule by stating, in Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .06(e), that, except as provided in sub-paragraph .06(a) above (which excludes cPRIME, cC2C and cQCC Orders), the protections set forth in Interpretations and Policies .06 will be available for complex orders as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 519A, RPM. RPM is a feature of the MIAX System which maintains a counting program (“counting program”) for each participating Member that will count the number of orders entered and the number of contracts traded via an order entered by a Member on the Exchange within a specified time period that has been established by the Member (the “specified time period”). The maximum duration of the specified time period is established by the Exchange and announced via a Regulatory Circular. The RPM maintains one or more Member-configurable Allowable Order Rate settings and Allowable Contract Execution Rate settings. When a Member's order is entered or when an execution of a Member's order occurs, the System will look back over the specified time period to determine if the Member has: (i) Entered during the specified time period a number of orders exceeding their Allowable Order Rate setting(s), or (ii) executed during the specified time period a number of contracts exceeding their Allowable Contract Execution Rate setting(s). Once engaged, the RPM will then, as determined by the Member: Automatically either (A) prevent the System from receiving any new orders in all series in all classes from the Member; (B) prevent the System from receiving any new orders in all series in all classes from the Member and cancel all existing orders with a time-in-force of Day in all series in all classes from the Member; or (C) send a notification to the Member without any further preventative or cancellation action by the System. When engaged, the RPM will still allow the Member to interact with existing orders entered prior to exceeding the Allowable Order Rate setting or the Allowable Contract Execution Rate setting, including sending cancel order messages and receiving trade executions from those orders. The RPM remains engaged until the Member communicates with the Help Desk to enable the acceptance of new orders.
The Exchange is proposing to amend Interpretations and Policies .02 to Rule 519A by setting forth the specific circumstances under which the Rule will apply to cPRIME Orders, QCC Orders, cQCC Orders, Customer Cross Orders, and cC2C Orders, in addition to the order types currently set forth in the rule (PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and GTC Orders). Rather than “carve-out” these new complex order types, the Exchange is proposing to state in the Rule how these order types will participate in the RPM.
Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02, currently states that PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and GTC Orders do not participate in the RPM. However, the System does include such PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and GTC Orders in the counting program for purposes of this Rule. Under current Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02(b), PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and Customer Cross Orders
The Exchange is proposing to amend Interpretations and Policies .02 by adding the new order types to the Rule
First, the Exchange proposes to amend the introduction of Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02, to add cPRIME Orders, QCC Orders, cQCC Orders, Customer Cross Orders, and cC2C Orders to the currently enumerated order types (PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and GTC Orders). Thus, as amended, Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02 applies to all of these order types.
Currently, Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02(a), states that the System includes PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and GTC Orders in the counting program for purposes of this Rule. The Exchange is proposing to amend the Rule by expanding it to list all order types (
Proposed new Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02(b), will continue to state, just as Interpretations and Policies .02(b) states today, that PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and Customer Cross Orders will each be counted as two orders for the purpose of calculating the Allowable Order Rate. These order types included in the current Rule all consist of orders that are paired with contra-side orders upon receipt, with certain execution guarantees. For consistency, the Exchange is proposing to include a list of all paired orders that are counted as two orders for purposes of the RPM in the Rule. Orders received by the Exchange are from various sources, and order consolidators may submit them as components of crossing orders where appropriate. The purpose of counting these order types as two separate orders is to protect investors whose orders are submitted on their behalf as a component of crossing orders from the risk that an automated trading system or algorithm could inadvertently send an exponential number of paired orders during times of high volatility. By counting each paired order as two separate orders for purposes of the RPM, the Exchange believes that the likelihood of a participant engaging in activity that exceeds participants' established risk thresholds is mitigated and accounted for. Counting these order types as two separate orders thus protects investors and the public interest, and is therefore consistent with the Act.
Additionally, these order types are counted as two separate orders for a systemic reason. Specifically, these paired order types are counted in the counting program as two orders when calculating the Allowable Order Rate because a participant sending such a paired order submits just one single message representing two orders. The RPM does not count the number of messages submitted; it counts orders. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the Exchange is proposing to add the following order types to be counted as two orders for purposes of the RPM: cPRIME Orders, QCC Orders, cQCC Orders, Customer Cross Orders and cC2C Orders. The proposed amended Rule thus accurately and correctly reflects the manner in which paired order types are submitted (as a single message representing two orders) for purposes of calculating the Allowable Order Rate.
The Exchange notes that, as of the date of this proposal, the Exchange is not aware of any Member whose best execution obligation has been compromised based upon the Member's level of RPM settings, and is not aware of any Member whose RPM settings were so stringent that the Member's Agency Order did not receive an execution it should have received. Additionally, Exchange members are expected to consider their best execution obligations when setting parameters for the RPM. In connection with this proposal, the Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular reminding Members of their best execution obligations.
Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02, currently states that, once engaged, the RPM will not cancel any existing PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, AOC orders, OPG orders, or GTC orders, and that PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders and GTC Orders will remain in the System available for trading when the RPM is engaged. The Exchange is proposing to add new sub-paragraph (c) to Interpretations and Policies .02, to include cPRIME Orders in the list of order types that will remain in the System instead of being cancelled by the RPM. The Exchange believes that, just as PRIME Orders are not cancelled under the current rule, cPRIME Orders, which are similarly paired and guaranteed an execution on receipt, should not be cancelled and instead be retained by the System so that they can be executed according to their terms, regardless of whether the RPM is engaged.
The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change by Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 60 days following the operative date of the proposed rule. The implementation date will be no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Regulatory Circular.
MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the application of existing protections to all complex order types as described in proposed Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05 is consistent with the Act because such application is designed to protect investors and the public interest, by assisting investors in maintaining their established risk tolerance levels on the Exchange when making investment decisions concerning these order types.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to Rule 515A(a)(2), specifically adding to the existing limitations against simultaneous Auctions and Complex Auctions by stating that the System will reject an Agency Order if, at the time of receipt of the Agency Order, the option is a component of a complex strategy that is the subject of a cPRIME Auction, is consistent with the Act. Specifically, the proposal perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest because, without such a limitation, investors could be faced with an unusually large number of simultaneous PRIME, cPRIME and/or Complex Auctions in the same option in the simple market, and in the same strategy in the complex market, which in turn could impact the orderly function of the markets. The Exchange believes that this limitation is consistent with the Act because it protects investors and the public interest by establishing the same limitation with respect to any combination of concurrent PRIME, cPRIME and Complex Auctions. The Exchange notes that other exchanges also limit concurrent auctions involving the same option.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05(d), to exclude cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders from the ixABBO protection facilitates transactions in securities and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that, if not excluded, such protection feature could unnecessarily impede certain transactions in order types submitted with contra-side participation and guaranteed executions.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05(e)(1)(iii), to state that a wide market condition shall have no impact on the trading of cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest, by ensuring participants submitting these order types that such paired orders will be executed at the submitted price regardless of wide market conditions. The Exchange does not believe that such orders should be affected by wide market conditions since the execution of these order types is guaranteed. The Exchange believes that preventing the execution of these orders would unnecessarily preclude executions on the Exchange that should occur regardless of wide market conditions.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that proposed Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .05(e)(1)(i), stating that trading and processing in these order types will not be suspended and will continue during wide market conditions perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by systemically avoiding the unnecessary preclusion of executions of paired order types during market conditions that do not affect such executions. The suspension of trading in these order types due to wide market conditions would unnecessarily preclude the execution of transactions that are guaranteed at protected prices upon receipt.
The Exchange is proposing to apply these protections to complex orders so that investors submitting complex orders are better able to manage their risk tolerance levels with respect to complex orders they submit to the Exchange, just as they are currently able to manage their risk tolerance levels with respect to orders in the simple market and certain types of complex orders listed in Rule 518(b).
The Exchange further believes that its proposal in Rule 518, Interpretations and Policies .06(a), that the cMOM Price Protection feature shall not apply to cPRIME Orders, cC2C Orders, and cQCC Orders removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest. Under the proposal, these new order types will not be rejected for being outside of the cMOM price upon receipt, and will thus be executed instead of being rejected unnecessarily. These order types are already effectively executed when they are received (and, in the case of cPRIME Orders, subject to price improvement) because they are paired orders with a guaranteed execution. The Exchange believes that accepting these orders, rather than rejecting them, protects investors that have established crossing orders at a specific execution price.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend, re-word and reorganize Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02, is designed to facilitate transactions in securities and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market, by amending the existing Rule to indicate that PRIME Orders, PRIME Solicitation Orders, and GTC Orders participate in the RPM, and by expanding the Rule to identify the proposed new order types and to describe how RPM handles each order type.
The Exchange's proposal to add cPRIME Orders, QCC Orders, cQCC Orders, Customer Cross Orders and cC2C Orders to the list of order types in which Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02 applies, and to the list of order types to be counted as two orders for purposes of the RPM's open order protection in Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02(b), perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by assisting investors in managing their acceptable risk levels respecting open orders. The submission of a single message into the System for the execution of a paired order type is a submission representing two orders, and the RPM counts them as such for purposes of calculating the Allowable Order Rate. Participants thus will know that their single message for these order
The Exchange's proposal in Rule 519A, Interpretations and Policies .02(c), not to cancel existing cPRIME Orders once the RPM is engaged ensures that paired orders that are guaranteed executions are not unnecessarily cancelled. CPRIME Agency Orders are submitted with a contra side order at a guaranteed improved price; the engagement of RPM has no effect on the cPRIME price guarantee. Therefore, the Exchange believes that this proposal removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest, by permitting existing cPRIME Orders to be executed despite the engagement of RPM.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to its trade protection rules should instill additional confidence in Members that submit orders to the Exchange that their risk tolerance levels are protected, and thus should encourage such Members to submit additional order flow and liquidity to the Exchange with the understanding that they retain necessary protections and avoid unnecessary protections with respect to all orders they submit to the Exchange, including complex orders, thereby removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protecting investors and the public interest.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system by attracting more order flow and by increasing the frequency with which Initiating Members initiate Auctions in complex orders through PRIME.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
On the contrary, the proposed rule change is intended to promote competition by ensuring that necessary trade protections are available on the Exchange, and by avoiding unnecessary protections that would preclude executions, enabling MIAX Options participants to execute more complex orders on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this enhances inter-market competition by enabling MIAX Options to compete for this type of order flow with other exchanges that have similar functionalities in place.
The Exchange further believes that enhancing the trade protections promotes intra-market competition by protecting new order types through which competing MIAX Options participants may submit complex orders into the System. Furthermore, the price protections and limitations on simultaneous auctions described in this proposal are available, and apply equally, to all market participants, resulting in an even playing field on the Exchange with respect to available trade and price protections on the Exchange. This should result in enhanced liquidity and more competition on the Exchange.
Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed limitation on simultaneous auctions involving the same options should encourage participants to submit more PRIME and cPRIME Agency Orders to the Exchange, thus increasing the number of such orders, and responses to those orders on the Exchange, which should enhance the Exchange's position with respect to inter-market competition.
For all the reasons stated, 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, and believes the proposed change will in fact enhance competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the 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) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under 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 Brent J. Fields, 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 January 23, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On March 16, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it 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 this proposed rule change. 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.
The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of July 2017.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 1, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the comment letters. 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.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested order would permit (a) index-based series of certain open-end management investment companies (“Funds”) to issue shares redeemable in large aggregations only (“Creation Units”); (b) secondary market transactions in Fund shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than at net asset value (“NAV”); (c) certain Funds to pay redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days after the tender of shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated persons of a Fund to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the Fund in connection with the purchase and redemption of Creation Units; and (e) certain registered management investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of investment companies as the Funds (“Funds of Funds”) to acquire shares of the Funds.
Change Finance, PBC (the “Initial Adviser”), a Colorado public benefit corporation that will be registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, ETF Series Solutions (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company with multiple series, and Quasar Distributors, LLC (the “Distributor”), a Delaware limited liability company and broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).
The application was filed on February 21, 2017, and amended on May 11, 2017 and July 12, 2017.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on August 21, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants: The Initial Adviser, 705 Grand View Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22305; the Trust and the Distributor, 615 East Michigan Street, 4th Floor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
Elizabeth G. Miller, Senior Counsel, at (202) 551-8707, or Aaron T. Gilbride, Acting Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at
1. Applicants request an order that would allow Funds to operate as index exchange traded funds (“ETFs”).
2. Each Fund will hold investment positions selected to correspond closely to the performance of an Underlying Index. In the case of Self-Indexing Funds, an affiliated person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), or an affiliated person of an Affiliated Person (“Second-Tier Affiliate”), of the Trust or a Fund, of the Adviser, of any sub-adviser to or promoter of a Fund, or of the Distributor will compile, create, sponsor or maintain the Underlying Index.
3. Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the limited circumstances specified in the application, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by depositing specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their shares will receive specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”). The Deposit Instruments and the Redemption Instruments will each correspond pro rata to the positions in the Fund's portfolio (including cash positions) except as specified in the application.
4. Because shares will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an exemption from section 5(a)(1) and section 2(a)(32) of the Act that would permit the Funds to register as open-end management investment companies and issue shares that are redeemable in Creation Units only.
5. Applicants also request an exemption from section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act as secondary market trading in shares will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in a Fund's prospectus, and not at a price
6. With respect to Funds that effect creations and redemptions of Creation Units in kind and that are based on certain Underlying Indexes that include foreign securities, applicants request relief from the requirement imposed by section 22(e) in order to allow such Funds to pay redemption proceeds within fifteen calendar days following the tender of Creation Units for redemption. Applicants assert that the requested relief would not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of section 22(e) to prevent unreasonable, undisclosed or unforeseen delays in the actual payment of redemption proceeds.
7. Applicants request an exemption to permit Funds of Funds to acquire Fund shares beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(A) of the Act; and the Funds, and any principal underwriter for the Funds, and/or any broker or dealer registered under the Exchange Act, to sell shares to Funds of Funds beyond the limits of section 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The application's terms and conditions are designed to, among other things, help prevent any potential (i) undue influence over a Fund through control or voting power, or in connection with certain services, transactions, and underwritings, (ii) excessive layering of fees, and (iii) overly complex fund structures, which are the concerns underlying the limits in sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.
8. Applicants request an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act to permit persons that are Affiliated Persons, or Second Tier Affiliates, of the Funds, solely by virtue of certain ownership interests, to effectuate purchases and redemptions in-kind. The deposit procedures for in-kind purchases of Creation Units and the redemption procedures for in-kind redemptions of Creation Units will be the same for all purchases and redemptions and Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments will be valued in the same manner as those investment positions currently held by the Funds. Applicants also seek relief from the prohibitions on affiliated transactions in section 17(a) to permit a Fund to sell its shares to and redeem its shares from a Fund of Funds, and to engage in the accompanying in-kind transactions with the Fund of Funds.
9. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction are fair and reasonable and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes rules for trading UTP Securities on Pillar, the Exchange's new trading technology platform. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On January 29, 2015, the Exchange announced the implementation of Pillar, which is an integrated trading technology platform designed to use a single specification for connecting to the equities and options markets operated by the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) and NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”).
The Exchange previously amended its rules to add the Pillar Platform Rules, as set forth in Rules 1P-13P.
Once trading on the Pillar trading platform begins, specified current Exchange rules would not be applicable. For each current rule that would not be applicable for trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange proposes to state in a preamble to such rule that “this Rule is not applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.”
Subject to rule approvals, the Exchange will announce the implementation of trading of UTP Securities on the Pillar trading system by Trader Update, which the Exchange anticipates will be in the fourth quarter of 2017.
As noted above, the Exchange proposes rules that would be applicable to trading UTP Securities on Pillar that are based on the rules of NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American. As a global matter, the Exchange proposes non-substantive differences as compared to the NYSE Arca Equities rules to use the terms “Exchange” instead of the terms “NYSE Arca Marketplace,” “NYSE Arca,” or “Corporation,” and to use the terms “mean” or “have meaning” instead of the terms “shall mean” or “shall have the meaning.” In addition, the Exchange will use the term “member organization,” which is defined in Rule 2, instead of “ETP Holder.”
The Framework Filing established Rule 1P Definitions and Rule 1.1 thereunder with definitions used for trading on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange proposes the following additional definitions:
• Rule 1.1(a) would define the term “Exchange Book” to refer to the Exchange's electronic file of orders, which contains all orders entered on the Exchange. This proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 1.1E(a) without any substantive differences.
• Rule 1.1(g) would define the term “Authorized Trader” or “AT” to mean a person who may submit orders to the Exchange on behalf of his or her member organization. This proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 1.1E(g) without any substantive differences.
• Rule 1.1(j) would define the term “Core Trading Hours” to mean the hours of 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time through 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time or such other hours as may be determined by the Exchange from time to time. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(j) and NYSE American Rule 1.1E(j) without any substantive differences.
• Rule 1.1(k) would define the term “Exchange” to mean the New York Stock Exchange LLC. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule
• Rule 1.1(p) would define the term “General Authorized Trader” or “GAT” to mean an AT who performs only non-market making activities on behalf of a member organization. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(p) and NYSE American Rule 1.1E(p) without any substantive differences.
• Proposed Rule 1.1(u) would define the term “Marketable” to mean, for a Limit Order, an order that can be immediately executed or routed and that Market Orders are always considered Marketable. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(u) and NYSE American Rule 1.1E(u) without any substantive differences.
• Proposed Rule 1.1(rr) would define the terms “security” and “securities” to mean any security as defined in Section 3(a)(10) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; provided, however, that for purposes of Rule 7P, such term means any NMS stock. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(rr) and NYSE American Rule 1.1E(rr) without any substantive differences. In addition, because the term “security” would be defined in proposed Rule 1.1(rr), the Exchange proposes that Rules 3 and 4, which define the terms “Security” and “Stock,” would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
• Proposed Rule 1.1(ss) would define the terms “self-regulatory organization” and “SRO” to have the same meaning as set forth in the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to national securities exchanges. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(ss) and NYSE American Rule 1.1E(ss) without any substantive differences.
• Proposed Rule 1.1(xx) would define the term “Trading Facilities” or “Facilities” to mean any and all electronic or automatic trading systems provided by the Exchange to member organizations. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(xx) and NYSE American Rule 1.1E(xx) without any substantive differences.
Section 1 of Rule 7P sets forth the General Provisions relating to trading on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange proposes the following additional rules in this section of Rule 7P:
• Proposed Rule 7.1 (Hours of Business) would specify that the Exchange would be open for the transaction of business on every business day. The proposed rule also sets forth when the CEO may take specified actions, such as halting or suspending trading in some or all securities on the Exchange. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.1, NYSE American Rule 7.1E, Rule 51, and Rule 52. The Exchange proposes that Rules 51 and 52 would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform. In addition, because the definition of the term “business day” in Rule 12 would be redundant of proposed Rule 7.1E, the Exchange proposes that Rule 12 would not be applicable to trading on the Pillar trading platform.
• Proposed Rule 7.2 (Holidays) would establish the holidays when the Exchange would not be open for business. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.2, NYSE American Rule 7.2, and Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 51, including text that provides that when any holiday observed by the Exchange falls on a Sunday, the Exchange would not be open for business on the succeeding Monday, which is in Rule 51.
• Rule 7.8 (Bid or Offer Deemed Regular Way) would establish that all bids and offers would be considered to be “regular way.” This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.8 and NYSE American Rule 7.8E without any substantive differences. The Exchange proposes that Rule 14 would not be applicable to trading of UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
• Proposed Rule 7.9 (Execution Price Binding) would establish that, notwithstanding Exchange rules governing clearly erroneous executions, the price at which an order is executed is binding notwithstanding that an erroneous report is rendered. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.9 and NYSE American Rule 7.9E without any substantive differences. The Exchange proposes that Rules 71 (Precedence of Highest Bid and Lowest Offer) and 411 (Erroneous Reports) would not be applicable to trading of UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
• Proposed Rule 7.14 (Clearance and Settlement) would establish the requirements regarding a member organization's arrangements for clearing UTP Securities on Pillar. Because all post-trade functions on the Exchange's Pillar trading platform would follow same procedures for post-trade processing as NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American follow, the Exchange proposes rules that are based on NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American rules governing clearing. Accordingly, the proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.14 and NYSE American Rule 7.14E without any substantive differences. The Exchange proposes that its current rules governing clearing, Rules 130 and 132 would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
• Proposed Rule 7.17 (Firm Orders and Quotes) would establish requirements that all orders and quotes must be firm. This proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.17 and NYSE American Rule 7.17E without any substantive differences. Because on the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange would only publish automated quotations consistent with proposed Rule 7.17, the Exchange proposes that Rule 60—Equities (Dissemination of Quotations) would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
Section 3 of Rule 7P sets forth Exchange Trading on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange proposes the following additional rules for this section of Rule 7P:
• Proposed Rule 7.29 (Access) would provide that the Exchange would be available for entry and cancellation of orders by member organizations with authorized access. To obtain authorized access to the Exchange, each member organization would be required to enter into a User Agreement. Proposed Rule 7.29 is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.29(a) and NYSE American Rule 7.29E(a), without any substantive differences. The Exchange does not propose to include rule text based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.29(b) because the Exchange would not offer sponsored access.
• Proposed Rule 7.30 (Authorized Traders) would establish requirements for member organizations relating to ATs. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.30 and NYSE American Rule 7.30E, with one non-substantive difference to refer to “the Rules and procedures of the Exchange” rather than to refer to “the trading rules and procedures related to the NYSE Arca Marketplace and all other Rules of the Corporation.”.
• Proposed Rule 7.32 (Order Entry) would establish requirements for order entry size. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.32 and NYSE American Rule 7.32E without any substantive differences. The Exchange proposes that the paragraph of Rule 1000 (Automatic Executions) relating to “Maximum Order Size for Automatic Executions” would not be applicable to
• Proposed Rule 7.33 (Capacity Codes) would establish requirements for capacity code information that member organizations must include with every order. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.33 and NYSE American Rule 7.33E without any substantive differences. The Exchange proposes to use the title “Capacity Codes” instead of “ETP Holder User,” for proposed Rule 7.33, which the Exchange believes provides more clarity regarding the content of the proposed rule. The Exchange proposes that the capacity code requirements in Supplementary Material .30(9) to Rule 132 would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
• Proposed Rule 7.40 (Trade Execution and Reporting) would establish the Exchange's obligation to report trades to an appropriate consolidated transaction reporting system. The proposed rule is based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.40 and NYSE American Rule 7.40E without any substantive differences. Because all reporting of transactions would be automated, the Exchange proposes that Rules 128A and 128B would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform.
• Proposed Rule 7.41 (Clearance and Settlement) would establish requirements that all trades be processed for clearance and settlement on a locked-in and anonymous basis. The proposed rule is based on NYSE American Rule 7.41E with a non-substantive difference to cross reference Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 132 to define the term “Qualified Clearing Agency.” In addition, proposed Rules 7.41(a), (b), (d), and (e) are based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.41(a), (b), (d), and (e) with non-substantive differences not to include references to sponsored access, because the Exchange will not offer sponsored access. Because all trades would be reported by the Exchange on a locked-in basis, the Exchange proposes to specify that the following rules relating to clearance and settlement would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading system:
○ Rule 130 (Overnight Comparison of Exchange Transactions),
○ Rule 131 (Comparison—Requirements for Reporting Trades and Providing Facilities),
○ Rule 132 (Comparison and Settlement of Transactions Through a Fully-Interfaced or Qualified Clearing Agency),
○ Rule 133 (Comparison—Non-cleared Transactions),
○ Rule 134 (Differences and Omissions—Cleared Transactions QTs),
○ Rule 135 (Differences and Omissions—Non-cleared Transactions (`DKs')), and
○ Rule 136 (Comparison—Transactions Excluded from a Clearance).
The Exchange further proposes to specify that the following additional rules, which also relate to post-trade functions and have no analog on either NYSE Arca Equities or NYSE American would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform: Rules 137 (Written Contracts), Rule 137A (Samples of Written Contracts), 138 (Give-Ups), 139 (Recording), 140 (Members Closing Contracts—Conditions), 141 (“Fail to Deliver” Confirmations), 142 (Effect on Contracts of Errors in Comparison, etc.), 165-168 (Marking to the Market), 175-227 (Settlement of Contracts), 235-251 (Dividends, Interest, Rights, etc.), 255-259 (Due-Bills), 265-275 (Reclamations), 280-295 (Closing Contracts), 296 (Liquidation of Securities Loans and Borrowings), and 297-299C (Miscellaneous Floor Procedure).
As discussed above, because of the technology changes associated with the migration to the Pillar trading platform, the Exchange will announce by Trader Update when the Pillar rules for trading UTP Securities will become operative.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
More specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed definitions for Rule 1.1 would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed definitions are terms that would be used in the additional rules proposed by the Exchange. The proposed rules are definitional and would promote transparency in Exchange rules regarding the use of those terms.
The Exchange believes that the additional rules proposed for Rule 7P would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they would establish rules governing general order processing and post-trade functions for the Pillar trading platform. The proposed rules are based on the rules of NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American without any substantive differences. The proposed rule change would therefore remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they are based on the approved rules of another exchange.
The Exchange further believes that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system to specify which current rules would not be applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange believes that the following legend, which would be added to existing rules, “This rule is not applicable to trading UTP Securities on the Pillar trading platform,” would promote transparency regarding which rules would govern trading on the Exchange once it transitions to Pillar. The Exchange has proposed to add this legend to rules that would be superseded by proposed rules.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is designed to propose rules to support the Exchange's new Pillar trading platform and to introduce trading of UTP Securities on the Exchange on that platform. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment in which its unaffiliated exchange competitors operate multiple affiliated exchanges that operate under common rules. By basing its rules on those of NYSE Arca Equities and NYSE American, the Exchange will provide its member
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
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 Brent J. Fields, 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 delay the effective date of the merger of TotalView and OpenView by 31 days, until September 1, 2017.
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 this filing is to delay the effective date of the merger of TotalView and OpenView by 31 days, from August 1, 2017, until September 1, 2017.
On May 26, 2017, the Exchange filed with the Commission a proposed rule change (“Proposal”) to merge the
The Exchange has recently been informed that certain Distributors will require additional time to modify systems and procedures to accommodate the merger of OpenView into TotalView, and the Exchange has agreed to modify the effective date of the Proposal from August 1, 2017, to September 1, 2017, to allow all Distributors an additional 31 days to prepare for the merger.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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 delay will not change the current competitive position of any Distributor because all Distributors will be able to use their current systems and procedures to obtain the products that they purchase.
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
In its filing, Nasdaq requests that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that certain of its Distributors will have sufficient time to modify their systems and procedures to accommodate the merger of OpenView into TotalView. The Exchange further represents that Distributors that do not require additional time to modify their systems and procedures will not be harmed by a delayed merger of TotalView and OpenView, because they will be able to continue using their current systems and procedures. Accordingly, the Commission believes that granting a waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and therefore 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: (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 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 26, 2017, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the “MSRB” or “Board”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule change.
In the Notice of Filing, the MSRB stated that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to modernize Rule G-26 and promote a uniform customer account transfer standard for all dealers.
As further described by the MSRB in the Notice of Filing, Rule G-26 requires dealers to cooperate in the transfer of customer accounts and specifies procedures for carrying out the transfer process.
As discussed in the Notice of Filing, the MSRB adopted Rule G-26 in 1986 as part of an industry-wide initiative to create a uniform customer account transfer standard by applying a customer account transfer procedure to all dealers that are engaged in municipal securities activities.
The MSRB has proposed to update Rule G-26 to include the transfer of
The MSRB has proposed to update Rule G-26 to permit partial account transfers under the same time frames applicable to transfers of entire accounts, which the MSRB believes would provide dealers with the ability to facilitate more efficient and expeditious transfers, as well as increase accountability for dealers and reduce difficulties encountered by customers related to transfers.
The MSRB stated that the proposed rule change would amend Rule G-26 to be consistent with the NSCC's Rule 50 regarding the transfer of third-party and/or proprietary products that the receiving party is unable to receive or carry—which allow the receiving party to review the asset validation report, designate those nontransferable assets it is unable to receive/carry, provide the customer with a list of those assets, and require instructions from the customer regarding their disposition—by requiring the receiving party to designate any third-party products it is unable to receive.
Under current Rule G-26, a customer can initiate a transfer of a municipal securities account from one dealer to another by giving written notice to the receiving party.
The proposed rule change would shorten the time for validating or taking exception to the transfer instructions from three days to one day, and shorten the time for completing a customer account transfer from four days to three days, respectively.
In response to a specific question in the Request for Comment,
Under current Rule G-26, if there are nontransferable assets included in a transfer instruction, there are multiple options available to the customer for their disposition, and the carrying party must request further instructions from the customer with respect to which option the customer would like to exercise.
The proposed rule change would require a referral to the program disclosure for a municipal fund security or to the registered representative for specific details regarding any redemption or liquidation-related fees.
The MSRB stated that some municipal securities that are nontransferable assets could transferred, physically and directly, to the customer, in a manner similar to FINRA Rule 11870(c)(3)(C)—which provides an option for nontransferable assets that are proprietary products to be transferred, physically and directly, in the customer's name to the customer—and have therefore included amendments in the proposed rule change that add this option to the alternative dispositions available to customers.
Under the proposed rule change, the Rule G-26 would be amended to harmonize with FINRA Rule 11870(c)(5) to require that the money balance resulting from liquidation must be distributed, and any transfer instructed by the customer must be initiated, within five business days following receipt of the customer's disposition instruction.
Current Rule G-26(d) establishes, as part of the transfer procedures, the requirements for validation of the transfer instructions and completion of the transfer.
Under current Rule G-26(d)(iv)(A), upon validation of a transfer instruction, the carrying party must “freeze” the account to be transferred and return the transfer instruction to the receiving party with an attachment indicating all securities positions and money balance in the account as shown on the books of the carrying party.
Additionally, current Rule G-26(d)(iv)(B) requires the carrying party to include a then-current market value for all assets to be transferred. FINRA Rule 11870(d)(5) provides that the original cost should be used as the value if a then-current value cannot be determined for an asset.
As part of the validation process, current Rule G-26 provides that the carrying party may take certain exceptions to the transfer instructions authorized by the customer and provided by the receiving party. Specifically, Rule G-26(d)(ii) allows a carrying party to take exception to a transfer instruction only if it has no record of the account on its books or the transfer instruction is incomplete.
Additionally, FINRA Rule 11870(d)(2) precludes a carrying party from taking an exception and denying validation of the transfer instruction because of a dispute over security positions or the money balance in the account to be transferred, and it requires the carrying party to transfer the positions and/or money balance reflected on its books for the account.
According to the MSRB, during the validation process for a customer account transfer, there is a risk that the parties to the transfer fail to identify
The proposed rule change would provide the receiving party the ability to deny a customer's transfer request due to noncompliance with its credit policies or minimum asset requirements.
Rule G-26(f) currently provides that any discrepancies relating to positions or money balances that exist or occur after transfer of a customer account must be resolved promptly.
Rule G-26(h) currently requires the account transfer procedure to be accomplished pursuant to the rules of and through a registered clearing agency when both the carrying party and the receiving party are direct participants in a clearing agency that is registered with the SEC and offers automated customer securities account transfer capabilities.
The proposed rule change would include a provision with the same 10-business-day requirement as FINRA Rule 11870(n)
Current Rule G-26 does not itself include any requirement for policies and procedures.
The MSRB stated that it is important to clarify which party is responsible for the fees incurred for a customer account transfer. The proposed rule change would include a provision identical to FINRA Rule 11650 which specifies that the party at the instance of which a transfer of securities is made shall pay all service charges of the transfer agent.
As noted previously, the Commission received two comment letters on the proposed rule change, as well as the MSRB Response Letter and Amendment No. 1. SIFMA expressed general support for the stated purpose of the proposed rule change, although SIFMA disapproved of the proposed rule change in its current form and stated that the proposed rule change is unnecessary and not an efficient way to achieve its stated purposes.
SIFMA stated that the MSRB should not have rejected its previously submitted suggestion to amend Rule G-26 to follow the NYSE model and incorporate FINRA Rule 11870 by reference because, contrary to the MSRB statement in the Notice of Filing, “the MSRB would not be seen to be delegating its core mission to protect the municipal securities market, as there is nothing particularly unique regarding the transfer of customer accounts with respect to municipal securities.”
The MSRB responded that, as it previously noted in the Notice of Filing, it continues to believe that Rule G-26 is necessary and that the proposed rule change is the appropriate approach to achieve the purpose of modernizing the rule and promoting a uniform customer account transfer standard for all dealers. The MSRB noted that it believed that SIFMA's comments are substantially similar to previous comments it submitted in response to the MSRB's Request for Comment,
In response to SIFMA's suggested alternative to effectively allow FINRA and NYSE members to follow FINRA Rule 11870 in lieu of Rule G-26, while dealers that are not members of those SROs would remain subject to Rule G-26, the MSRB stated that it believes that SIFMA's suggestion captures how Rule G-26 already operates (and would continue to operate as proposed to be amended).
BDA suggested, in its comment letter, that the effective date of the proposed rule change be adjusted from three months from the date of approval to 180 days from the effective date of a approval to benefit smaller dealers with fewer compliance staff and resources and dealers subject to new Department of Labor rules effective January 1, 2018 and new MSRB and FINRA retail confirmation rules effective in May 2018.
The MSRB stated that it agreed that a more lengthy implementation period is appropriate, but that it does not believe a period of nearly a year is necessary, as the proposed rule change is designed primarily to create efficiencies in the customer account transfer process and the MSRB does not anticipate that the limited number of dealers subject to the amended rule would need to make significant changes to systems and/or policies and procedures.
SIFMA stated that while it agrees that current Rule G-26 is not consistent with current securities industry standards and practices and that it likely creates “uncertainties, inefficiencies and unnecessary costs associated with customer account transfers for all market participants” but that the proposed rule change is not the most effective means for addressing these issues.
The MSRB stated in Notice of Filing that it has evaluated the potential impacts on competition of the proposed rule change, including in comparison to reasonable alternative regulatory approaches, relative to the baseline in accordance with its Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB Rulemaking,
SIFMA and BDA requested that FINRA amend its Rule 11870 as soon as practicable to reflect the recent amendments to MSRB Rule G-12 relating to close-outs.
The comments from BDA and SIFMA regarding their suggestion that FINRA amend its Rules 11870 and 11650 are beyond the scope of the proposed rule change.
The Commission has carefully considered the proposed rule change, the comment letters received, the MSRB Response Letter, and Amendment No. 1. The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the MSRB.
In particular, the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Sections 15B(b)(2), 15B(b)(2)(C) and 15B(b)(2)(G) of the Act.
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Sections 15B(b)(2)
The Commission believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15B(b)(2)(G) of the Act
In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission also has considered the impact of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.
As noted above, the Commission received two comment letters on the filing. The Commission believes that the MSRB, through its responses and through Amendment No. 1, has addressed commenters' concerns.
For the reasons noted above, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use of 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.
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BX Rules at Chapter IV, Section 6, entitled “Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading.”
The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed new language is italicized; deleted text is in brackets.
(a)-(g) No change.
.01
(a) and (b) No change.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision regarding the interval of strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares in this rule, the interval of strike prices on SPDR® S&P 500® ETF (“SPY”)
(d)-(f) No change.
.02-.09 No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend NOM [sic] Rules at Chapter IV, Section 6, entitled “Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading” by modifying the strike setting regime for the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (“IVV”) options. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the interval setting regime for IVV options to allow $1 strike price intervals above $200.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would make IVV options easier for investors and traders to use and more tailored to their investment needs. Additionally, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on units of the Standard & Poor's Depository Receipts Trust (“SPY”),
The SPY and IVV ETFs are identical in all material respects. The SPY and IVV ETFs are designed to roughly track the performance of the S&P 500 Index with the price of SPY and IVV designed to roughly approximate 1/10th of the price of the S&P 500 Index. Accordingly, SPY and IVV strike prices—having a multiplier of $100—reflect a value roughly equal to 1/10th of the value of the S&P 500 Index. For example, if the S&P 500 Index is at 1972.56, SPY and IVV options might have a value of approximately 197.26 with a notional value of $19,726. In general, SPY and IVV options provide retail investors and traders with the benefit of trading the broad market in a manageably sized contract. As options with an ETP underlying, SPY and IVV options are listed in the same manner as equity options under the Rules.
However, pursuant to current Supplementary Material .01 to Chapter IV, Section 6, the interval between strike prices in series of options on ETPs, including IVV options will be $1 or greater where the strike price is $200 or less and $5.00 or greater where the strike price is greater than $200. In addition, pursuant to Supplementary Material .07(e) to Chapter IV, Section 6,
The interval between strike prices on Short Term Option Series may be (i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less than $100, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $100 and $150 for all classes that participate in the Short Term Options Series Program; (ii) $0.50 for classes that trade in one dollar increments in Related non-Short Term Options and that participate in the Short Term Option Series Program; or (iii) $2.50 or greater where the strike price is above $150. Related non-Short Term Option series shall be opened during the month prior to expiration of such Related non-Short Term Option series in the same manner as permitted in Supplementary Material to Section 6 at .07 and in the same strike price intervals that are permitted in Supplementary Material to Section 6 at .07.
The Exchange's proposal seeks to narrow the strike price intervals to $1 for IVV options above $200, in effect matching the strike setting regime for strike intervals in IVV options below $200 and matching the strike setting regime applied to SPY options. Currently, the S&P 500 Index is above 2000. The S&P 500 Index is widely regarded as the best single gauge of large cap U.S. equities and is widely quoted as an indicator of stock prices and investor confidence in the securities market. As a result, individual investors often use S&P 500 Index-related products to diversify their portfolios and benefit from market trends. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that offering a wide range of S&P 500 Index-based options affords traders and investors important hedging and trading opportunities. The Exchange believes that not having the proposed $1 strike price intervals above $200 in IVV significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading possibilities.
The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .01(c) of Chapter IV, Section 6 to allow IVV options to trade in $1 increments above a strike price of $200. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .01(c) of Chapter IV, Section 6 to state that notwithstanding other provisions limiting the ability of the Exchange to list $1 increment strike prices on equity and ETF options above $200, the interval between strike prices of series of options on Units of IVV will be $1 or greater. The Exchange believes that by having smaller strike intervals in IVV, investors would have more efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the lower $1 interval ascension. The proposed $1 intervals, particularly above the $200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon the underlying IVV moving less than 1%.
The Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting regime is in line with the slower movements of broad-based indices. Furthermore, the proposed $1 intervals would allow option trading strategies (such as, for example, risk reduction/hedging strategies using IVV weekly options), to remain viable. Considering the fact that $1 intervals already exist below the $200 price point and that IVV is above the $200 level, the Exchange believes that continuing to maintain the artificial $200 level (above which intervals increase by $5), would have a negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities, and volume.
The Exchange believes that the investing, trading, and hedging opportunities available with IVV options far outweighs any potential negative impact of allowing IVV options to trade in more finely tailored intervals above the $200 price point. The proposed strike setting regime would
Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 6, where the next higher available series would be $5 away above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll such positions is effectively negated. Accordingly, to move a position from a $200 strike to a $205 strike pursuant to the current rule, an investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5%, and would not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred. With the proposed rule change, however, the investor would be in a significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options position from a $200 to a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move for the underlying.
The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond to customer demand for IVV strike prices more precisely aligned with current S&P 500 Index values. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by providing investors the flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions using IVV options. By allowing series of IVV options to be listed in $1 intervals between strike prices over $200, the proposal will moderately augment the potential total number of options series available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes it and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that Participants will not have a capacity issue due to the proposed rule change.
In addition, the Exchange represents that it does not believe that this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In particular, the proposed rule change will allow investors to more easily use IVV options. Moreover, the proposed rule change would allow investors to better trade and hedge positions in IVV options where the strike price is greater than $200, and ensure that IVV options investors are not at a disadvantage simply because of the strike price.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The rule change proposal allows the Exchange to respond to customer demand to allow IVV options to trade in $1 intervals above a $200 strike price. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule would create additional capacity issues or affect market functionality.
As noted above, ETF options trade in wider $5 intervals above a $200 strike price, whereas options at or below a $200 strike price trade in $1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on the same option class effectively may not be able to execute certain strategies such as, for example, rolling to a higher strike price, simply because of the arbitrary $200 strike price above which options intervals increase by $5. This proposal remedies the situation by establishing an exception to the current ETF interval regime for IVV options to allow such options to trade in $1 or greater intervals at all strike prices.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging decisions. Moreover, the proposed rule change is consistent with a prior rule change on NASDAQ PHLX LLC.
With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the Exchange believes it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed rule change. The Exchange believes that its members will not have a capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
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. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment options and opportunities to achieve the investment and trading objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that IVV options investors and traders will significantly benefit from the availability of finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point. In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial under Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule changes would adopt the Clearing Agency Risk Management Framework (“Framework”) of the Clearing Agencies, described below. The Framework would apply to both of FICC's divisions, the Government Securities Division (“GSD”) and the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (“MBSD”). The Framework would be maintained by the Clearing Agencies to support their compliance with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(1),
Although the Clearing Agencies would consider the Framework to be a rule, the proposed rule changes do not require any changes to the Rules, By-laws and Organization Certificate of DTC (“DTC Rules”), the Rulebook of GSD (“GSD Rules”), the Clearing Rules of MBSD (“MBSD Rules”), or the Rules & Procedures of NSCC (“NSCC Rules”), as the Framework would be a standalone document.
In their filings with the Commission, the Clearing Agencies included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and discussed any comments they received on the proposed rule changes. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Clearing Agencies have prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Clearing Agencies are proposing to adopt the Framework, which would describe the manner in which each of the Clearing Agencies (i) comprehensively manages legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by it (“Key Clearing Agency Risks”); (ii) maintains a well-founded, clear, transparent and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities; (iii) identifies, monitors, and manages risks related to links it establishes with one or more clearing agencies, financial market utilities, or trading markets; and (iv) meets the requirements of its participants
The processes described in the Framework, and any policies, procedures or other documents created to support those processes, may be owned by other departments within DTCC, on behalf of each Clearing Agency. These processes, and any documents created to support those processes, would support the Clearing Agencies' compliance with the requirements of Rules 17Ad-22(e)(1), (e)(3), (e)(20), and (e)(21), and the Clearing Agencies may develop other processes or adopt other documents that further support these requirements and are not described in the Framework.
The Framework would state that the Boards have delegated to DTCC management, on behalf of the Clearing Agencies, the responsibility for identifying, assessing, measuring, monitoring, mitigating and reporting risks through a process of developing individual risk tolerance statements for identified risks. The Framework would describe how these risk tolerance statements set out applicable risk controls and other measures used to manage risks, and how residual risks may be identified through this process for either further management or “acceptance” (which follows a defined escalation and approval process). The Framework would also state that DTCC management, on behalf of the Clearing Agencies, is responsible for the day-to-day management of those residual risks. Finally, the Framework would describe the governance around maintenance of those risk tolerance statements, which are reviewed and approved by a management committee and by the Risk Committee of the Boards at least annually, and are also provided to the Boards for their review and approval at least annually.
The Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies employ a “Three Lines of Defense” approach as a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing Key Clearing Agency Risks in order to support their compliance with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3).
The Framework would identify the roles of each line of defense. The Framework would state that, as the first line of defense, each Clearing Agency Business/Support Area would, for example, identify Key Clearing Agency Risks applicable to its function, determine the best way to mitigate such risks, self-test internal controls, and create and implement actions plans for risk mitigation. The Framework would state that the role of the second line of defense includes, for example, working with the Clearing Agency Business/Support Areas on efforts to mitigate Key Clearing Agency Risks and providing tools to those groups to enable them to analyze, monitor, and proactively manage those risks. Finally, the Framework would identify the role of DTCC Internal Audit as the third line of defense as including, for example, directing its own resources to review and test key controls that help mitigate significant Key Clearing Agency Risks, then reporting on the results of that testing.
In connection with a description of the second and third lines of defense, the Framework would describe how personnel within the DTCC Risk Department and DTCC Internal Audit are provided with sufficient authority, resources, independence from management, and access to the Boards. The Framework would provide that the DTCC Risk Department and DTCC Internal Audit are functionally independent from all other Clearing Agency Business/Support Areas. The Framework would also describe how such personnel have a direct reporting line to, and oversight by, the Risk Committee of the Boards and the Audit Committee of the Boards, respectively,
The Framework would provide that the Clearing Agencies maintain a policy to govern the requirements for establishing, managing, and assessing the performance of internal committees and councils, including a set of senior management committees that provide oversight of the Three Lines of Defense approach to management of Key Clearing Agency Risks, as well as other aspects of the Clearing Agencies' risk management. The Framework would also describe the process by which the Clearing Agencies maintain risk management policies, procedures, Clearing Agencies' Rules, frameworks and other documents designed to identify, measure, monitor and manage Key Clearing Agency Risks. The Framework would describe policies maintained by the Clearing Agencies that (1) govern the steps taken to meet their regulatory requirements related to proposed rule change and advance notice filings pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,
The Framework would describe certain documents that are subject to the respective policies governing the Filing Requirements and the Document Standards, described above. For example, the Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies maintain the Clearing Agencies' Rules, which support the Clearing Agencies' ability to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of their activities in all relevant jurisdictions. Maintenance of the Clearing Agencies' Rules is supported by the policy governing the Filing Requirements and the Document Standards, described above. The Framework would state that the Clearing Agencies' Rules establish the membership onboarding process of the Clearing Agencies, which supports the enforceable legal basis for the Clearing Agencies' Rules. The Framework would also state that the Clearing Agencies may adopt and maintain other risk management frameworks, separate from the Framework, that address, in whole or in part, the management of other Key Clearing Agency Risks, including, for example, the management of operational, liquidity and market risks.
The Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies support their compliance with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3) by providing their respective participants with information and incentives to enable them, and, through them, their customers, to monitor, manage and contain the risks they pose to the respective Clearing Agencies. The Framework would identify some of the sources of the information that is made available to participants, including, for example, (1) materials on the DTCC Web site, such as the Clearing Agencies' Rules, user guides and training courses, and regularly updated disclosures made pursuant to the guidelines published by the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions;
The Framework would also describe some of the incentives used by the Clearing Agencies to enable their participants to monitor, manage and contain risks they pose to the Clearing Agencies, including, for example, (1) daily margin requirements, pursuant to the Clearing Agencies' Rules, which are calculated in close correlation to the risk each participant poses to the relevant Clearing Agency; and (2) other tools within the Clearing Agencies' Rules that enable the Clearing Agencies to enforce their and their participants' respective rights and obligations under those rules.
The Framework would describe some of the ways in which the Clearing Agencies regularly review the material risks they bear from and pose to other entities as a result of external links and material interdependencies. The Framework would identify some of the Clearing Agencies' external links that create material interdependencies between the Clearing Agencies and other entities party to such link, which may include, for example, links with their participants, settling banks, investment counterparties and liquidity providers, and links with vendors and other service providers. With respect to these links, the Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies review and monitor any resulting risks, which is driven by the nature of the relationship.
For example, risks related to the Clearing Agencies' link to their respective participants and settling banks, as applicable, are addressed through tools found within the Clearing Agencies' Rules, as these entities are bound by the Rules.
Additionally, risks arising from links to vendors are identified, assessed, controlled, and monitored through a comprehensive review and vetting process. The Framework would describe how a risk-based approach is employed to assess the need and level of due diligence activities associated with the evaluation of new vendors before a contractual relationship is established and with the re-evaluation of existing vendors. The Framework would state that this process involves the review of certain information related to a proposed vendor relationship, which should focus on confidentiality, integrity, availability and recoverability related to that relationship. The Framework would also describe how risk related to existing vendor relationships is reviewed periodically, throughout the lifecycle of the relationship. The management of vendor relationships through the process that would be described in the Framework would also support the Clearing Agencies' maintenance of clear, understandable contracts that are consistent with relevant laws and regulations.
The Framework would describe the Clearing Agencies' management and monitoring of systemic risks, and how the Clearing Agencies utilize a series of comprehensive reviews that include input from a cross-functional group to identify, monitor and manage risks
The Framework would describe some of the ways in which the Clearing Agencies are efficient and effective in meeting the requirements of their participants and the markets they serve. The Framework would describe the Clearing Agencies' structured approach for the implementation of new initiatives, which includes conducting a comprehensive risk assessment of new initiatives that are in scope of this approach. These reviews address, among other matters, compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards, and, in this way, support the Clearing Agencies' ability to demonstrate a well-founded legal basis for the activities to be conducted in connection with new initiatives.
The Framework would also describe the Clearing Agencies' role in industry-wide strategic initiatives through participation on industry working groups and through the development and publication of concept papers. The Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies use periodic surveys and employ product-aligned customer service representatives to ensure clients receive the right level of responsiveness in order to support their needs. The Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies have established a process for escalating and responding to certain customer complaints. The Framework would also describe the Clearing Agencies' Core Balanced Business Scorecard, which is used by the Clearing Agencies to review and track the effectiveness of their operations, information technology service levels, financial performance, human capital as well as their participants' experience.
The Framework would provide that the Clearing Agencies maintain policies and procedures to govern the development of plans for recovery or orderly wind-down. Such documents would define the roles and responsibilities of relevant business units in the development and documentation of the plans and would outline the general content of the plans.
The Clearing Agencies believe that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. In particular, the Clearing Agencies believe that the Framework is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, in part, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
By describing some of the ways the Clearing Agencies manage their Key Clearing Agency Risks, the Framework would serve as a basis for the processes, policies, procedures and other documents that the Clearing Agencies may develop to facilitate those risk management activities. The activities that would be described within the Framework, and the policies, procedures or other documents that would be reasonably and fairly implied, thereby collectively allow the Clearing Agencies to continue the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in their custody or control or for which they are responsible notwithstanding the risks that arise in or are borne by the Clearing Agencies. Therefore, the Clearing Agencies believe the Framework is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions.
The Framework would also describe how the Clearing Agencies review and assess risk related to their contractual arrangements with vendors, service providers and other external parties with which the Clearing Agencies may establish links. The Framework would also describe the process by which the Clearing Agencies review new initiatives prior to implementation, which include a review of the legal risks that may be posed by those initiatives. For these reasons, the processes described in the Framework allow the Clearing Agencies to establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide for a well-founded, clear, transparent, and enforceable legal basis for each aspect of its activities in all relevant jurisdictions. Therefore, the Clearing Agencies believe the Framework is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(1).
The Clearing Agencies believe that the Framework is consistent with the
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which includes risk management policies, procedures, and systems designed to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, that are subject to review on a specified periodic basis and approved by the board of directors annually.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(ii) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which includes plans for the recovery and orderly wind-down of the covered clearing agency necessitated by credit losses, liquidity shortfalls, losses from general business risk, or any other losses.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(iii) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to maintain a sound risk management framework for comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational, general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which provides risk management and internal audit personnel with sufficient authority, resources, independence from management, and access to the board of directors.
The Framework would describe how the Clearing Agencies use a Three Lines of Defense approach to the management of Key Clearing Agency Risks. In connection with this approach, the Framework would describe the roles of risk management and internal audit personnel as the second and third lines of defense. The Framework would describe how both the DTCC Risk Department and DTCC Internal Audit are functionally independent from all other Clearing Agency Business/Support Areas. The Framework would also describe how the senior management within both groups report directly to appropriate committees of the Boards, and how, through this reporting line, the groups have access to the Boards, as necessary. Therefore, through this description of the DTCC Risk Department's and DTCC Internal Audit's roles and functions, in connection with the Three Lines of Defense approach to risk management, the Clearing Agencies believe the Framework is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(iii) and (e)(3)(iv).
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(20) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor, and manage risks related to any link the covered clearing agency establishes with one or more other clearing agencies, financial market utilities, or trading markets.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(21) under the Act requires, in part, that each covered clearing agency establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
None of the Clearing Agencies believe that the Framework would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition because the proposed rule changes reflect some of the existing methods by which the Clearing Agencies manage Key Clearing Agency Risks, and would not effectuate any changes to the Clearing Agencies' processes described therein as they currently apply to their respective participants.
The Clearing Agencies have not solicited or received any written comments relating to this proposal. The Clearing Agencies will notify the Commission of any written comments received by the Clearing Agencies.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule changes, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule changes should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule changes are 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 24, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange has proposed to modify its listing standards applicable to a closed-end management investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (a “Fund”). In its filing, the Exchange explained that this proposal would conform its initial and continued listing standards for Funds to the listing standards for Funds utilized by NYSE MKT LLC (“NYSE MKT”).
Currently, the Exchange will generally authorize the listing of a Fund that meets the distribution and publicly held shares requirements contained in Sections 102.01A and 102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual, respectively, if the Fund's market value of publicly held shares is $60,000,000, regardless of whether the listing concerns an initial public offering or an existing Fund.
Under the proposal, the Exchange would generally authorize the listing of a Fund that has a market value of publicly held shares or net assets of $20,000,000.
Under current continued listing standards, the Exchange will promptly initiate suspension and delisting procedures with respect to a Fund if the average market capitalization of the entity over 30 consecutive trading days is below $15,000,000 or the Fund ceases to maintain its closed-end status.
In addition, current Exchange rules provide that the Exchange will notify the Fund if the average market capitalization falls below $25,000,000 and will advise the Fund of the delisting standard.
Further, the Exchange would specify that the distribution standards for common stocks of operating companies set forth in Section 802.01A of the NYSE Listed Company Manual do not apply to Funds.
After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes that the proposed initial and continued listing standards are consistent with those listing standards currently utilized by NYSE MKT
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning whether Amendment No. 1 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 Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of Amendment No. 1 in the
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 proposed rule change consists of modifications to the DTC Operational Arrangements (Necessary for Securities to Become and Remain Eligible for DTC Services) (“OA”)
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The OA was first published by DTC in June 1987. It was then updated in June 1988, February 1992, December 1994, January 1998, May, 2002, January 2009, December 2011 and most recently in 2016.
The proposed rule change would be effective immediately.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
The proposed rule changes are also designed to be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23) of the Act,
DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact on competition because the proposed changes merely relate to updates and clarifications of the OA which would not significantly affect the rights and obligations of users of DTC's services, and would not disproportionally impact any users.
DTC has not solicited and does not intend to solicit comments regarding the proposed rule change. DTC has not received any unsolicited written comments from interested parties. To
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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
Rule 15g-2 (The “Penny Stock Disclosure Rule”) requires broker-dealers to provide their customers with a risk disclosure document, as set forth in Schedule 15G, prior to their first non-exempt transaction in a “penny stock.” As amended, the rule requires broker-dealers to obtain written acknowledgement from the customer that he or she has received the required risk disclosure document. The amended rule also requires broker-dealers to maintain a copy of the customer's written acknowledgement for at least three years following the date on which the risk disclosure document was provided to the customer, the first two years in an accessible place. Rule 15g-2 also requires a broker-dealer, upon request of a customer, to furnish the customer with a copy of certain information set forth on the Commission's Web site.
The risk disclosure documents are for the benefit of the customers, to assure that they are aware of the risks of trading in “penny stocks” before they enter into a transaction. The risk disclosure documents are maintained by the broker-dealers and may be reviewed during the course of an examination by the Commission.
There are approximately 198 broker-dealers that could potentially be subject to current Rule 15g-2. The Commission estimates that approximately 5% of registered broker-dealers are engaged in penny stock transactions, and thereby subject to the Rule (5% × approximately 3,969 registered broker-dealers = 198 broker-dealers). The Commission estimates that each one of these firms processes an average of three new customers for penny stocks per week. Thus, each respondent processes approximately 156 penny stock disclosure documents per year. If communications in tangible form alone are used to satisfy the requirements of Rule 15g-2, then the copying and mailing of the penny stock disclosure document takes no more than two minutes. Thus, the total associated burden is approximately 2 minutes per response, or an aggregate total of 312 minutes per respondent. Since there are 198 respondents, the current annual burden is 61,776 minutes (312 minutes per each of the 198 respondents) or 1,030 hours for this third party disclosure burden. In addition, broker-dealers incur a recordkeeping burden of approximately two minutes per response when filing the completed penny stock disclosure documents as required pursuant to the Rule 15(g)(2)(c), which requires a broker-dealer to preserve a copy of the written acknowledgement pursuant to Rule 17a-4(b) of the Exchange Act. Since there are approximately 156 responses for each respondent, the respondents incur an aggregate recordkeeping burden of 61,776 minutes (198 respondents × 156 responses for each × 2 minutes per response) or 1,030 hours, under Rule 15g-2. Accordingly, the current aggregate annual hour burden associated with Rule 15g-2 (assuming
The burden hours associated with Rule 15g-2 may be slightly reduced when the penny stock disclosure document required under the rule is provided through electronic means such as email from the broker-dealer (
In addition, if the penny stock customer requests a paper copy of the information on the Commission's Web site regarding microcap securities, including penny stocks, from his or her broker-dealer, the printing and mailing of the document containing this information takes no more than two minutes per customer. Because many investors have access to the Commission's Web site via computers located in their homes, or in easily accessible public places such as libraries, then, at most, a quarter of customers who are required to receive the Rule 15g-2 disclosure document request that their broker-dealer provide them with the additional microcap and penny stock information posted on the Commission's Web site. Thus, each broker-dealer respondent processes approximately 39 requests for paper copies of this information per year or an aggregate total of 78 minutes per respondent (2 minutes per customer × 39 requests per respondent). Since there are 198 respondents, the estimated annual burden is 15,444 minutes (78 minutes per each of the 198 respondents) or 257 hours. This is a third party disclosure type of burden.
We have no way of knowing how many broker-dealers and customers will choose to communicate electronically. Assuming that 50 percent of respondents continue to provide documents and obtain signatures in tangible form and 50 percent choose to communicate electronically to satisfy the requirements of Rule 15g-2, the total aggregate burden hours would be 2,060 ((aggregate burden hours for sending disclosure documents and obtaining signed customer acknowledgements in tangible form × 0.50 of the respondents = 1,030 hours) + (aggregate burden hours for electronically signed and transmitted documents × 0.50 of the respondents = 773 hours) + (257 burden hours for those customers making requests for a copy of the information on the Commission's Web site)).
Written comments are invited on: (a) 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) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice of request for emergency OMB approval and public comment.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection request described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow 21 days for public comment from all interested individuals and organizations. Emergency review and approval of this collection has been requested from OMB by September 1, 2017.
All public comments must be received by August 23, 2017.
Direct any comments on this emergency request to both the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services Directorate.
You may submit comments to OMB by the following methods:
•
•
You may submit comments to Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services Directorate by the following methods:
•
•
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden of this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Secretary of State may exercise authority, under 22 U.S.C. 211a, Executive Order 11295 (August 5, 1966), and 22 CFR 51.63, to invalidate all U.S. passports for travel to a country or area if he determines that any of three conditions exist: The country is at war with the United States; armed hostilities are in progress in the country or area; or there is imminent danger to the public health or physical safety of U.S. travelers in the country or area. The regulations of the Department of State provide that an individual's passport may be considered for validation for travel to, in, or through a country or area despite such restriction if the individual's travel is determined to fall within one of several categories established by the regulations. 22 CFR 51.64. Without the requisite validation, use of a U.S. passport for travel to, in, or through a restricted country or area may justify revocation of the passport for misuse under 22 CFR 51.62(a)(2) and subject the traveler to felony prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1544 for misuse of a passport or other applicable laws.
The categories of persons specified in 22 CFR 51.64(b) as being eligible for consideration for passport validation are as follows:
(a) An applicant who is a professional reporter and journalist whose trip is for the purpose of collecting and making available to the public information about the restricted country or area;
(b) An applicant who is a representative of the American Red Cross or the International Committee of the Red Cross on official mission to the restricted country or area;
(c) An applicant whose trip to the restricted country or area is justified by compelling humanitarian considerations; or
(d) An applicant whose trip to the restricted country or area is otherwise in the national interest.
The proposed information collection solicits data necessary for the Passport Services Directorate to determine whether an applicant is eligible to receive a special validation in his or her U.S. passport book permitting the applicant to make one round-trip to a restricted country or area. The information requested consists of the applicant's name, a copy of the front and back of the applicant's valid government-issued photo identification card with the applicant's date of birth, current contact information, including telephone number and mailing address, and a statement explaining the reason that the applicant thinks his or her trip is in the national interest, supported by documentary evidence. Failure to provide the requested information will result in denial of a special validation to use a U.S. passport to travel to, in, or through a restricted country or area.
The estimated number of recipients represents the Department of State's estimate of the number of persons who will request special validations to use their U.S. passport to travel to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), following implementation of a passport restriction that will become effective thirty days after publication of the Secretary of State's determination that there is imminent danger to the public health or physical safety of U.S. travelers in the DPRK. At this time, there are no other countries or areas that are the subject of passport restrictions pursuant to 22 CFR 51.63. In its next request to continue collecting information from individuals applying for special validations to travel in, to, or through a restricted country or area, the Department of State will update the estimated number of recipients based on its experience.
The Department of State will post instructions for individuals seeking to apply for a special validation to use a U.S. passport to travel to, in, or through a restricted country or area on travel information Web site maintained by the Department (
Information collected in this manner will be used to facilitate the granting of special validations to U.S. nationals who are eligible. The primary purpose of soliciting the information is to establish whether an applicant is within one of the categories specified in the regulations of the Department of State codified at 22 CFR 51.64(b) and therefore eligible to be issued a U.S. passport containing a special validation enabling him or her to make one round-trip to a restricted country or area, and to facilitate the application for a passport of such applicants.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to correct the contact information contained in the original 30-day notice (82 FR 33199) and allow 30 days for public comment.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to September 1, 2017.
Direct comments to the Department of State Desk Officer in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). You may submit comments by the following methods:
•
•
Requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents may be sent to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• 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.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Online Application for Nonimmigrant Visa (DS-160) is used to collect biographical information from individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa. The consular officer uses the information collected to determine the applicant's eligibility for a visa.
The DS-160 will be submitted electronically to the Department via the internet. The applicant will be instructed to print a confirmation page containing a bar coded record locator, which will be scanned at the time of processing.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Casanova: The Seduction of Europe,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Kimbell Art Museum, in Fort Worth, Texas, from on or about August 27, 2017, until, on or about December 31, 2017; the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Legion of Honor, in San Francisco, California, from, on or about February 10, 2018, until on or about May 20, 2018, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, in Boston, Massachusetts, from, on or about July 1, 2018, until on or about October 8, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Julie Simpson in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467) or 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), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice of passport travel restriction.
The Department of State is declaring all U.S. passports invalid for travel to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) unless the travel meets certain criteria.
The travel restriction is in effect on September 1, 2017.
Anita Mody, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passport Services, Office of Legal Affairs, 202-485-6500.
The Department of State has determined that the serious risk to United States nationals of arrest and long-term detention represents imminent danger to the physical safety of United States nationals traveling to and within the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), within the meaning of 22 CFR 51.63(a)(3). Therefore, pursuant to the authority of 22 U.S.C. 211a and Executive Order 11295 (31 FR 10603), and in accordance with 22 CFR 51.63(a)(3), all United States passports are declared invalid for travel to, in, or through the DPRK unless specially validated for such travel, as specified at 22 CFR 51.64. The restriction on travel to the DPRK shall be effective 30 days after publication of this Notice, and shall remain in effect for one year unless extended or sooner revoked by the Secretary of State.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “After Darkness: Southeast Asian Art in the Wake of History,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Asia Society, in New York, New York, from on or about September 8, 2017, until on or about January 21, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest.
For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact Julie Simpson in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6467) or 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), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Department of State has rescinded the statutory debarment of, and reinstated Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation, pursuant to the Department's authorities under the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
Rescission and reinstatement as of July 12, 2017.
Arthur Shulman, Acting Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Department of State (202) 632-3384.
Section 38(g)(4) of the AECA, 22 U.S.C. 2778(g)(4), prohibits the issuance of export licenses or other approvals for the export of defense articles or defense services where the applicant, or any party to the export, has been convicted of violating the AECA and certain other U.S. criminal statutes enumerated at section 38(g)(1) of the AECA. In addition, section 127.7(b) of the ITAR provides for the statutory debarment of any person who has been convicted of violating or conspiring to violate the AECA. Persons subject to statutory debarment are prohibited from participating directly or indirectly in the export of defense articles, including technical data, or in the furnishing of defense services for which a license or other approval is required.
In June 2012, Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation pleaded guilty to violating the AECA (U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut, 12-CR-146-WWE). Based on this plea, Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation was ineligible in accordance with section 120.1 of the ITAR and was statutorily debarred, with certain exceptions, pursuant to section 127.7(b) of the ITAR. Notice of debarment of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation, 1000 boul. Marie-Victorin, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada J4G 1A1 (and all other Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation locations) was published in the
In accordance with section 127.7 of the ITAR, the statutory debarment may be rescinded after consultation with other appropriate U.S. agencies, after a thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the conviction, and a finding that appropriate steps have been taken to mitigate any law enforcement concerns. The Department of State has consulted with other appropriate U.S. agencies and has determined that Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation has taken appropriate steps to address the causes of the violations and to mitigate any law enforcement concerns.
Therefore, in accordance with section 38(g)(4) of the AECA and sections 127.7(b) and 127.11(b) of the ITAR, Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation is eligible to be involved in ITAR-regulated activities and the statutory debarment is rescinded, effective July 12, 2017. Pratt & Whitney Canada Corporation may participate directly or indirectly in any activities that are subject to the ITAR.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
Section 181 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, requires the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) annually to publish the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (NTE). The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) is asking interested persons to submit written comments to assist the TPSC in identifying significant barriers to U.S. exports of goods, services, and U.S. foreign direct investment for inclusion in the NTE.
Section 1377 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Section 1377) requires USTR annually to review the operation and effectiveness of all U.S. trade agreements regarding telecommunications products and services that are in force with respect to the United States. USTR will consider written comments in response to this notice regarding the trade barriers pertinent to the conduct of the review called for in Section 1377.
We must receive all written comments no later than 11:59 p.m., October 25, 2017.
We strongly prefer electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Direct questions to Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475.
The NTE sets out an inventory of the most important foreign barriers affecting U.S. exports of goods and services, U.S. foreign direct investment, and protection of intellectual property rights. The inventory facilitates U.S. negotiations aimed at reducing or eliminating these barriers. The report also provides a valuable tool in enforcing U.S. trade laws and strengthening the rules-based trading system. You can find the 2017 NTE Report on USTR's Web site at
To assist USTR in preparing the NTE, commenters should submit information related to one or more of the following categories of foreign trade barriers:
1. Import policies (
2. Government procurement restrictions (
3. Export subsidies (
4. Lack of intellectual property protection (
5. Services barriers (
6. Investment barriers (
7. Government-tolerated anticompetitive conduct of state-owned or private firms that restrict the sale or purchase of U.S. goods or services in the foreign country's markets.
8. Trade restrictions affecting electronic commerce (
9. Trade restrictions implemented through unwarranted sanitary and phytosanitary measures, including unwarranted measures justified for purposes of protecting food safety, and animal and plant life or health.
10. Trade restrictions implemented through unwarranted standards, conformity assessment procedures, or technical regulations (Technical Barriers to Trade) that may have as their objective protecting national security requirements, preventing deceptive practices, or protecting human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment, but that can be formulated or implemented in ways that create significant barriers to trade (including unnecessary or discriminatory technical regulations or standards for telecommunications products).
11. Other barriers (
In addition, Section 1377 (19 U.S.C. 3106) requires USTR annually to review the operation and effectiveness of all U.S. trade agreements regarding telecommunications products and services that are in force with respect to the United States. The purpose of the review is to determine whether any act, policy, or practice of a country that has entered into a trade agreement or other telecommunications trade agreement with the United States is inconsistent with the terms of such agreement or otherwise denies U.S. firms, within the context of the terms of such agreements, mutually advantageous market opportunities for telecommunications products and services.
We invite commenters to identify those barriers covered in submissions that may operate as “localization barriers to trade.” Localization barriers are measures designed to protect, favor, or stimulate domestic industries, services providers, and/or intellectual property at the expense of goods, services, or intellectual property from other countries, including the provision of subsidies linked to local production. For more information on localization barriers, please go to
Commenters should place particular emphasis on any practices that may violate U.S. trade agreements. The TPSC also is interested in receiving new or updated information pertinent to the barriers covered in the 2017 NTE as well as information on new barriers. If USTR does not include in the NTE information that it receives pursuant to this notice, it will maintain the information for potential use in future discussions or negotiations with trading partners.
Each comment should include an estimate of the potential increase in U.S.
In order to be assured of consideration, we must receive your written comments in English by 11:59 p.m. on October 25, 2017. USTR strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions, using the
To submit comments via
The
For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments that we will place in the docket for public inspection. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.
As noted, USTR strongly urges submitters to file comments through
We will post comments in the docket for public inspection, except business confidential information. You can view comments on the
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is providing notice of country-by-country reallocations of the fiscal year (FY) 2017 in-quota quantity of the World Trade Organization (WTO) tariff-rate quota (TRQ) for imported raw cane sugar.
This notice is applicable on August 2, 2017.
Ronald Baumgarten, Office of Agricultural Affairs, (202) 395-9583 or
Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the United States maintains WTO TRQs for imports of raw cane and refined sugar.
Section 404(d)(3) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3601(d)(3)) authorizes the President to allocate the in-quota quantity of a TRQ for any agricultural product among supplying countries or customs areas. The President delegated this authority to the United States Trade Representative under Presidential Proclamation 6763 (60 FR 1007, January 4, 1995).
On May 6, 2016 (81 FR 27390), the Secretary of Agriculture established the FY2017 WTO TRQ for imported raw cane sugar at the minimum to which the United States is committed pursuant to the WTO Uruguay Round Agreements (1,117,195 metric tons raw value (MTRV) conversion factor: 1 metric ton = 1.10231125 short tons.). On May 27, 2016 (81 FR 33729), USTR provided notice of country-by-country allocations of the FY2017 in-quota quantity of the WTO TRQ for imported raw cane sugar. Based on consultation with quota holders, USTR is reallocating 86,495 MTRV of the original TRQ quantity from those countries that are unable to fill their FY2017 allocated raw cane sugar quantities. USTR is allocating the 86,495 MTRV to the following countries in the amounts specified below:
USTR based these allocations on the countries' historical shipments to the United States. The allocations of the raw cane sugar WTO TRQ to countries that are net importers of sugar are conditioned on receipt of the appropriate verifications of origin. Certificates for quota eligibility must accompany imports from any country for which an allocation has been provided.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is providing notice of country-by-country allocations of additional Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 in-quota quantity of the tariff-rate quota (TRQ) for imported raw cane sugar as announced by Secretary of Agriculture on July 25, 2017.
This notice is applicable on August 2, 2017.
Ronald Baumgarten, Office of Agricultural Affairs, (202) 395-9583 or
Pursuant to Additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 17 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), the United States maintains TRQs for imports of raw cane and refined sugar.
Section 404(d)(3) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3601(d)(3)) authorizes the President to allocate the in-quota quantity of a TRQ for any agricultural product among supplying countries or customs areas. The President delegated this authority to the United States Trade Representative under Presidential Proclamation 6763 (60 FR 1007, January 4, 1995).
On July 25, 2017 (82 FR 34472), the Secretary of Agriculture announced an additional in-quota quantity of the TRQ for raw cane sugar for the remainder of FY2017 (ending September 30, 2017) in the amount of 244,690 metric tons raw value (MTRV). The conversion factor is 1 metric ton equals1.10231125 short tons. This quantity is in addition to the minimum amount to which the United States is committed under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Uruguay Round Agreements (1,117,195 MTRV). The Department of Agriculture also has determined that all sugar entering the United States under the FY2017 raw sugar TRQ will be permitted to enter U.S. Customs territory through October 31, 2017, a month later than the typical entry date deadline. USTR is allocating this total quantity of 244,690 MTRV to the following countries in the amounts specified below:
USTR based these allocations on the countries' historical shipments to the United States. The allocations of the raw cane sugar TRQ to countries that are net importers of sugar are conditioned on receipt of the appropriate verifications of origin, and certificates for quota eligibility must accompany imports from any country for which an allocation has been provided.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
The interagency Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) is seeking comments and will convene a public hearing to assist the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to prepare its annual report to Congress on China's compliance with the commitments made in connection with its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).
September 20, 2017: Deadline for filing requests to appear and a summary of expected testimony at the October 4, 2017 public hearing, and for filing pre-hearing briefs, statements, or comments concerning China's compliance with WTO commitments.
USTR strongly prefers electronic submissions made through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
For procedural questions concerning written comments or participation in the public hearing, contact Yvonne Jamison at (202) 395-3475. Direct all other questions to Terrence J. McCartin, Acting Assistant United States Trade Representative for China Affairs, at (202) 395-3900, or Philip D. Chen, Chief Counsel for China Enforcement, at (202) 395-3150.
China became a Member of the WTO on December 11, 2001. In accordance with section 421 of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-286), by December 11th of each year USTR has to submit a report to Congress on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including both multilateral commitments and any bilateral
The terms of China's accession to the WTO are contained in the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China (including its annexes) (Protocol), the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China (Working Party Report), and the WTO agreements. You can find the Protocol and Working Party Report on the WTO Web site:
USTR invites written comments and/or oral testimony on China's compliance with commitments made in connection with its accession to the WTO, including, but not limited to, commitments in the following areas:
a. Trading rights.
b. Import regulation (
c. Export regulation.
d. Internal policies affecting trade (
e. Intellectual property rights (including intellectual property rights enforcement).
f. Services.
g. Rule of law issues (
h. Other WTO commitments.
In addition, given the United States' view that China should be held accountable as a full participant in, and beneficiary of, the international trading system, USTR requests that commenters specifically identify unresolved compliance issues that warrant review and evaluation by USTR's China Enforcement Task Force.
We must receive written comments no later than Wednesday, September 20, 2017.
The TPSC will convene a public hearing on Wednesday, October 4, 2017. If necessary, the hearing will continue on the next business day. The hearing will be held at 1724 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20508 and will be open to the public and to the press. We must receive your written requests to present oral testimony at the hearing and pre-hearing briefs, statements, or comments by Wednesday, September 20, 2017. You must make the intent to testify notification in the “Type Comment” field under docket number USTR-2017-0011 on the
You should submit all documents in accordance with the instructions in section 3 below.
We will make a transcript of the hearing available on
In order to be assured of consideration, we must receive your written comments and notifications of intent to testify in English by Wednesday, September 20, 2017. USTR strongly encourages commenters to make on-line submissions, using the
To submit comments via
The
For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information also must submit a public version of their comments that we will place in the docket for public inspection. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.
Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.
As noted, USTR strongly urges submitters to file comments through
We will post comments in the docket for public inspection, except business confidential information. You can view comments on the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from four individuals for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Comments must be received on or before September 1, 2017.
You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0180 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001,
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for a two-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the two-year period.
The four individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states 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.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The advisory criteria states the following:
If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-year period or more.
As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified Medical Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).
Mr. Brackett, 43, has a diagnosis of seizure disorder and been seizure-free since 1999. He is compliant with taking his anti-seizure medication. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Brackett receiving an exemption
Mr. Connors, 25, has a diagnosis of seizure disorder and been seizure-free since 2009. He is compliant with taking his anti-seizure medication. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Connors receiving an exemption.
Mr. Krise, 43, has a diagnosis of seizure disorder and been seizure-free since approximately 2002. He is compliant with taking his anti-seizure medication. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Krise receiving an exemption.
Mr. Maben, 49, has a history of head trauma in 1998 and two subsequent seizures. He has been seizure-free since 2002. He is compliant with taking anti-seizure medication. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Maben receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the
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
We will consider all comments and materials received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of meeting.
The NHTSA announces meetings of NEMSAC and FICEMS to be held consecutively in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area. This notice announces the date, time, and location of the meetings, which will be open to the public, as well as opportunities for public input to the NEMSAC and FICEMS. The purpose of NEMSAC, a nationally recognized council of emergency medical services representatives and consumers, is to advise and consult with DOT and the FICEMS on matters relating to emergency medical services (EMS). The purpose of FICEMS is to ensure coordination among Federal agencies supporting EMS and 9-1-1 systems.
The NEMSAC meeting will be held on August 14, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EDT, and on August 15, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 Noon EDT. A public comment period will take place on August 14, 2017 between 11:15 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. EDT and August 15, 2017 between 10:45 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. EDT. Some NEMSAC subcommittees will meet in the same location on Monday, August 14, 2017 from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. EDT. Written comments for the NEMSAC from the public must be received no later than August 7, 2017.
The FICEMS meeting will be held on August 15, 2017 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. EDT. A public comment period will take place on August 15, 2017 between approximately 2:40 and 2:55 p.m. EDT. Written comments for FICEMS from the public must be received no later than August 1, 2017.
The meetings will be held at the Capital Hilton, 1001 16th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036. Attendees should plan to arrive 10-15 minutes early.
Gamunu Wijetunge, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Emergency Medical Services, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590,
Notice of the NEMSAC meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The NEMSAC is authorized under Section 31108 of the Moving Ahead with Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012. The FICEMS is authorized under Section 10202 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).
The tentative NEMSAC agenda includes the following:
A final agenda as well as meeting materials will be available to the public online through
44 U.S.C. 35069(c)(2)(A).
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.
The meeting will be held August 22, 2017, and August 23, 2017.
Gretchen Swayzer at 1-888-912-1227 or 469-801-0769.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Tuesday, August 22, 2017 and Wednesday, August 23, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Notification of intent to participate must be made with Gretchen Swayzer. For more information please contact Gretchen Swayzer at 1-888-912-1227 or 469-801-0769, TAP Office, 4050 Alpha Rd, Farmers Branch, TX 75244, or contact us at the Web site:
The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.
In accordance with section 999(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Department of the Treasury is publishing a current list of countries which require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
On the basis of the best information currently available to the Department of the Treasury, the following countries require or may require participation in, or cooperation with, an international boycott (within the meaning of section 999(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |